Cycling through all six. Tap any point to stop.

Measured on six things

Track how AI answers mention your brand

Speed

Desktop Lighthouse 94/100 is genuinely quick; mobile drops to 73/100 with LCP 2.5s and a 652ms TBT, so the phone experience carries real main-thread cost. CLS 0.013 is clean. No user lag complaints surfaced in collected evidence.

Screenshots

1 / 2

ShareOfAsk

About this app

ShareOfAsk tracks how AI assistants like ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity and Claude mention your brand. See your share of AI answers versus competitors, which sources AI cites, and how visibility changes over time, so marketing teams can improve how they show up in AI search. Pricing: Paid, from $49/month. Founded: February 1, 2026. Location: Szczecin, Poland.

Key features

1Tracks brand mentions across 7 AI models including ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok, Google AI Overviews and AI Mode
2Four evidence-linked metrics: AI Presence, Competitive Share of Voice, Question Coverage, Average First Position
3Free Scan: 10 buyer questions across 3 models, no credit card, results shareable for 7 days
4MCP access on every plan including free, with OAuth role-scoped workspace visibility for AI assistants
5Agency-ready: multi-workspace Growth tier, client reporting, CSV export and advanced public sharing

Target customer profile

Drawn from the product itself, not from a survey.

Scout Review

Written by AI from measured evidence, scored out of 100.

ShareOfAsk is a well-positioned early entry into AI answer visibility tracking, and it's more thoughtfully built than the average 2026 GEO startup. The homepage demonstrates the product rather than describing it, the free scan is genuinely free, the pricing ladder from $0 to $199 to Enterprise is legible, and the four core metrics come with a methodology page — which matters enormously when your entire product is 'trust these numbers about what ChatGPT said'. The measured profile is uneven in the way real products are: accessibility scores a perfect 100 on automated audits while the visual audit catches low-contrast text, desktop performance is 94 while mobile is 73, and security has the easy headers but not the hard ones. The design has real craft in the type system and real sloppiness in the layout — mismatched cards, an empty column. Nothing here is broken; several things are unfinished.

Measure by measure

Usability

Free Scan with no card, 10 questions across 3 models, and a published plan comparison table make the value path obvious. Four core metrics are defined with a linked methodology page. Onboarding depth beyond the scan is not verifiable from outside.

Design

Deliberate grotesk-plus-italic-serif type system, a hero mock that actually demonstrates the product, and a restrained dashboard palette. Undercut by mismatched card heights, a blank column in 'The problem', and small low-contrast grey text.

Speed

Security

HTTPS enforced with HSTS, secure cookies, SPF and DMARC all present, and MCP uses OAuth with role-scoped workspace access. But no CSP, no frame protection, no Referrer-Policy or Permissions-Policy — 8/13 on the header checklist, and no SOC 2 or ISO claim published.

Accessibility

Lighthouse accessibility audit returns a perfect 100/100, and the site is responsive with clear heading structure. Against that: the visual audit flags small low-contrast grey body text, and there is no published accessibility statement or WCAG claim.

Growth

AI search visibility is a real, growing budget line, and the evidence-first framing plus MCP on every plan is a genuine wedge. Agency multi-workspace tier targets a segment that needs it. Early-stage, so traction is context only.

Improvement areas

Homepage layout defects: mismatched card heights and an empty right column in 'The problem' section
Low-contrast small grey body and caption text on homepage and inside product mockups
Mobile performance gap: 73/100 vs desktop 94/100, driven by 652ms total blocking time
Missing security headers (CSP, frame protection, Referrer-Policy, Permissions-Policy) and no published security page

Design & Usability

ShareOfAsk's homepage is better than most in this category because it shows the product instead of describing it: the hero is a mocked ChatGPT answer with annotation chips naming a competitor, citing a review site and Reddit, and telling you the next step. That's the whole pitch in one image. The type system — heavy grotesk with an italic serif accent — is consistent across sections and gives the page a recognisable voice. The cracks are in execution: the 'Built for brands and agencies' cards have mismatched heights leaving a dead block, 'The problem' has an empty right column that reads as unfinished, and body text is small and low-contrast throughout. On usability, the free path is unusually honest — 10 questions, 3 models, no card, results for 7 days — and the pricing page publishes a real comparison table rather than hiding tiers behind sales. The four core metrics are defined and linked to methodology, which is the right instinct for a product whose entire value is 'trust my numbers'.

