Stobo is an AEO audit tool that generates implementation-ready code for startups who need to fix their technical foundation. Otterly is a monitoring platform that tracks your visibility across AI engines after you've implemented fixes. Stobo costs a flat fee per report. Otterly runs $29 to $989 per month. Most startups need both, but in sequence: fix first (Stobo), then monitor (Otterly).
The AEO tool market exploded in 2025. Over 45 services now compete for attention, from enterprise platforms like Profound (backed by $58.5M from Sequoia) to scrappy indie tools. Two names keep surfacing in startup circles: Stobo and Otterly.
They solve different problems. Understanding the difference saves you from buying the wrong tool at the wrong time.
What each tool actually does
Stobo runs a six-check technical audit on your website. It evaluates robots.txt configuration, llms.txt implementation, schema markup, sitemap validity, FAQ content structure, and direct answer optimization. The output is a detailed report with implementation-ready code you can deploy immediately.
The philosophy: show you exactly what's broken, give you the fix, let you implement it yourself. Stobo generates the robots.txt entries, the complete llms.txt file, the JSON-LD schema blocks. You copy, paste, deploy. Done.
Otterly monitors your brand's visibility across AI engines. It tracks mentions in ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot. The platform runs weekly checks and reports where you appear, how often, and with what sentiment.
The philosophy: you can't improve what you don't measure. Otterly shows you the results of your AEO work over time. It also includes a GEO audit feature that checks 25+ technical factors.
Feature comparison
| Feature | Stobo | Otterly |
|---|---|---|
| Technical audit | 6 checks, deep analysis | 25+ factors, surface level |
| Implementation code | Yes, ready to deploy | No |
| AI visibility tracking | No | Yes, 6 platforms |
| Sentiment analysis | No | Yes |
| Update frequency | On-demand reports | Weekly monitoring |
| Pricing model | Per report | $29-$989/month |
When to choose Stobo
You have a website. You suspect AI engines can't see it properly. You want to fix that, today, without hiring an agency or learning the technical details yourself.
Stobo makes sense when:
- You're starting from zero on AEO and need the foundation built
- Your robots.txt might be blocking AI crawlers (common default in many CMS platforms)
- You have no schema markup, or you implemented it years ago and haven't touched it since
- You want code you can hand to a developer with clear instructions
- You prefer a one-time purchase over recurring subscriptions
The typical Stobo user is a bootstrapped founder who knows AEO matters but doesn't have time to become an expert. They want the answer, not the education.
What Stobo doesn't do
Stobo won't tell you if ChatGPT mentioned your brand last week. It won't track your share of voice against competitors. It won't send you weekly reports on visibility trends.
Those features require ongoing monitoring infrastructure. Stobo is a diagnostic tool, not a surveillance system.
When to choose Otterly
You've implemented the basics. Your robots.txt allows AI crawlers. You have schema markup on key pages. Now you want to know if it's working.
Otterly makes sense when:
- You've already done foundational AEO work and need to track results
- You want competitive intelligence on how often rivals appear in AI answers
- Your marketing team needs dashboards to prove AEO ROI
- You're optimizing content based on which topics get AI citations
- You have budget for ongoing monitoring infrastructure
The typical Otterly user is a growth marketer at a funded startup. They need to report metrics to leadership and justify continued investment in AEO.
What Otterly doesn't do
Otterly's GEO audit checks whether issues exist. It doesn't generate the fix. You'll know your schema is missing, but you won't get the JSON-LD code to add it.
For implementation, you still need a developer, an agency, or a tool like Stobo.
The sequence most startups need
AEO follows a natural progression:
Phase 1: Foundation. Fix the technical blockers. Allow AI crawlers. Add schema markup. Create llms.txt. Structure FAQ content properly. This is where Stobo lives.
Phase 2: Monitoring. Track whether your fixes are working. Watch for brand mentions. Measure visibility over time. This is where Otterly lives.
Phase 3: Optimization. Iterate based on data. Create content that fills citation gaps. Build authority on topics where you want AI mentions. Both tools contribute here.
Most startups skip Phase 1 and jump straight to monitoring. They buy Otterly, see low visibility scores, but don't have the implementation guidance to improve. The monitoring shows the problem but doesn't solve it.
Better approach: start with Stobo, implement the recommendations, wait 4-6 weeks for AI crawlers to process your changes, then start monitoring with Otterly.
Pricing reality check
Stobo charges per report. You pay once, get your implementation roadmap, and execute. No recurring costs unless you want another audit later.
Otterly starts at $29/month for basic monitoring (limited prompts, weekly updates). Meaningful enterprise features push into the $300-$989/month range. Over a year, that's $348 to $11,868.
Neither is expensive compared to alternatives. Profound, the market leader in AI visibility tracking, starts around $99/month for basic access and scales to custom enterprise pricing. Semrush's AI toolkit runs $99/month as an add-on to their existing SEO suite.
For a bootstrapped startup watching every dollar, the calculus is simple: fix first, monitor later. A one-time audit that generates actionable code delivers more immediate value than ongoing monitoring of a broken foundation.
The execution gap in the market
Here's what the competitive landscape analysis reveals: most AEO tools monitor. Few actually help you fix.
Of the 45+ services tracked in recent market research, only a handful generate implementation-ready outputs. The rest show dashboards, track metrics, and leave execution to you.
This creates a strange dynamic. Funded startups buy expensive monitoring tools, see bad scores, and then hire agencies to do the actual work. The monitoring tool becomes a $10,000/year alert system that tells you problems exist.
Stobo's position in this market is deliberately narrow: we'd rather be excellent at diagnostics and implementation than mediocre at everything.
Bottom line
If you're asking "how do I fix my AEO foundation?", Stobo gives you the answer in code form.
If you're asking "is my AEO working?", Otterly shows you the data over time.
Most startups need both, but not simultaneously. Fix first. Monitor second. The sequence matters.
"The market opportunity centers on the execution gap. Tools that close this gap, showing what to fix and helping fix it, will capture disproportionate value."
We built Stobo to close that gap. Run your free audit at trystobo.com and see exactly what AI engines see when they look at your site.