Stobo vs BotRank: Implementation Depth vs Monitoring Breadth

---

BotRank is a well-designed competitor with transparent methodology and consistent scoring. We tested the same website with both tools to understand how our approaches differ.

The short version: they provide broad coverage across 24 criteria mixing traditional SEO with AEO factors. We provide focused depth on 7 AEO-specific checks with unique analysis no other tool offers. Both approaches serve legitimate use cases.

What BotRank actually measures

Their system organizes 24 criteria into four categories. This is honest presentation. Unlike some competitors claiming "100+ factors," BotRank clearly documents what they check.

Authority category (5 checks)

• Brand Authority (Moz brand recognition score)
• Domain Authority (Moz DA metric)
• Bing Index (site indexed in Bing)
• Google Index (site indexed in Google)
• HTTPS/SSL (security certificate present)

Content category (6 checks)

• Content Freshness (last update date)
• Content Relevance (keyword diversity analysis)
• Conversational Content (NLP readiness scoring)
• Content Quality (text density and structure)
• Image Optimization (alt tags, compression)
• Inappropriate Content (content safety check)

Structure category (6 checks)

• Canonical URL (canonical tag implementation)
• Title Tags (H1/H2/H3 hierarchy)
• Meta Title/Description (meta tag presence)
• Semantic HTML (HTML5 structure)
• Structured Data (Schema.org presence)
• URL Structure (clean URL format)

Technical category (7 checks)

• llms.txt (file exists and is parseable)
• Mobile Compatibility (responsive design)
• Hreflang Tag (internationalization tags)
• Loading Speed (page performance metrics)
• Robots.txt (file exists)
• XML Sitemap (sitemap present)
• Web Accessibility (WCAG compliance)

This comprehensive list has value. The question is which checks specifically impact AI citations versus general website quality.

AEO relevance breakdown

We categorized BotRank's 24 checks by their direct impact on AI citations:

High relevance (5 checks, 21%)

• Content Freshness
• Structured Data
• llms.txt
• Robots.txt
• XML Sitemap

Medium relevance (5 checks, 21%)

• Content Relevance
• Conversational Content
• Content Quality
• Title Tags hierarchy
• Semantic HTML

Low relevance (14 checks, 58%)

• Brand/Domain Authority (requires Moz, off-site signal)
• Bing/Google Index (basic SEO)
• HTTPS/SSL (basic security hygiene)
• Image Optimization (basic SEO)
• Inappropriate Content (content moderation)
• Canonical URL (duplicate content management)
• Meta Title/Description (basic SEO)
• URL Structure (basic SEO)
• Mobile Compatibility (basic responsive design)
• Hreflang (localization)
• Loading Speed (performance)
• Web Accessibility (WCAG compliance)

The majority of BotRank's checks address website fundamentals that matter for traditional search but have limited direct impact on AI citations. These checks have value for overall website quality. They're less relevant if your specific goal is appearing in ChatGPT, Perplexity, or Google AI Overviews.

What we tested

We ran sealf.ie through both tools to compare results directly.

Stobo results

• Overall Score: 70/100 (Grade C)
• Passing checks: Robots.txt (100), Sitemap (100), Direct Answers (82)
• Needs attention: Schema (65), FAQ Content (50), llms.txt (30), Freshness (0)

BotRank results

• Overall Score: 74/100
• Good: 17 criteria passing
• Needs optimization: 7 criteria flagged

Agreement on problems

Both tools identified the same core issues. Content freshness scored poorly on both platforms (Stobo: 0/100, BotRank: "Bad"). The llms.txt file needs improvement (Stobo: 30/100 Grade D, BotRank: "Average"). Both confirmed robots.txt is properly configured (Stobo: 100/100 Grade A, BotRank: "Good").

The scoring difference (70 vs 74) comes from different check composition. BotRank's score includes traditional SEO factors where sealf.ie performs well. Stobo's score reflects only AEO-specific technical foundation.

Where the approaches differ

Robots.txt depth

• BotRank: Binary check (file exists or doesn't)
• Stobo: Checks 21 specific AI crawlers individually (GPTBot, ChatGPT-User, OAI-SearchBot, Claude-Web, ClaudeBot, PerplexityBot, GoogleOther, plus 14 others)

When robots.txt blocks ChatGPT-User but allows GPTBot, that distinction matters. Users get citations in model training but not during real-time browsing. BotRank's check confirms the file exists. Stobo identifies which specific AI systems face access issues.

llms.txt analysis

• BotRank: File exists and parses correctly
• Stobo: 7 sub-components analyzed (title quality, description completeness, contact information, resource organization, link format preferences, categorization structure, context optimization)

BotRank validates the file is present and readable. Stobo evaluates whether the content follows best practices for AI consumption. We also generate bespoke llms.txt files in our Premium tier based on your actual business context.

