How does AIQ differ from generative engine optimization (GEO) tools?
GEO tools measure whether a brand gets mentioned in AI answers. AIQ measures what AI actually says, what sources it draws on, and how the narrative is moving over time.
GEO tools and AIQ answer two different questions. GEO tools, as the market uses them today, treat AI like SEO: count the mentions and optimize for more of them. That is a measure of visibility. AIQ measures reputation: what AI engines say about a brand, the sources they cite, the sentiment, the themes, the differences between engines, and the direction of the narrative over time.
| Dimension | GEO tools | AIQ |
|---|---|---|
| Core question | How often are we mentioned in AI answers? | What is being said about us, and how is it changing? |
| What it measures | Inclusion and visibility, the count of mentions | Content, cited sources, sentiment, themes, cross-engine differences, and trajectory over time |
| Discipline | Marketing measurement, descended from the SEO toolset | Reputation and narrative management |
| Primary team | Marketing | Comms and corporate affairs |
| How it reads a bad-but-frequent mention | Counts it as a win, the brand showed up | Flags it as a problem, the brand is mentioned but losing the narrative |
The difference shows up in practice. A brand can be mentioned in every AI response for its category and still be losing, if the response describes it badly or attaches the wrong story to it. GEO counts that as a win. AIQ treats it as a problem. For comms and corporate affairs teams, the reputation framing is the one that matches the work.
Last reviewed: 19/05/2026
