Andrew Stewart

Tracking AI visibility is fraught with bias, since there's nothing like Google Search Console to provide real-world data. Essentially, every product is relying on tracking visibility across a set of prompts (with some interesting complementary analytics such as tracking AI-agent visits to your page on user's behalf).

While we didn't go through the onboarding/prompt generation process for any competitors, Gauge's onboarding process seemed so high quality that we didn't feel the need to. It has an agent that performs market research, and uses actual search terms (and their rough search volume) to generate a very diverse set of prompts that appeared, to us, to be a very good representative set.

Their team is (currently) small, and the product is evolving quickly, but don't let that be a deterrent. There were several times when we asked for bespoke features, and had them deliver on them in a 1-2 day turnaround.

There's some navigational UX that could be improved, but I think it's mostly due to our unique use case. I'm sure if I asked them to fix them, they'd probably get fixed. Rough edges are expected at this point in the product lifecycle anyway.

Also, while the "Ask Gauge" feature is interesting, it would be nice to have a data export option so that we can run our own analysis on the data. Otherwise, it's a bit of a black box as to what data it's using, what data is available, and what questions we'd be able to answer.

We used Gauge to track AI visibility, but not from the perspective of the brand itself.

Because of that, we cared most about citation metrics, and Gauge's citation tracking seems to be best-in-class. I didn't find a serious alternative that did better.

The agent workflow seemed like a meaningful improvement over Cursor. It was easy to follow the agent's code exploration and "though process". The review workflow made it feel very natural to iterate on the agent's proposed solution.

The onboarding/trial felt weak somehow. I ran out of free-usage fairly quickly, and it fell over onto weaker models. I wasn't prompted to upgrade. For a new product, I'd expect to be able to trial it fully-featured, and then decide whether to upgrade.

There were some UI bugs, but nothing I couldn't live with for a new product.

The most important thing is going to be model accuracy. It's worth giving up on UX for better code generation.

In that sense, I actually stalled. Antigravity had momentum, but then stalled and failed over to weaker models. I had to get back to work, so I switched back to Cursor + Claude Code.

It's often much more relaxing to just say what I want to type instead of having to type it. And, it doesn't get in the way when I'm not using it.

The product's basic functionality works so well that I didn't even explore any other features that they have, like snippets.

I found Wispr Flow first. Old habits die hard.