What Is the Best AI Visibility Report? How to Build One in 2026
Summary
This guide explains how to put together an AI visibility report, also called a GEO report, that a team or client can act on. It recommends a report that leads with share of voice against named competitors, keeps brand mentions and domain citations in separate columns, breaks results out by engine and country, lists the pages AI answers cite, shows the change since the last period, and ends with one recommended next step.
The guide draws on help and documentation pages from six vendors and does not pick a winner: Ahrefs Brand Radar, OtterlyAI, Peec AI, Profound, the Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit and SE Visible by SE Ranking. It shows that each tool defines and measures things differently. Peec AI separates visibility from share of voice, and the Semrush Prompt Tracking page says it does not yet offer share of voice for its AI engines. OtterlyAI's export lists mentions and citations for your brand and for competitors as separate fields.
Demonstration by Alex Ninja, embedded from YouTube. AIOTruth did not reproduce the test.
Why it matters
A brand trying to get cited or recommended by AI systems can only improve what it measures consistently, and this guide shows that the same term can mean different things in different tools. Under Peec AI's example, a brand mentioned in 4 of 10 chats has 40% visibility, but its share of voice falls to 25% when a rival is named 12 times. A report that mixes those figures, or folds citations into mentions, can make a brand look stronger in AI answers than it is. It can also hide which pages AI systems actually link to. Separating these measures, and noting which tool produced each one, gives teams a more accurate picture of how AI answers represent them against competitors.
Source
- docs.peec.ai/looker/introduction the item itself, published by Alex Ninja, created by Alex Ninja
- docs.tryprofound.com/custom-dashboards/about Reputable reporting
- help.ahrefs.com/en/articles/15501968-ai-visibility-metrics Reputable reporting
- help.otterly.ai/can-i-export-my-data-and-reports Reputable reporting
- www.semrush.com/kb/1503-prompt-tracking Reputable reporting
- youtube.com/watch?v=aynyHssMlVUwhere AIOTruth found it
What was checked
- canonical URL taken from the page itself
- read the item page (200)
- https://github.com/pacocoursey/next-themes/blob/a7eeabc39cfb37d74ea3d82eac674d0e1851b1cb/next-themes/src/index.tsx: does not mention the item, tier 6 (Public source code or repository)
- https://docs.peec.ai/looker/introduction: supports the item, tier 8 (Named expert analysis, or a first-party claim about itself)
- https://docs.tryprofound.com/custom-dashboards/about: supports the item, tier 9 (Reputable reporting)
- https://help.ahrefs.com/en/articles/15501968-ai-visibility-metrics: supports the item, tier 9 (Reputable reporting)
- https://help.otterly.ai/can-i-export-my-data-and-reports: supports the item, tier 9 (Reputable reporting)
- https://www.semrush.com/kb/1503-prompt-tracking: supports the item, tier 9 (Reputable reporting)
Limitations
- The demonstration was not independently reproduced by AIOTruth.
AIOTruth judgment
The item has Emerging evidence status and a Value Score of 8.5. Usefulness scores 10 because the guide becomes a concrete reporting structure with eight steps that a team can follow. Relevance scores 9 because measuring brand presence in AI answers is central to AI-era discovery. Evidence scores 8 because the guide's claims trace to vendor documentation pages that were fetched and confirmed to cover these features. These are first-party descriptions of each product, and AIOTruth did not reproduce the demonstration. Originality scores 5 because most of the value comes from bringing together and comparing existing vendor documentation, not from new measurement or data.
How this score was calculated
| Dimension | Weight | Score | What produced it |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIO relevance | 30% | 9 | ai visibility, geo, ai citation, brand mention, share of voice; 2 scope question(s) matched |
| Usefulness | 30% | 10 | 2 artifact(s), 4 actionable marker(s), 1 measured figure(s) |
| Evidence | 25% | 8 | Named expert analysis, or a first-party claim about itself; 5 verified source(s) across 5 domain(s) |
| Originality | 15% | 5 | no original testing found; closest archive match 0.182 |
aioRelevance x 0.30 + usefulness x 0.30 + evidence x 0.25 + originality x 0.15. The rubric is published in full on the Editorial Method page. Scoring is deterministic: the same item scores the same on every run.
Review the documentation Open the source
Found something wrong here? AIOTruth corrects material errors openly. Have something we should review? Submit a find.