Most GEO tools hand you a number. AlpineRank hands you the test: 25 real AI-search questions scored against your page, 6 technical checks, and an honest "unable to verify" when a check fails ā dropped from the average, never counted as a pass. Free, no account, ~30 seconds.
Framer AI AgentsDesign and publish professional sites with AI
Promoted
Maker
š
Hi Product Hunt š
I built AlpineRank after running my site through three GEO tools and getting
three confident scores that agreed on nothing. One of them gave a green tick to
a check it had failed to perform ā the site's robots.txt returned a 403, and
the tool scored it as a pass.
That's the problem I wanted to fix. Not "measure AI visibility better" ā
measure it in a way you can audit.
So AlpineRank is built on a few rules that mostly make our numbers look worse:
ā "Unable to verify" is a result. If robots.txt times out, we say so, tell you
why, and drop that signal from the average instead of scoring it as a pass.
ā llms.txt is worth zero points. It sits in a separate section with a note
saying no major AI provider has confirmed it affects citation ranking. It's
cheap to add and might matter later. That isn't the same as a ranking factor.
ā Benchmarks state their sample size. "Category median: 54/100 (18 sites)" ā
and a note that those are sites audited with our tool, not a survey of the
industry.
ā The 25 questions are generated from your topic, never from your page. A test
written from your own content is one you always pass.
ā A citation check is 5 questions asked once. That's a snapshot, not a rate.
0 out of 5 doesn't mean "never", and we say so on the page.
The last rule came from getting burned. An early version generated a fix that
cited a price the page never mentioned ā it just made one up, confidently. Now
every date, price and percentage in a generated fix is checked against your
page, and anything unsupported becomes [INSERT PRICE] with a note. I'd rather
hand you a blank than a number I invented.
Free tier: 3 audits/month, full score, all 25 questions, live Perplexity
citation check. No account for the first one, no card ever.
It works in your page's language too ā questions and fixes generated in the
language the page is written in, phrased the way a native speaker asks, not
translated from English. That mattered to me because I'm in Slovenia and every
tool in this category assumes English.
I'd genuinely like to be told where the methodology is wrong. Run it on
something you know well and tell me where the score disagrees with your
judgement ā that's the feedback I can't get from my own test pages.