Mentions.so vs Authoritas AI Tracker (2026): Which AI visibility tool is right for you?

Key Takeaways

• Mentions.so is 3x cheaper for small teams: $99/mo starter plan vs Authoritas's £90/mo (~$115) for 2,000 credits that burn fast
• Authoritas covers more ground if you need traditional SEO + AI tracking in one platform -- Mentions.so is AI-only
• Mentions.so has a real free tier (limited but functional); Authoritas's free tier gives you 50 credits which disappears after ~10 queries
• Credit systems are confusing: Authoritas charges per query (1-5 credits depending on model), Mentions.so uses flat monthly limits
• Authoritas is built for enterprises and publishers tracking licensing/IP; Mentions.so targets startups and SMBs optimizing for AI visibility
• Both track the same core LLMs (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, DeepSeek) but Authoritas adds Bing AI and Copilot

Overview

Mentions.so

Mentions.so launched as a focused AI brand tracking tool for companies that want to know how ChatGPT, Claude, and other LLMs talk about them. It monitors mentions, sentiment, and visibility across 8 major AI models. The pitch: stop guessing why you're invisible in AI search and get actionable recommendations to fix it. Includes daily reports, competitor comparisons, and AI traffic attribution. Pricing is straightforward -- monthly plans with set prompt limits, no credit math required.

Authoritas AI Tracker

Autoritas AI Tracker is the AI visibility module inside Authoritas's broader SEO platform. It's aimed at brands, publishers, and enterprises that need to track both traditional search rankings and AI mentions in one place. The AI tracker monitors 9+ LLMs (including Bing AI and Copilot), tracks citations and sources, and uses a credit-based pricing model where each query costs 1-5 credits depending on the model. The full Authoritas SEO platform (separate pricing) adds rank tracking, technical SEO, content optimization, and backlink analysis.

Side-by-Side Comparison

Pricing comparison

The pricing structures are fundamentally different. Mentions.so charges a flat rate for a set number of prompts per month -- predictable, easy to budget. Authoritas uses credits that deplete based on which LLM you query (ChatGPT costs more credits than Gemini Flash, for example). This makes Authoritas harder to forecast unless you know exactly how many queries you'll run and which models you'll use.

For a small team running 100 queries/month across mixed models, Mentions.so's $99 starter plan is clearer. For an enterprise running thousands of queries and needing traditional SEO data too, Authoritas's bundled approach might justify the complexity.

User interface and workflow

Mentions.so keeps it simple. You add your domain, pick or customize prompts (AI suggests relevant ones), and get daily reports showing where you're mentioned, sentiment breakdown, and competitor SOV. The dashboard is clean -- charts for visibility trends, a feed of actual AI responses, and actionable insights like "Keyword 'digital marketing' performance is up 12%" or "Mobile traffic down 5%". It's built for speed: log in, check your numbers, act on recommendations, move on.

Authoritas feels more like an enterprise BI tool. The AI tracker sits inside a larger SEO platform, so you're navigating between modules (rank tracking, AI visibility, content analysis). The AI dashboard shows SOV trends, citation sources, and response-level detail across models. You can map prompts to customer journeys (informational, transactional, branded, location-based) and see which journey stages you're winning or losing. More power, more clicks. If you're already using Authoritas for SEO, the integration is seamless. If you're only here for AI tracking, the extra weight might slow you down.

Verdict: Mentions.so wins on simplicity and speed. Authoritas wins if you need AI visibility woven into a full SEO workflow.

LLM coverage and tracking depth

Both tools cover the core LLMs that matter in 2026:

Mentions.so tracks:

• ChatGPT (OpenAI)
• Claude (Anthropic)
• Gemini (Google)
• Perplexity AI
• Google AI Overviews
• Grok (X/Twitter)
• DeepSeek
• Meta AI

Authoritas tracks:

• All of the above, plus:
• Bing AI
• Microsoft Copilot

Authoritas has a slight edge in breadth (9+ models vs 8), but the practical difference is small unless you specifically care about Bing AI or Copilot visibility. Both tools let you see what each model says about your brand, track sentiment, and compare your SOV to competitors.

