Free tool
People assume AI answers draw on some vast, evenly-weighted read of the web. They do not. An engine retrieves a small number of pages per question, and across a category the same hosts keep getting retrieved. A handful of sites end up supplying most of what buyers hear about your market.
That is bad news and good news in the same fact. Bad, because you cannot fix it by writing more on your own blog. Good, because the target list is short and knowable. If five hosts produce half your category's answers, you have five things to work on, not the whole internet.
The leaderboard labels each host by the kind of page it mostly contributes, and that label decides what you can do about it.
Best-of lists and comparison pages are the highest-value target: they exist to enumerate options, and adding one is usually an email to the author rather than a content project. Review directories like G2 and Capterra cannot be written into — you need a profile and reviews, which is a slower and more expensive fix. Competitor pages are their content winning, and the response is your version of the same argument on your own domain. Discussion threads are the ones people most want to game and should not; the durable play is being the page those threads link to.
Three questions on one engine, once. That is enough to see the shape of your category and not enough to make a quarter's plan from. A host with a big share here might be a genuine category authority, or it might have got lucky on the specific phrasing we used. The way to tell those apart is repetition across more questions, more engines, and more weeks, which is what the paid product does and why this page is free without being a trial.
Next
The set of pages an answer engine actually read to build its answer. Ask ChatGPT or Perplexity a buying question and it retrieves a handful of pages, reads them, and summarises. Those pages are the corpus. Across a category the same hosts turn up again and again, and that concentration is what this tool measures.
A visibility checker answers "am I named". This answers "who is doing the naming". The second question is more useful when the answer to the first is no, because it tells you where the answer is coming from instead of just confirming you are not in it.
Because each run spends real money. It puts three questions to a search-grounded engine, and those are paid API calls on an unauthenticated page. The email is the friction that keeps it from being scripted. We also send you the results, and you can unsubscribe from the first one.
No, it is not, and the concentration figure from three questions is directional rather than precise. It is enough to see whether your category is dominated by a handful of hosts, which is the thing most people have never actually looked at. The full prompt library, run repeatedly across four engines, is the paid product, and it exists because three questions once is genuinely not enough to make decisions on.
Look at what kind of pages they are. If the top hosts are best-of lists and directories, the job is getting a row added, which is outreach, not writing. If they are competitor blog posts, the job is publishing the better version on your own domain. If they are Reddit and Stack Overflow threads, the job is being the answer those threads link to. Different problems, different fixes, and the leaderboard is what tells you which one you have.
Yes. Engines re-search each time and the underlying results move. We cache a result for 24 hours per brand, so running it twice in a day gives you the same answer, mostly so a link doing the rounds does not cost us one scan per visitor. Across weeks the corpus does shift, and watching that shift is the thing worth paying for.
No, and it is worth saying plainly. Threads appear because engines cite them. CueScout has no mechanism to post anywhere and does not recommend replying in threads to manufacture citations. That approach gets accounts banned, which we know because it happened to ours, four times, which is why the product works the way it does now.