AEO/GEO Software Pricing

A monthly price is only useful when the buyer knows which job is being billed. Vendors may meter prompts, models, captured responses, domains, projects, workspaces, generated articles, agent runs, API access, analysis, advisory time, or monitoring cadence.

Those units describe different operating systems. One package may mainly collect mentions, another may combine visibility data with content production, and another may connect recurring answers with source evidence, action priorities, and retesting. Similar monthly prices therefore do not imply equivalent work or equivalent outcomes.

The practical comparison starts with the decision a team needs to make: observe where it appears, understand why an answer looks wrong, decide what to change, produce the change, or verify whether the intervention was followed by a measurable difference.

This is a comparable buying snapshot, not a universal market minimum or maximum. Free audits, annual discounts, custom enterprise contracts, additional engines, domains, prompts, advisory services, and taxes can materially change the amount paid.

Prompt count is only one dimension. Buyers also need to compare the number of models, geographic markets and languages, collection frequency, domains or brands, workspaces, team seats, response quotas, exports, API access, implementation guidance, and human advisory time.

Billing terms add another layer. An advertised monthly equivalent may require annual payment, while a nominally higher plan may remain cancellable month-to-month. Overage prices and paid add-ons can reverse the apparent ordering once the required prompt volume, engines, locations, or collaborators are included.

A useful quote should make the monitored unit and refresh cadence explicit, distinguish software from service, and show what happens when the buyer exceeds a quota. Without that ledger, a price comparison is incomplete.

The plan choice is therefore a decision about how quickly new evidence should return to the team. A stable category may need a weekly baseline, while a fast-moving category with active implementation may justify a shorter feedback loop.

Current Kojable pricing is subject to change, excludes applicable taxes, and may vary by market, category, customer, currency, and final agreement. Plan selection should follow the cadence of real decisions; more frequent collection is not automatically more valuable.

Kojable’s public packaging places greater emphasis on the connected cycle of monitoring, diagnosis, competitor context, priorities, guidance, and retesting. That framing does not make every higher-cadence plan necessary; it identifies the additional work a buyer should test against its own use case.

Core diagnosis is included in every paid plan. Higher prices mainly buy faster refreshes, deeper trend context, better-tailored actions, and optional human review. The value question is whether those differences change a decision soon enough to matter.

• Starter at $99 is above OtterlyAI Lite at $29, close to Promptwatch Essential at $95, and numerically matches Semrush AI Visibility at $99. Their billing units and package jobs differ.
• Growth at $179 is close to OtterlyAI Standard at $189 and below Writesonic Basic at $199 per month when billed annually.
• Pro at $299 is above Scrunch Core at $250, but below Writesonic Growth at $399 annually, OtterlyAI Premium at $489, and Promptwatch Business at $579.

Those comparisons do not prove that one plan offers the best value. They locate Kojable’s public prices among products that sell different combinations of monitoring, analysis, content, auditing, and service.

The optional $599 advisory layer should be compared with the cost of analyst time, consultancy or agency support, senior review, and a wrong diagnosis. Keeping the service separate lets a team buy human QA only when it has a clear operational need.

Fit should be assessed against the buyer’s dominant job, not a general league table. The following comparison describes the emphasis visible in each public offer and does not declare a universal winner.

• Recoverable analyst time is the loaded cost of recurring collection, comparison, diagnosis, and reporting that the platform can credibly replace.
• Avoidable external-service cost is consultancy, agency, research, or data work that is no longer required. Count only genuine substitutions.
• Attributable gross profit is the profit attached to measured incremental outcomes with a defensible link to the work, not forecast revenue or general market growth.
• Implementation and management cost includes staff time for reviewing evidence, making changes, coordinating owners, and maintaining measurement.

The ceiling is a decision boundary, not a spending target. Recalculate it when team costs, platform scope, attribution evidence, or the implementation burden changes.

1. Which prompts, topics, questions, or responses count toward the plan?
2. Which AI models and answer surfaces are included?
3. How many countries, languages, and locations can be monitored?
4. How often is each comparable question collected and refreshed?
5. How many domains, brands, projects, and workspaces are included?
6. How many seats are included, and what does another user cost?
7. Which response, article, agent-run, report, export, or API quotas apply?
8. What happens at the limit: blocked use, overage billing, or an automatic upgrade?
9. Does the platform only observe mentions, or also diagnose likely source and information gaps?
10. Are recommendations prioritised and tied to visible evidence?
11. Does the package explain how to implement changes and who owns that work?
12. Can later tests be compared fairly with the original baseline?
13. Which functions are software, automated content, analyst work, or advisory service?
14. Are the advertised prices monthly, annual equivalents, tax-exclusive, or custom?
15. What are the renewal, cancellation, data-export, history-retention, and service-change terms?

The completed ledger should be stored beside the buying decision. It makes later renewal reviews possible when prices, limits, product scope, or internal usage change.