Schema markup

• BotRank: Structured data present or absent
• Stobo: Type diversity (FAQPage, Organization, Product schemas) plus page distribution analysis

Finding schema on your homepage doesn't mean it's distributed across important pages. Our analysis reveals which page types have appropriate schema and which need it.

Unique checks

• BotRank has: Brand Authority (Moz), Domain Authority (Moz), Conversational Content scoring
• Stobo has: FAQ-schema pairing per page, Direct answer optimization (40-60 word first paragraph), Specific AI crawler access analysis

FAQ-schema pairing matters because FAQ format achieves 41% AI citation rates versus 15% for unstructured content, but only when properly paired with FAQPage schema. We're the only tool analyzing this relationship at the page level.

Traditional SEO coverage

• BotRank: Comprehensive (HTTPS, mobile, meta tags, speed, accessibility)
• Stobo: None (we focus exclusively on AEO barriers)

If you need a general website health audit, BotRank provides more comprehensive coverage. If you specifically want to improve AI citations, Stobo's focused approach targets the barriers that matter most.

Pricing comparison

BotRank model

• Free: 1 page, 2 AI platforms (ChatGPT + Perplexity)
• Enterprise: $59/month (5 pages, 5 platforms)
• Multi-Brand: $490/month (50 pages, 5 platforms)
• Annual cost: $708-5,880

Stobo model

• Free: Unlimited pages, full 7-check audit, permanent access
• Premium: $199 one-time (action plan, llms.txt generation, implementation code)
• Annual cost: $199 once, no recurring fees

The pricing philosophies reflect different purposes. BotRank is monitoring-focused. You pay monthly to track your score over time across multiple pages and platforms. Stobo is implementation-focused. You pay once to get fixes, deploy them, and move on.

Neither model is inherently better. The right choice depends on whether you need ongoing monitoring or immediate implementation guidance.

When to use each tool

Choose BotRank if

You need ongoing monitoring across multiple pages and AI platforms. You want comprehensive website health checks beyond just AEO. You value authority metrics from Moz (brand authority, domain authority). You prefer seeing traditional SEO factors alongside AEO checks. Your budget allows for recurring subscriptions.

Choose Stobo if

You need to fix technical barriers blocking AI crawler access. You want focused analysis of what specifically impacts AI citations. You need implementation-ready code blocks to deploy fixes immediately. You prefer one-time payment over recurring subscriptions. You want unique features like FAQ-schema pairing and direct answer optimization.

Consider both if

You want comprehensive monitoring (BotRank) plus implementation depth (Stobo). Budget allows for both approaches. You're serious about maintaining AI visibility long-term while also fixing current barriers.

What they do better than us

BotRank has legitimate strengths worth acknowledging.

Authority metrics. Their Moz integration provides brand authority and domain authority scores. These off-site signals matter for overall visibility even though they're not technical fixes you can implement immediately.

Traditional SEO coverage. Their checks for HTTPS, mobile compatibility, meta tags, loading speed, and accessibility provide comprehensive website health analysis. Stobo focuses only on AEO and doesn't evaluate these factors.

Monitoring breadth. Their subscription model tracks multiple pages across five AI platforms over time. You can see how your score changes as you make improvements and monitor competitors.

Conversational content scoring. Their NLP readiness analysis evaluates how well your content matches conversational query patterns. This provides useful signal for content optimization.

Honest presentation. They clearly document 24 criteria rather than inflating numbers. Their scoring is consistent without contradictions. No dark patterns in pricing or access. They're a legitimate, well-designed tool.

What we do differently

AEO exclusivity. All seven of our checks specifically target AI citation barriers. We don't dilute focus with traditional SEO factors. This concentrated approach provides deeper analysis of what actually impacts AI visibility.

Specific AI crawler analysis. Our robots.txt check identifies which of 21 specific AI crawlers face access issues. GPTBot blocked but ChatGPT-User allowed means different things for different AI platforms. BotRank's check confirms the file exists. Ours diagnoses specific access patterns.

llms.txt quality evaluation. BotRank validates the file parses correctly. We analyze seven sub-components: title quality, description completeness, contact information, resource organization, link format preferences, categorization structure, context optimization. We also generate bespoke llms.txt files in Premium tier.

FAQ-schema pairing. We're the only tool analyzing whether FAQ content has matching FAQPage schema on the same page. This matters because research shows FAQ format achieves 2.7x higher citation rates when properly paired with schema. No other tool checks this relationship.

Direct answer optimization. We evaluate whether your first paragraph is 40-60 words (optimal for AI extraction). Research shows AI systems heavily weight opening paragraphs when deciding citations. BotRank doesn't check this specific pattern.

One-time pricing. Fix technical foundation once. No recurring monthly fees. Pay $199, get implementation code, deploy fixes, improve your score permanently. BotRank's model requires ongoing payment to maintain access.

5-layer scoring algorithm. Our scoring includes synergy bonuses (when optimizations work together), severity penalties (for critical gaps), and access gate multipliers. This sophistication rewards holistic optimization rather than just counting passing checks.