Where Authoritas pulls ahead: citation and source tracking. It shows exactly which URLs, Reddit threads, YouTube videos, or news articles each LLM cited when mentioning your brand. This is critical for publishers tracking IP usage or brands trying to understand why they're being recommended. Mentions.so tracks mentions and sentiment but doesn't drill into source-level citations as deeply.

Verdict: Authoritas for citation depth and publisher use cases. Mentions.so for straightforward brand mention tracking.

Competitor analysis and share of voice

Both tools let you track competitors and see your share of voice (SOV) across AI models.

Mentions.so shows real-time SOV comparisons in a clean chart. Example: "Kajabi 67%, Thinkific 59%, Teachable 46%, Podia 50%, Notion 28%" for a membership site query. You can see which competitors are winning specific prompts and track trends over time. The daily reports flag when a competitor's visibility spikes so you can investigate.

Authoritas does the same but adds journey-stage breakdowns. You can see SOV by prompt type (informational vs transactional vs branded) and filter by date range. The interface is more granular -- you can drill into specific models, topics, or personas. Good for enterprises that need to report SOV by business unit or product line.

Verdict: Tie. Mentions.so is faster to read. Authoritas is more segmentable.

Actionable insights and recommendations

Mentions.so positions itself as the tool that tells you why you're not mentioned and how to fix it. The daily reports include specific recommendations: "Add more content about X topic", "Optimize for Y keyword", "Competitor Z is ranking because of this source". It's not just a dashboard -- it's trying to be a coach. The AI prompt generator suggests relevant queries you should be tracking based on your domain and industry.

Authoritas gives you the data but leaves the strategy to you. You get SOV trends, citation sources, and response-level detail, but the platform doesn't hand you a to-do list. For experienced SEO teams, this is fine -- they know what to do with the data. For smaller teams or non-SEO marketers, it's more work to translate insights into action.

Verdict: Mentions.so for teams that want recommendations served up. Authoritas for teams that prefer raw data and control.

If you're also trying to close the loop from insights to execution -- not just tracking AI visibility but actually creating content that ranks in AI search -- tools like Promptwatch can help. It combines AI visibility tracking with content gap analysis and an AI writing agent that generates articles optimized for LLM citations. Worth exploring if you need the full action loop.

AI traffic attribution

Mentions.so includes AI traffic attribution via a tracking script you add to your site. It shows how much traffic is coming from AI models and which prompts are driving visits. This is huge for proving ROI -- you can connect AI visibility to actual revenue instead of just tracking mentions in a vacuum.

Authoritas doesn't explicitly mention AI traffic attribution in their materials. The focus is on visibility and citations, not downstream traffic. You'd need to cross-reference with Google Analytics or another tool to see if AI mentions are driving visits.

Verdict: Mentions.so wins here. Traffic attribution is table stakes for justifying AI SEO investment.

Publisher and licensing features

This is where Authoritas separates itself. The platform is explicitly built for publishers tracking how AI models use their content. Features include:

• Detailed citation tracking (which articles are being cited, by which models, how often)
• IP and licensing insights (understand usage patterns to inform licensing negotiations)
• Monetization angle (prove the value of your content to AI platforms)

If you're a news site, magazine, or content publisher trying to understand and monetize AI's use of your IP, Authoritas is purpose-built for this. Mentions.so doesn't have publisher-specific features -- it's focused on brand visibility, not content licensing.

Verdict: Authoritas is the only real option for publishers. Mentions.so isn't competing here.

Traditional SEO integration

Autoritas is a full SEO platform with AI tracking bolted on. The core platform (separate pricing: £99-£799/mo) includes:

• Rank tracking across Google, Bing, etc.
• Technical SEO audits
• Content optimization
• Backlink analysis
• Keyword research

If you need both traditional SEO and AI visibility in one tool, Authoritas delivers. You can see organic rankings drop while AI mentions rise (or vice versa) and adjust strategy accordingly.