Speed & Security

Speed is split down the middle: desktop Lighthouse lands at 94/100, but mobile drops to 73/100 with a 2.5s LCP and a 652ms total blocking time. That TBT number is the tell — there's real main-thread work on load, and on a mid-range Android the first interaction will feel it. CLS at 0.013 is clean, so nothing shifts under your thumb. Security is the profile of a team that knows the basics and stopped there: HTTPS enforced, HSTS set, secure cookies, SPF and DMARC configured, and MCP access scoped by OAuth role so an assistant only sees permitted workspaces. Against that, there's no Content-Security-Policy, no frame protection, no Referrer-Policy and no Permissions-Policy — 8 of 13 on the header checklist. No SOC 2 or ISO claim is published, which for a tool that ingests client workspaces and agency data is the gap worth closing first.

Accessibility & Growth

Accessibility is a genuine strength on paper: the Lighthouse axe-core audit returns 100/100, which is rare and not accidental. The caveat is that automated checks cover maybe a third of WCAG, and the visual audit found exactly what axe can't see — small, low-contrast grey body and caption text on the homepage and inside the product mockups. There's no published accessibility statement or WCAG conformance claim, and the site is English-only. On growth, the idea holds up. AI answer visibility is a real budget line now, not a hypothetical: buyers ask ChatGPT for a shortlist and marketers have no analytics for it. ShareOfAsk's wedge is evidence-first — every metric links back to a recorded answer you can open and read — plus MCP access on every plan including free, which positions it as a data layer for other AI tools rather than another dashboard. The agency tier at $199 with three workspaces and client reporting targets a segment that genuinely needs multi-brand tracking. The limit is that the category is crowding fast and the moat is thin; being first to a clean methodology page is not a moat.

Conclusion

The honest read: this is a competent, clearly-positioned product in a category that is about to get very crowded, and its differentiators — evidence-linked metrics, MCP on every plan, an agency workspace tier — are the right ones. What would move it from good to excellent is unglamorous: finish the homepage sections that are visibly half-built, raise the body text contrast, cut the mobile TBT, ship a CSP and a frame policy, and publish a security page. For a tool asking agencies to route client data through it, that last one is not optional. If you're a marketer who needs to know why ChatGPT names your competitor and not you, the free scan costs nothing and answers the question in an afternoon. Start there, and make the paid decision on whether the methodology holds up under your own questions.

Suggestions for improvement

Fix the mismatched card heights in 'Built for brands and agencies' and fill or remove the blank right column in 'The problem' — both read as unfinished.
Raise body and caption text contrast and size; the visual audit flagged grey-on-white text on the homepage and inside product mockups.
Cut mobile TBT (652ms) — audit third-party scripts and defer non-critical JS to close the gap between desktop 94 and mobile 73.
Ship a Content-Security-Policy, frame protection and Referrer-Policy, and publish a security page covering data handling for agency client workspaces.

How we score

Alternatives comparison

Named competitors, point by point. Nobody paid to appear here or to be left out.

	ShareOfAsk
AI models tracked	7 models (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok, Google AI Overviews, AI Mode, +1)	Not specified in provided details
Free tier available	Yes — one-time Free Scan, 10 questions, 3 models, no card	Not specified in provided details
Entry price	$49/month (Starter) or $490/year	Not specified in provided details
Agency / multi-brand support	Growth tier: 3 workspaces, 10 team members, client reporting, CSV export	Not specified in provided details
MCP / AI tool integration	Yes — MCP with OAuth on every plan including Free Scan	Not specified in provided details
Published metric methodology	Yes — 4 core metrics defined with linked calculation page	Not specified in provided details