Digraph vs Ayzeo pricing
| Plan detail | Digraph | Ayzeo |
|---|---|---|
| Lowest published price | Free for 14 days, then $99/mo | $39/mo |
| Plan and billing | Standard, billed monthly | Starter |
| Allowance | 30 prompts, 1 brand | 20 prompts, 1 project |
| AI coverage | Supported AI models | 2 included; others add-ons |
| Next plan | Pro $249/mo: 300 prompts, 3 brands | See Ayzeo’s pricing page |
Lowest published plan for each vendor; billing terms differ. See which AI systems Digraph checks and how.
Features compared
| Capability | Digraph | Ayzeo |
|---|---|---|
| Published entry pricing | Standard: $99/month for 30 tracked prompts and 1 brand. | Starter: $39/month for 1 project and 20 prompts; additional projects are $39/month each. |
| Agency plan | Pro: $249/month for 300 prompts and 3 brands; Enterprise is custom-priced with unlimited brands. | Pro: $149/month for 3 projects and 40 prompts per project, with white-label PDF reports, GA4 and Search Console integrations, MCP, and add-on engines. |
| AI-system coverage | Standard and Pro list supported AI models. | Ayzeo includes ChatGPT and Google AI Overview on every plan; Claude, Gemini, Perplexity, Grok, and DeepSeek are add-ons or Enterprise coverage. |
| Evidence and competitor context | Inspect prompt-level answers, recommendations, competitor mentions, cited URLs, source domains, and changes over time. | Ayzeo describes visibility, citations, mentions, sentiment, mention position, competitor comparisons, and per-model analytics; inspect answer and source exports in a trial. |
| Optimization and implementation | Route observed visibility gaps into audits, analysis, Signal, and agent workflows connected to evidence. | Ayzeo includes SEO/GEO analysis, JSON-LD and llms.txt generation, AI content tools, simulations, and a WordPress plugin; scope and approval controls should be tested. |
| Reporting and access | Reports and exports are public-plan capabilities; API access is listed for Enterprise. | Ayzeo includes unlimited seats; Pro adds white-label PDFs, an MCP server, GA4/Search Console integrations, and a $299/month white-label dashboard add-on. |
Key differences between Digraph and Ayzeo
Ayzeo and Digraph both track how AI systems mention brands, expose citations, and compare competitors. Ayzeo differentiates with JSON-LD and llms.txt generation, AI content tools, a WordPress plugin, white-label reporting, and an MCP server on Pro. Digraph emphasizes a defined prompt portfolio, full answers, cited URLs, source domains, competitors, and connected audit or analysis workflows across supported model APIs. Their published units and refresh cadence differ, so a controlled prompt-and-answer test should precede a buying decision.
Projects and brands are different measurement units
Ayzeo publishes projects, prompts per project, and engine add-ons: Starter has one project with 20 prompts, while Pro has three projects with 40 prompts each. Digraph publishes brands and tracked prompts: Standard has one brand and 30 prompts, while Pro has three brands and 300 prompts. Model the actual number of sites, prompt variants, engines, markets, and refreshes before comparing the headline prices.
Compare implementation tools with evidence depth
Ayzeo’s differentiator is a monitoring-plus-fixes loop that includes structured data, llms.txt, AI content, simulations, and WordPress implementation. Digraph emphasizes the prompt, full answer, recommendation context, cited URL, source domain, competitor framing, and follow-up analysis. Test whether each proposed fix is tied to a specific observed answer or citation gap and whether the resulting change can be re-checked.
Normalize engine coverage and refresh cadence
Ayzeo includes ChatGPT and Google AI Overview on all plans and sells other engines per project; its workflow page describes weekly Starter refreshes and every-second-day Pro refreshes, with some cadence options as add-ons. Digraph lists supported AI models on Standard and Pro. Use the same overlapping engines, prompts, collection window, and refresh schedule to avoid treating plan labels as equivalent coverage.
Evaluate agency delivery beyond a PDF logo
Ayzeo lists unlimited seats, white-label PDF reports on Pro, a white-label dashboard add-on, GA4 and Search Console integrations, and an MCP server. Digraph lists multi-brand plans, public-plan reports and exports, and Enterprise API access. Test client permissions, workspace separation, archive retention, branded exports, data connections, MCP fields, and the analyst effort needed to explain a missed recommendation.
Run a controlled side-by-side pilot
Use the same brand, competitors, categories, markets, language, buyer questions, active engines, collection window, and reporting format. Record full answers, prompt and model context, brand position, competitor mentions, sentiment, cited URLs, source domains, proposed actions, refresh time, and resource consumed. Compare one recurring report and one verified follow-up action before choosing the operating model.
Need the work done, not another tool?
A tracking tool tells you where you stand in AI answers; it does not write the content, fix the site or earn the mentions that change them. Digraph is an AI marketing agency: we measure on our own platform and do that work for you, starting with a one-off audit.
See our AEO agency servicesHow to evaluate both
This documentation-based comparison was reviewed September 21, 2026; it is not a hands-on benchmark. Ayzeo publishes Starter at $39/month for one project and 20 prompts, Pro at $149/month for three projects and 40 prompts per project, and Enterprise from $6,000/month; ChatGPT and Google AI Overview are included, while additional engines and prompt packs are paid add-ons. Digraph lists Standard at $99/month for 30 prompts and 1 brand and Pro at $249/month for 300 prompts and 3 brands across supported model APIs. Ayzeo emphasizes monitoring plus GEO implementation tools, while Digraph emphasizes answer-level evidence and connected analysis. Normalize prompt runs, engines, refresh cadence, sites or brands, white-label delivery, and implementation depth before comparing value.
Sources reviewed
Ayzeo’s capabilities are summarized from the official sources below. This is a documentation-based comparison published by Digraph, not a hands-on benchmark.
Common questions
How does Digraph compare with Ayzeo?
Ayzeo and Digraph both track how AI systems mention brands, expose citations, and compare competitors. Ayzeo differentiates with JSON-LD and llms.txt generation, AI content tools, a WordPress plugin, white-label reporting, and an MCP server on Pro. Digraph emphasizes a defined prompt portfolio, full answers, cited URLs, source domains, competitors, and connected audit or analysis workflows across supported model APIs. Their published units and refresh cadence differ, so a controlled prompt-and-answer test should precede a buying decision.
How does Ayzeo pricing compare with Digraph?
Ayzeo’s lowest published plan is $39/mo (Starter) with 20 prompts, 1 project and 2 included; others add-ons. Digraph starts with a 14-day free trial; Standard is then $99/mo billed monthly for 30 prompts, 1 brand across supported model APIs, and Pro is $249/mo for 300 prompts, 3 brands. Billing basis, collection surfaces, and plan units differ, so confirm current terms with both vendors.
Is Digraph a good Ayzeo alternative?
Digraph is a fit for teams and agencies comparing a lower-cost monitoring-plus-implementation workflow with a prompt-centered evidence and investigation platform. Run the same buyer prompts in both products and compare the full answers, citations, and next actions before deciding.
Can Digraph complement an existing Ayzeo workflow?
Yes. Many teams use more than one research or measurement system. Digraph adds an evidence-led view of AI answers, prompts, citations, competitors, and follow-up work alongside the tools SEO, brand, and content teams already use.
How should I run a fair AI visibility evaluation?
Use the same prompt portfolio, competitors, markets, AI systems, and reporting period in each tool. Review the underlying answers and sources, not only aggregate scores, before choosing a workflow.