The honest assessment

BotRank is a well-designed tool with transparent methodology and consistent scoring. They're not using dark patterns. Their 24-criteria approach provides comprehensive website analysis.

The key insight: only 21% of their checks are highly relevant to AI citations. The remaining checks address traditional SEO and website fundamentals. This isn't criticism. It's clarification about what you're getting.

If you need general website health analysis, BotRank provides good value. If you specifically want to improve AI citations, much of their coverage addresses factors with limited direct impact on that goal.

Their monitoring approach makes sense for ongoing visibility tracking. Our implementation approach makes sense for fixing barriers and moving on. Both models serve legitimate needs.

What we've learned from direct comparison: authority metrics have value even though they're off-site signals, conversational content scoring provides useful optimization guidance, and comprehensive SEO coverage appeals to users who want broader analysis.

We maintain our focused approach because technical foundation determines whether AI systems can even consider citing you. Once that foundation is solid, broader factors like authority and conversational tone become relevant. Foundation first, refinement second.

What actual users should do

If you're starting from scratch

Run Stobo's free audit to identify technical barriers blocking AI crawler access. Fix critical issues first (robots.txt configuration for specific AI crawlers, llms.txt quality, FAQ-schema pairing). These barriers prevent citations regardless of authority metrics or content quality.

After technical foundation is solid, consider BotRank for ongoing monitoring across multiple pages and platforms. Their broader coverage helps track improvements and maintain visibility over time.

If you've fixed technical foundation

BotRank's monitoring provides value for tracking score changes across pages and platforms. Their authority metrics and conversational content scoring identify optimization opportunities beyond basic technical fixes.

Their traditional SEO checks help ensure overall website health alongside AEO optimization. Strong technical foundation plus good traditional SEO creates comprehensive visibility.

If budget is limited

Stobo's free tier provides immediate value with full 7-check audit, unlimited pages, and permanent access. Fix the technical barriers we identify first. They have highest correlation with AI citations according to research.

Add monitoring tools later as budget allows. Technical barriers block citations completely. Monitoring helps maintain and improve scores after barriers are removed.

If you need ongoing visibility

BotRank's subscription model tracks multiple pages across five AI platforms. This monitoring approach makes sense if you publish content regularly and want to track visibility changes over time.

Stobo's one-time model makes sense for fixing current barriers and establishing foundation. Choose based on whether your need is ongoing monitoring or immediate implementation.

Questions we get about this comparison

"BotRank has 24 checks. Isn't more better?"

Only if those checks address your specific goal. BotRank's 24 checks include 14 traditional SEO factors (58%) with limited direct impact on AI citations. Five checks (21%) are highly relevant to AI visibility.

We focus exclusively on the checks that directly impact AI citations. Seven focused checks with granular depth versus 24 checks with mixed relevance. Choose based on whether you want breadth or depth.

"Why does BotRank include traditional SEO?"

Because overall website quality matters. Strong technical SEO foundation supports AI visibility even when individual factors don't directly cause citations.

Their comprehensive approach appeals to users who want complete website analysis. Our focused approach appeals to users who specifically want to improve AI citations without diluting attention across traditional SEO factors.

"Should I use both tools?"

If comprehensive coverage matters, yes. Stobo handles technical foundation with depth. BotRank provides ongoing monitoring with breadth.

The tools complement each other. Use Stobo to fix barriers. Use BotRank to monitor improvements over time and track authority metrics. Different purposes, both legitimate.

"Which is more accurate?"

Both are accurate for what they measure. BotRank checks 24 criteria honestly and consistently. Stobo checks 7 criteria with granular depth and unique analysis.

Accuracy isn't the differentiator. Purpose is. Monitoring versus implementation. Breadth versus depth. Choose based on your specific need.

"Why is BotRank more expensive?"

Their pricing reflects ongoing monitoring value. You pay monthly to track scores across multiple pages and platforms over time. Annual cost: $708-5,880.

Our pricing reflects implementation value. You pay once to get fixes and deploy them. Annual cost: $199 with no recurring fees.

Different models for different purposes. Neither is inherently better or worse.

The bottom line

BotRank and Stobo serve different use cases with different pricing models. They provide comprehensive monitoring across 24 criteria including traditional SEO. We provide focused implementation depth across 7 AEO-specific checks.

Their strength is breadth with ongoing tracking. Our strength is depth with unique features no other tool offers (FAQ-schema pairing, direct answer optimization, specific AI crawler analysis).

Both tools are honest and transparent. No dark patterns, consistent scoring, legitimate value. Choose based on whether you need monitoring breadth or implementation depth. Or use both for comprehensive coverage.

The AEO market is young enough that multiple tools can succeed. We're not competing for the same users at the same stage. BotRank serves ongoing monitoring needs. Stobo serves immediate implementation needs.

Different tools for different jobs. Both legitimate approaches to the same goal: improving visibility in AI-powered search.

---

Last updated: December 30, 2025 Based on direct comparison testing with sealf.ie