Customers come to us asking how we compare against competitors, so we asked ChatGPT to write an objective comparison of LLM Pulse (that’s us) and LLMO Metrics, another leading Spanish created AI visibility tracking SaaS. Below is the output we received, reviewed for factual accuracy and updated with clarifications where the public claims are ambiguous.
We welcome the LLMO Metrics team to provide any further feedback to clarify any claims made by the AI, this post has the sole intention to help users make a more accurate decision 😀
We aim to do a regular update of the content in this post as both solutions improve their offerings.
Latest review: 9th of September, 2025.
TL;DR
- Coverage: LLMO Metrics currently lists coverage for ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Copilot, Perplexity, DeepSeek, and Google AI Overviews. LLM Pulse covers ChatGPT, Perplexity Search, Google AI Mode, and Google AI Overviews today; we plan to add more LLMs (e.g., Gemini, Claude, Copilot, DeepSeek) in the near future but we prefer to focus on the ones that are actually most used today.
- Cadence: LLMO Metrics mentions daily visibility reports in pricing but elsewhere references weekly insights—so it’s not explicit that tracking runs every single day. In practice, daily data rarely adds meaningful signal over weekly for brand-visibility use cases.
- “Prompt search volume” claims: No major LLM vendor publishes per-prompt query counts. Any such numbers are modeled estimates, not ground truth. LLM Pulse prioritizes verifiable measurements—we don’t invent demand via statistical guesswork.
- Brand Sentiment: LLM Pulse’s Brand Sentiment is now live. It provides consistent, explainable sentiment across tracked prompts and models.
- Pricing & scale: At similar prompt counts, LLM Pulse generally comes in lower on price with clearly defined weekly response caps per model; LLMO Metrics offers broader LLM coverage and AI ranking suggestions.
What each platform tracks
LLM Pulse
- LLMs covered: ChatGPT, Perplexity Search, Google AI Overviews, and Google AI Mode.
- Core features: Prompt tracking, citations analysis (see which sources drive answers), visibility scoring, competitor benchmarking, prompt suggestions, tagging, and Brand Sentiment (live).
- Cadence: Weekly by default (daily available on demand). Clear response caps per model for predictable usage.
LLMO Metrics
- LLMs covered (as listed): ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Copilot, Perplexity, DeepSeek, and Google AI Overviews.
- Core features: Answer/brand-mention accuracy, benchmarking, AI-powered recommendations to improve rankings, and a marketed Prompt Search Volume view (see caveat below).
- Cadence: Pricing mentions daily visibility reports; elsewhere the site references weekly insights—this reads as ambiguous about true day-by-day collection.
Daily vs. weekly tracking: what matters in practice
For AI visibility, the day-to-day movement is typically modest—especially in Google AI Mode, where third-party studies indicate higher stability versus AI Overviews. Weekly cadence tends to strike the best signal-to-noise balance for strategic decisions, while avoiding the operational overhead (and analysis churn) of reviewing mostly unchanged daily snapshots.
Bottom line: If you’re optimizing messaging, content, and citations, weekly trends are usually the right granularity. Daily can be useful for special campaigns or incident monitoring, but it’s rarely decisive for ongoing brand visibility programs.
AI Mode (LLM Pulse) vs. broader LLM coverage (LLMO Metrics)
- LLM Pulse: Tracks Google AI Mode and Google AI Overviews in addition to ChatGPT and Perplexity. AI Mode is increasingly important—and not all trackers monitor it.
- LLMO Metrics: Highlights coverage for Gemini, Claude, Copilot, and DeepSeek (in addition to ChatGPT/Perplexity/AI Overviews). Note: they list Google AI Overviews, but not AI Mode specifically.
- Roadmap: LLM Pulse plans to add coverage for Gemini, Claude, Copilot, and DeepSeek. We prioritize correctness and explainability as we expand.