Mentions.so is AI-only. No rank tracking, no technical audits, no backlink data. If you need traditional SEO, you'll use Ahrefs or Semrush alongside Mentions.so.

Verdict: Authoritas for all-in-one. Mentions.so if you already have SEO tools and just need AI tracking.

Ease of setup and learning curve

Mentions.so is plug-and-play. Add your domain, let the AI suggest prompts, start tracking. You'll be looking at data within 10 minutes. The interface is intuitive -- if you've used any SaaS dashboard, you'll figure it out.

Authoritas has a steeper ramp. The credit system requires understanding which models cost what. The platform is feature-dense (AI tracking is one module among many). Enterprises with dedicated SEO teams will be fine. Solo marketers or small teams might feel overwhelmed.

Verdict: Mentions.so for quick wins. Authoritas if you have time to learn and resources to manage it.

Pros and cons

Mentions.so pros:

• Simple, predictable pricing (flat monthly plans)
• Real free tier that's actually usable
• AI traffic attribution built in
• Actionable daily recommendations
• Fast setup, low learning curve
• AI-generated prompt suggestions
• 16% discount on annual billing

Mentions.so cons:

• No traditional SEO features (AI-only)
• Less granular citation tracking than Authoritas
• No publisher/licensing features
• Smaller model coverage (8 vs 9+)
• Limited customization for enterprise workflows

Authoritas AI Tracker pros:

• Tracks 9+ LLMs including Bing AI and Copilot
• Deep citation and source tracking
• Publisher-focused features (IP tracking, licensing insights)
• Integrates with full SEO platform (rank tracking, audits, backlinks)
• Journey mapping and persona-based analysis
• Enterprise-grade reporting and segmentation

Authoritas AI Tracker cons:

• Credit-based pricing is confusing and unpredictable
• Free tier is basically a trial (50 credits = ~10 queries)
• Steeper learning curve
• Higher cost for small teams ($115/mo entry vs $99)
• No AI traffic attribution mentioned
• Overkill if you only need AI tracking

Who should pick which tool

Pick Mentions.so if:

• You're a startup, SMB, or agency focused on AI visibility
• You want simple pricing and don't want to do credit math
• You need AI traffic attribution to prove ROI
• You want daily recommendations, not just raw data
• You already have traditional SEO tools (Ahrefs, Semrush) and just need AI tracking
• You're testing AI visibility for the first time and want a real free tier

Pick Authoritas AI Tracker if:

• You're a publisher tracking how AI models use your content
• You need deep citation and source-level tracking
• You want AI visibility + traditional SEO in one platform
• You're an enterprise with budget for a full-featured SEO suite
• You need granular reporting by journey stage, persona, or business unit
• You care about Bing AI and Copilot visibility specifically
• You have a dedicated SEO team that can manage complexity

Pick neither if:

• You need AI visibility tracking plus content gap analysis and AI content generation to actually fix the gaps you find. In that case, look at platforms like Promptwatch that close the loop from tracking to optimization to content creation.

Final verdict

Mentions.so wins for simplicity, speed, and value if you're a small-to-mid-size team that just wants to track and improve AI brand visibility. It's cheaper, easier to use, and includes traffic attribution out of the box. The free tier is real, the pricing is predictable, and the daily recommendations help you act on the data instead of just staring at charts.

Autoritas AI Tracker wins for depth and integration if you're a publisher, enterprise, or large brand that needs citation-level tracking, traditional SEO + AI visibility in one platform, and the ability to segment data by journey stage or persona. The credit system is annoying, but the feature set justifies it if you're operating at scale.

For most readers deciding between these two: Mentions.so is the better starting point. It's cheaper, clearer, and gets you 90% of what you need. Upgrade to Authoritas if you outgrow it or if you're a publisher tracking IP usage. And if you're serious about not just tracking AI visibility but actually improving it with content gap analysis and AI-optimized content generation, explore tools like Promptwatch that handle the full optimization loop.