While building Cited I've been asking ChatGPT and Claude the questions real buyers ask before choosing software : "best CRM for a small sales team," "Mixpanel alternatives for startups," that kind of thing.
Two patterns surprised me.
First, the big names only dominate the generic prompts i.e the moment a buyer adds a use case, region, or company size ("expense tool for a 50-person team in the UAE," "CRM for founder-led sales"), the answers change completely, and different names surface. Most teams have no idea which of these buying prompts they win, which they lose, or why.
Second, the answers aren't static : they shift as the models pick up new content from comparisons, reviews, and docs. Which means the gaps are actually closeable : track the prompts that matter for you, publish the content that fills the holes, and your visibility genuinely moves week over week.
-
Curious about two things from folks here:
Have you checked what AI says about your product or category, especially on the specific prompts your buyers would ask? Anything surprise you?
If you're actively trying to improve how AI answers about you : what's actually worked?
We launch Thursday (16th July), happy to share what we've learned from auditing a few hundred B2B categories in return.
Hey Product Hunt 👋 I'm Parth.
A decade as a B2B product marketer taught me one job: know how your buyer evaluates, and win that evaluation. I had a tool for every inch of it - competitive intel, battlecards and search analytics.
Then my own buying broke the playbook. Ten open tabs and peer pings collapsed into one ChatGPT conversation. At first, I double-checked its recommendations. Then I stopped. That ask-AI-first reflex now forms my initial shortlist for almost every tool I use
The B2B buying journey is transitioning to AI : discovery, renewals, expansion, the mid-deal gut-check. AI is a full-time analyst sitting in every stage of your funnel, endorsing somebody — and the buyer never tells you the evaluation happened.
The entire marketing stack is blind to it: no tool shows you how AI evaluates your brand, who it endorses instead or whether you own the category conversations your buyers are having. Nowhere is the leverage higher than B2B software, where the answer IS the shortlist.
So I built Cited: AI search visibility and competitive intelligence for B2B software marketers, brand marketers, PMMs and founders. Built to track and close the loop, not just report a score.
🔍 Track who ChatGPT and Claude recommend for your buyers' intent prompts, week on week and who they ignore
🧠 Diagnose why: the exact evidence gaps (use case, persona, pricing and more), traced to what a model actually said
✍️ Fix the gaps with drafted content inside the product. One click.
🔁 Iterate: verify what moved after you ship, and get alerted when a competitor takes your spot
Most tools stop at monitoring generic AI mentions. That's a scoreboard, not a workflow.
🎁 Launch week: 2 full audits free, no credit card needed. Launch pricing with 20% off applied automatically at checkout.
Interactive demo : https://www.citedintel.com/demo
Run a free audit on your own category, see who AI endorses, and close the gaps. I built and shipped this myself - I'll be here all day, and any questions are most welcome.
Optimize brand visibility. Win AI search recommendations. Stay cited. 🫡
Really useful angle on tracking AI-driven buyer research. One concrete addition that would help: let me see the exact prompt wording the tracker uses to query ChatGPT and Claude, and let me tweak it. Right now I'm guessing whether my product description or my category framing is what triggered a competitor mention, and being able to edit the evaluation prompts would make the gap analysis way more trustworthy for my team.
@reyhan719241 Good news: this exists. Every audit shows the exact buyer-intent prompts used to query the models, and prompts are fully editable - tweak the wording or add your own, then re-run to isolate whether it's your category framing or the product description driving a competitor's mention (exactly the experiment you're describing). There's also a search section to find and drill into specific prompts across your audits. One honest nuance: answers carry natural run-to-run variance, so judge a prompt change on the weekly trend rather than a single re-run, that's what the tracking layer is for.
Really useful concept. One thing I'd love to see is a way to share a single "why we lost this prompt" finding directly with a content writer as a ready-made brief with target keywords, competitor examples, and the source citations to beat all in one click. That would close the loop from insight to actual page update way faster.
@ervabuldan Thank you Erva, this is the kind of feedback I launched for. Today Cited gets you most of the way there: every lost prompt comes with the why (what the winners are being cited for, which sources the model leaned on) and specific content recommendations with a one click draft generation you can act on. What we don't have yet is what you described : packaging one finding into a writer-ready brief with the target questions, competitor examples and the citations to beat, shareable in one click. Right now that handoff is a copy-paste job, and you're right - it will close the loop way faster.
Adding "insight to brief" to the roadmap as a first-class feature, it's a much better mental model than "insight to dashboard." Out of curiosity, in your team, who'd receive that brief: an in-house writer, or an agency? Meanwhile, I'd genuinely love your take on how close the current version gets: run a free audit on your product, open any gap it finds, and hit generate on the fix, that's the raw material your brief idea would package.
Took it for a quick spin and noticed Cited flagged two prompts where a competitor was being cited over us, then handed back a pretty solid draft fix I could actually hand to our content team. The weekly trend view made it easy to see whether the changes were moving the needle without drowning me in dashboards.
@alpcanmeti58226 Thanks Metin, glad the trend view landed! Curious which category you ran the audit on, always keen to see how the prompts perform beyond the ones I test myself. And noted on the draft-fix-to-content-team flow. Appreciate that and glad you found it useful.