About that “Prompt Search Volume” idea
No major chat assistant or LLM vendor provides public, per-prompt query volumes. Without official data, any “prompt search volume” must be a modeled estimate. Such metrics can be directionally interesting, but they are not ground truth and can mislead prioritization if treated as precise.
LLM Pulse’s stance: we will not invent demand via opaque statistical models. We focus on auditable measurements—what answers AIs give, who they cite, how often your brand appears, how sentiment trends, and how visibility shifts over time across engines we actively track.
Feature-by-feature: strengths of each
Where LLMO Metrics is strong
- Broad engine coverage: Adds Gemini, Claude, Copilot, and DeepSeek.
- AI recommendations: Built-in guidance for improving AI-answer rankings.
- Daily reports marketing: Communicates higher-frequency reporting (though site language is inconsistent on whether tracking truly runs every day).
Where LLM Pulse is strong
- Google AI Mode tracking: LLM Pulse tracks AI Mode alongside AI Overviews, ChatGPT, and Perplexity.
- Data you can audit: Detailed responses with citations and competitor side-by-side views; predictable per-model response caps.
- Brand Sentiment: A robust, explainable signal across prompts/models—remarkably helpful for product, PR, and CX teams.
- Pricing efficiency: More prompts per € at lower tiers for teams focused on the engines LLM Pulse covers today.
Public pricing & limits
| Plan | Monthly price | Tracked prompts | Seats | Cadence / caps | LLMs covered (as listed) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LLM Pulse – Starter | €49 | 40 | 1 | Weekly; 40 responses/week per model | ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Mode/Overviews |
| LLM Pulse – Growth | €99 | 100 | 2 | Weekly; 100 responses/week per model | Same as above |
| LLM Pulse – Scale | €299 | 300 | 5 | Weekly; 300 responses/week per model | Same as above |
| LLM Pulse – Scale+ | €599 | 600 | 10 | Weekly; 600 responses/week per model | Same as above |
| LLM Pulse – Scale++ | €1,199 | 1200 | 10 | Weekly; 1200 responses/week per model | Same as above |
| LLMO Metrics – Freelance | €80 | 20 | 2 | “Daily visibility reports” (site also mentions weekly insights) | ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Copilot, Perplexity, AI Overviews, DeepSeek |
| LLMO Metrics – Pro | €245 | 100 | 10 | “Daily visibility reports” | Same as above |
| LLMO Metrics – Enterprise | €690 | 300 | Unlimited | “Daily visibility reports” | Same as above |
Notes: LLM Pulse also lists projects and competitor limits per project by tier, plus explicit responses/week per model caps. LLMO Metrics lists “Access +7 AI engines,” “AI recommendations,” “advanced ranking suggestions,” and “daily visibility reports,” while elsewhere referencing weekly insights—hence the cadence ambiguity.
Cost snapshots (illustrative comparisons)
- ~100 prompts: LLM Pulse Growth at €99/mo vs. LLMO Metrics Pro at €245/mo. If LLM Pulse’s current engine set fits your needs, this is the lower-cost route; if you need Gemini/Claude/Copilot/DeepSeek and the recommendations layer, LLMO Metrics justifies the premium.
- ~300 prompts: LLM Pulse Scale at €299/mo vs. LLMO Metrics Enterprise at €690/mo (adds broader LLM coverage and unlimited seats).
Who should pick what?
Choose LLM Pulse if…
- You want AI Mode + AI Overviews coverage alongside ChatGPT and Perplexity.
- You value auditable, accurate measurements over modeled demand and prefer predictable per-model caps.
- You’ll use Brand Sentiment, citations analysis, and competitor views to drive PR/content ops.
- Price efficiency at lower tiers matters.
Choose LLMO Metrics if…
- You need broader LLM coverage right now (Gemini, Claude, Copilot, DeepSeek).
- You want AI ranking suggestions built in and are comfortable with modeled demand metrics like “prompt search volume.”
- You prefer marketed daily reporting (keeping in mind the site’s cadence ambiguity).
