AEO Audit is a free tool that scores B2B SaaS websites for AI search visibility — how likely they are to be cited by ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Google AI Overviews when B2B buyers search.

What is AI Engine Optimization (AEO)?

AI Engine Optimization (AEO) is the practice of structuring content, entity signals, and technical infrastructure so that AI engines cite your brand in generated answers. It extends traditional SEO to cover ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, and Google AI Overviews.

Yes. AEO Audit is free. Enter any B2B SaaS brand and receive a full AI visibility score with prioritised recommendations.

How does AEO Audit score websites?

AEO Audit scores across six pillars: AI Visibility (22%), Brand Authority (23%), Content Quality (18%), Platform Optimization (15%), Structured Data (12%), and Technical AEO (10%). Each pillar reflects specific signals that AI engines use when deciding which sources to cite.

Category · AI Citation Index

Workflow Automation

The shortlist is a duopoly with a dark horse. Zapier and Make each surface in more than 84% of buyer queries across every AI engine we track, trading citations one-for-one. Workato trails in discovery share — appearing in 65% of prompts and missing one engine — but wins the most head-to-head comparisons at 78 out of 100. The surprise is the cluster of absent giants: Boomi, UiPath, Automation Anywhere, and n8n all score above 70 in evaluation matchups yet barely surface in AI discovery prompts, punching above their weight when named but rarely getting named at all. This is a contested category — two brands own AI attention at the top of funnel, a third wins on merit when surfaced, and a long tail of enterprise RPA and open-source iPaaS platforms win comparisons without capturing eyeballs.

278 discovery queries · 127 head-to-heads · refreshed May 1, 2026

Discovery stage

The shortlist

Across 278 buyer-style "Workflow Automation" queries

Most cited · Workflow AutomationLive

Make

make.com

Cited in 238 of 278 buyer questions for Workflow Automation — surfaced by 3 of 3 AI engines.

ChatGPTGeminiClaude

Citation rate

86%

Visibility score68/100

See the full Make profile→

Make and Zapier dominate AI discovery prompts, each surfacing across all five engines in more than 84% of buyer queries about workflow automation. Workato holds third position at 65% share but misses one engine entirely. Intercom, Copy, and handoff.ai appear in the category shortlist despite belonging to adjacent segments — AI chatbots and content generation — signaling fuzzy category boundaries in AI engine training data.

Hover or click a logo to see brand details

X = coverage across discovery prompts · Y = engine diversity · Bubble size = total mentions

Tracked acrossChatGPT,Gemini,Claude

Get weekly AI visibility changes for Workflow Automation sent to your inbox.

Score shifts, new entrants, citation gaps — every Monday.

Signal by intent

By topic

Top 5 most-cited brands per intent cluster. Brands with zero citations in a topic are not shown.

Connect

21/26

Internal

21/26

Zapier

20/26

Microsoft

19/26

18/26

Zapier

16/19

Make

14/19

Microsoft

13/19

Asana

10/19

monday dev

9/19

Zapier

15/16

Make

13/16

Workato

12/16

11/16

monday dev

10/16

Make

10/14

Zapier

8/14

Flow

7/14

POINT

7/14

Handoff

6/14

Zapier

9/9

Make

9/9

Plan

8/9

Connect

8/9

HubSpot

7/9

HubSpot

8/8

Make

7/8

Plan

5/8

Zapier

5/8

Trigger

5/8

Workato

8/8

ServiceNow

8/8

Microsoft

8/8

Uipath

8/8

Appian

8/8

Microsoft

7/7

Zapier

7/7

Make

7/7

Connect

6/7

Plan

6/7

≥50% cited

25–49%

<25%

Topics are discovery-stage prompt clusters · ai-automation

Evaluation stage

Head-to-head

How often AI cites each brand across uniform category evaluation prompts · median 57/100

When buyers ask AI to compare workflow automation options, Zapier wins 79 out of 100 head-to-head matchups, the highest score across six comparison queries. Relay, Bardeen, Jasper, Moveworks, Cognigy, Mulesoft, and Copy all land in the 61-69 range across 10-13 head-to-heads each, suggesting a crowded middle tier where no single brand dominates evaluation-stage prompts. The category median is 57, so most brands named in comparisons win more than they lose.

Hover or click a logo to see brand details

X = evaluation citation rate · Y = evaluation prompts cited in · Bubble size = citation exposure

Median citation rate 57/100

Each brand's score is the share of category evaluation prompts where AI cited them across all four engines — the same prompt pool for every brand. Brands above the median citation rate have stronger presence in evaluation-stage queries.

Brands to know