Llumo and Digraph both expose AI visibility, citations, competitors, prompts, and trends. Llumo emphasizes a free hosted platform with bring-your-own provider keys, direct usage economics, multi-client tracking, API and MCP access, and managed AEO services. Digraph emphasizes a defined prompt portfolio, full answer evidence, cited URLs, source domains, competitor context, and connected analysis workflows across nine listed AI systems. The key evaluation is whether the team wants provider-cost control and an open monitoring surface or a packaged evidence and investigation workflow.
If you are comparing Llumo, this page covers Digraph vs Llumo, Llumo vs Digraph, best Llumo alternatives, and Llumo pricing vs Digraph.
Teams comparing a BYOK or usage-based AI visibility platform with a packaged prompt, answer-evidence, and analysis workflow.
| Capability | Digraph | Llumo |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing model | Standard: $99/month for 30 tracked prompts and 1 brand; Pro: $249/month for 300 prompts and 3 brands. | Llumo describes a free BYOK platform, pay-as-you-go, and subscription options; provider usage costs and paid-service terms should be modeled separately. |
| Prompt and response scale | Published plans define tracked prompt allowances and included AI systems. | Llumo describes unlimited prompts with own provider keys and illustrates 200 prompts/day across seven AI engines; confirm current hosted, PAYG, and subscription limits. |
| Evidence and competitive context | Inspect full answers, recommendations, competitor framing, cited URLs, source domains, and changes over time. | Llumo describes mentions, citations, competitors, sources, prompt-level responses, and visibility trends; verify raw answer retention and export fields. |
| Developer and agency access | Reports and exports are public-plan capabilities; API access is listed for Enterprise. | Llumo describes API and MCP access, unlimited brands, multi-client agency tracking, and managed AEO services; verify permissions, client isolation, and support. |
| Action workflow | Route visibility gaps into AI Audit, Marketing & Technical Analysis, Signal, reports, exports, and agent workflows. | Llumo describes opportunities, AI assistant workflows, and managed AEO services; test how an observed citation or competitor gap becomes a verified content or source action. |
This documentation-based comparison was reviewed September 21, 2026; it is not a hands-on benchmark. Llumo describes a hosted free BYOK model, pay-as-you-go and subscription options, unlimited prompts under its own-key model, visibility trends, citations, competitors, API and MCP access, and seven or more AI surfaces. Digraph lists Standard at $99/month for 30 prompts and 1 brand and Pro at $249/month for 300 prompts and 3 brands across 9 listed AI systems. Normalize provider-key ownership, response cost, prompt cadence, engine modes, answer evidence, support, and exports before comparing value.
Published by Digraph. Competitor capabilities are summarized from the official sources below, reviewed on . This is a product-documentation comparison, not a hands-on benchmark. Confirm current plan limits and coverage with each provider.
Review Digraph’s documented features and AI search visibility evaluation guide before building your shortlist.
Llumo’s BYOK model can remove a platform licence while moving response cost and provider management to the customer. Digraph publishes bundled prompt and brand allowances in its plans. Model total cost using the same prompt count, engine modes, response length, refresh cadence, provider keys, analyst time, and support requirements.
Prompt volume is useful only when the team can inspect the answer and its sources. Compare full response retention, cited URLs, source domains, competitor framing, model context, and exportability for one fixed prompt set instead of comparing headline prompt counts.
Llumo describes API, MCP, multi-client tracking, and an AI assistant, while Digraph connects visibility evidence to audits, analysis, Signal, reports, exports, and agents. Run one recurring report and one follow-up action in each system, recording setup effort, permissions, data shape, and recheck time.
Use the same brand, competitors, buyer questions, markets, language, engines, collection window, and reporting format. Record provider cost, full answers, brand position, competitor mentions, sentiment, cited URLs, source domains, recommendations, exports, refresh time, and analyst effort.
Digraph brings the evidence behind AI-search visibility into one focused workflow.
Review the prompts and tracked answers where your brand appears—or does not.
See cited domains and competing brands alongside the answer patterns you are measuring.
Use the observed gaps to focus research, content planning, and performance review.
