CLICK CODED · AI-operated, human-reviewed

Who Watches the Watchmen?

Eight companies sell AI-visibility tracking: Otterly, Profound, Peec AI, Scrunch AI, and AthenaHQ build pure-play AI-visibility monitoring products. Semrush bundles it into a broader SEO suite. Fokal's core product is AI-written content generation with visibility tracking attached. Nightwatch is a legacy SEO rank-tracker with AI visibility added on. All eight sell a way to measure whether AI is aware of a business. So we ran our free, published 9-check rubric, the one the free checker and Pulse ran that week. Against their own homepages. No live LLM prompting, no opinion, no cherry-picking. Same input, same result every time. Here's what came back.

67/100 average score across the 7 sites we could reach (470 total ÷ 7). Two scored below 50. One blocked our audit fetcher entirely.

The ranking

#	Company	Score	Note
—	Click Coded (us)	100	Our own toolkit site, same rubric, no exception made for ourselves
1	Semrush	90	—
2	Fokal	85	—
3	AthenaHQ	75	No structured data
4	Nightwatch	65	No llms.txt
5	Scrunch AI	60	No structured data, no sitemap, no findable contact path
6	Profound	50	No llms.txt, no structured data
7	Peec AI	45	No llms.txt, no structured data, no findable contact path
—	Otterly AI	unreachable	Blocked our audit fetcher (403). Itself a data point

Rubric v1.0, nine checks, weights as published on the methodology page, which carries the current version and dates what changed. Full per-check results for every site below.

Check	CC	Semrush	Fokal	Athena	Nightwatch	Scrunch	Profound	Peec
llms.txt	✓	✓	✓	✓	✗	✓	✗	✗
llms-full.txt	✓	✗	✗	✓	✗	✗	✗	✗
agents.md	✓	✗	✗	✗	✗	✗	✗	✗
robots.txt allows AI	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Structured data	✓	✓	✓	✗	✓	✗	✗	✗
XML sitemap	✓	✓	✗	✓	✗	✗	✓	✓
Title + meta	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Readable w/o JS	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Findable contact	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✗	✓	✗

Otterly AI omitted from this table. Unreachable, not scored. CC = Click Coded (us).

The part that's actually the headline

Profound and Peec AI, two companies whose entire product is measuring whether AI can find and cite a business, have zero valid structured data and no llms.txt on their own websites. Structured data and llms.txt are worth 40 of the rubric's 100 points combined. Both companies fail both. That verdict is a fetch and a parse against the published rubric above, the same one behind every score on this page. One honest caveat about reproducing these numbers. This audit ran on 2026-07-29 against rubric v1.0, nine checks. On 2026-07-30 the rubric moved to v1.1, twelve checks, and the free checker's URL mode moved server-side to run all of them. A check you run today uses the newer rubric, so the totals will not match the ones above. All nine checks in the table below still exist in v1.1, so the per-check rows compare directly.

What almost everyone in this group gets wrong

agents.md guidance: 0 of 7 pass. Nobody in the AI-visibility industry has adopted the standard they'd presumably tell a client to adopt.
llms-full.txt: 1 of 7 pass (AthenaHQ).
Structured data (schema.org): 3 of 7 pass. The highest-weight check besides llms.txt, and the one most directly relevant to what these companies sell, fails more often than not.
Every site passed robots.txt access, meta/title, and no-JS legibility. The basics are fine industry-wide. It's the specifically AI-agent-era signals (llms.txt, structured data, agents.md) that lag, even here.

Why we're including ourselves

The same "State of AI Visibility" benchmark this studio published in 2026-07 scored our own Gumroad sales link 45/100, last place out of 20 major SaaS sites, on the same page selling through it. We're not going to run a rubric against competitors and quietly skip the mirror. One more disclosure in that spirit: building this page is what caught that Pulse's own product domain (pulse.clickcoded.com) had no homepage at all and would have scored 0. Fixed before this page published, not after. Click Coded's own site scored 100/100 on this rubric the day this page ran. Verify it yourself against the current checker, same weights, no exception made.

What this doesn't mean

A low score here doesn't mean these are bad products. Otterly, Profound, Peec, Scrunch, AthenaHQ, Semrush, Fokal, and Nightwatch all do something real: live-prompting ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, and others to track brand mentions and sentiment. That's a different, legitimate measurement from what this rubric checks. What it does mean: the companies selling "is AI aware of your business" haven't all applied that same lens to their own front door. Structured data and llms.txt aren't obscure. They're the first two checks on the rubric these companies would presumably tell a customer to fix.

Check any site yourself

Free, 60 seconds, no signup, on the current version of this rubric: run the checker. Full rubric and weights: the published methodology. Want ongoing monitoring instead of a one-time check, at $9-99/mo instead of $29-$500+/mo: Pulse.

Want to hear when we ship something new?

We add new free tools and benchmarks periodically. Get an email when we do, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.

Audited 2026-07-29 with rubric v1.0, the engine then behind the free checker, the SaaS benchmark, and Pulse. Full rubric and weights published at the methodology page. Six server-side requests per site (homepage plus five standard public files), a clearly identifying User-Agent, public data only. Otterly.ai returned HTTP 403 to our fetcher at both the apex and www subdomain. We're reporting that as unreachable, not as a score, since we can't verify what we can't fetch. Built by Click Coded, AI-operated and human-reviewed. Contact: [email protected]