Choose a workflow your team can use with its real questions and evidence—not only a feature checklist.
Llumo and Digraph both expose AI visibility, citations, competitors, prompts, and trends. Llumo emphasizes a free hosted platform with bring-your-own provider keys, direct usage economics, multi-client tracking, API and MCP access, and managed AEO services. Digraph emphasizes a defined prompt portfolio, full answer evidence, cited URLs, source domains, competitor context, and connected analysis workflows across nine listed AI systems. The key evaluation is whether the team wants provider-cost control and an open monitoring surface or a packaged evidence and investigation workflow.
Evaluate the actual prompts your buyers ask, the AI systems and markets you need to cover, whether response and source evidence are available, how competitors are compared, and how a finding becomes a repeatable action for your team.
Yes. Many teams use more than one research or measurement system. Digraph is designed to provide an evidence-led view of AI answers, prompts, citations, competitors, and follow-up work alongside the tools already used by SEO, brand, and content teams.
Use the same defined prompt portfolio, competitors, markets, AI systems, and reporting period. Review the underlying answers and sources, not only aggregate scores, before deciding which workflow is the best fit.
Compare prompt and model allowances, competitor setup, source analytics, and workflow fit using current vendor documentation.
A GEO and AI advertising platform for AI visibility, content activation, and campaign execution.
Compare published prices and prompt allowances with Profound’s conversation research, AI traffic analytics, shopping, and agent workflows.
Compare prompt-level visibility, citation influence, collection cadence, AI referrals, bot traffic, and API access using official documentation.
An enterprise SEO platform with AI search capabilities.
A broad SEO and digital marketing platform with AI search features.
An SEO platform whose Brand Radar includes AI visibility research and custom prompt tracking.
Compare official pricing, prompt allowances, AI search coverage, and evidence workflows before a fair product trial.
Compare monthly versus annual billing, model and project allowances, answer evidence, and agent-led content workflows using official product sources.
Compare daily engine coverage, prompt and brand limits, Search Console access, and the path from a visibility finding to a fix.
Compare credit-metered AI responses and domain limits with prompt-based plans, engine coverage, and answer evidence.
Compare agency pricing, multi-brand capacity, white-label delivery, AI coverage, APIs, and answer evidence using current vendor pages.
Compare persona-driven audits, agency pricing, model coverage, citations, competitors, and answer-level evidence using current vendor sources.
Compare confidence-interval reporting, credit-based plans, agency delivery, citations, competitors, and action workflows using current vendor sources.
Compare multi-business pricing, prompt checks, AI engines, citations, competitors, reporting, and agency delivery using current vendor sources.
Compare category-level AI visibility measurement, prompt volume, competitor benchmarks, citations, attribution, and agency delivery using current vendor sources.
Compare credit-based AI search visibility, model coverage, citation insights, content optimization, competitor monitoring, and enterprise controls using current vendor sources.
Compare prompt monitoring, GEO implementation tools, engine add-ons, citation evidence, white-label reporting, and agency workflows using current vendor sources.
Compare prompt and response quotas, model coverage, citations, competitor heatmaps, agent credits, AEO content, and API access using current vendor sources.
Compare credit-based answer volume, engine coverage, citation gaps, page audits, competitor tracking, API access, and agency reporting using current vendor sources.
Compare closed-loop AEO pricing, prompt and model coverage, citation evidence, revenue attribution, optimization agents, MCP, and agency workspaces using current vendor sources.
Compare standalone AEO pricing, prompt and answer limits, three-engine coverage, CRM context, citation analysis, and evidence workflows using current vendor sources.
Compare Foglift and Digraph on AI visibility monitoring, technical audits, citations, competitors, action workflows, developer access, and published pricing.
Compare GrackerAI and Digraph on AI visibility monitoring, AEO audits, citations, content execution, competitors, agency workflows, and published pricing.
Compare Prompt Monitor and Digraph on AI visibility tracking, prompt limits, model coverage, competitors, citations, and published pricing.
Compare Citations.io and Digraph on AI visibility tracking, answer evidence, citations, competitors, implementation recommendations, and reporting.