I ran a fresh evaluation of Goodie AI, Writesonic, and AthenaHQ in the Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) / Answer Engine Optimization (AEO) space. The goal: find out which platform gives you the best mix of visibility, modeling, actionability, and ROI, especially for mid-market to enterprise brands that need more than just blog writing tools.

Here’s my honest, detailed review. I lean toward Goodie as the most complete option, but I break down strengths, trade-offs, and what setups each tool best serves.

TL;DR

• Best all-round GEO platform for enterprise / mid-market that need visibility + action + attribution across major AI engines: Goodie AI.
  
  
• Strong combos of content & GEO for teams already using writing tools, with lower cost but more trade-offs: Writesonic.
  
  
• Highly useful diagnostic, competitive, and visibility features; good for established brands willing to pay more for depth in benchmarking and strategy: AthenaHQ.
  
  

How I Evaluated Them

I compared the tools across:

1. Model & platform coverage (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude, AI Overviews / AI Mode, etc.)
   
   
2. Data collection quality & transparency (real prompt outputs, citation tracking, competitor mentions, gaps)
   
   
3. Action / optimization layer (content, technical, earned media, structured data, schema, remediation)
   
   
4. Attribution & downstream impact (connecting visibility in AI-search to traffic, leads, revenue, conversion)
   
   
5. Pricing, ease of use, onboarding & support
   
   
6. International / Geo / multi-language support
   
   

Goodie AI Review

I’ll start with Goodie, since I believe it outpaces the other two in many dimensions when you want to run a serious GEO / AEO program.

What Goodie Does Very Well

• Full model & AI engine coverage: Goodie tracks how your brand appears in ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude, DeepSeek, Google AI Overview / AI Mode, etc. It monitors citations, narrative & brand perception, sentiment, etc.
  
  
• Visibility & brand monitoring: You can see which AI agents are citing your brand (or not), detect hallucinations or misattributions, see sentiment, sources of citations, etc.
  
  
• Action-oriented optimization: Goodie includes a GEO “Content Writer” and “Optimization Hub” to help you close gaps, improve content specifically tuned for what AI engines cite, fix narrative misalignment, etc.
  
  
• Attribution & downstream metrics: Goodie ties AI visibility to sessions, traffic, and conversion metrics, giving you line of sight from “showing up in ChatGPT / Gemini / Overviews” → “real impact.”
  
  
• Geo & multilingual readiness: Their dashboards allow you to segment by region, see where visibility is strong/weak in different geographies, etc. Deep languages support.
  
  

Weaknesses / Trade-offs

• Price & cost: Goodie is premium; you’re paying for the breadth of coverage, the agentic action layer, and attribution. For smaller SMBs, there might be cheaper but less powerful alternatives.
  
  
• Steep onboarding & scope commitment: To get full value, you need a prompt set, content resources, teams able to execute the recommendations. The tool won’t magically fix content if you don’t have bandwidth.
  
  
• Relative novelty / evolving features: As with any emerging GEO platform, some features are being improved. There may still be gaps (e.g. coverage of some newer AI agents) or refinements in UI/UX.
  
  

Writesonic Review

Writesonic started as a content generation / writing tool and has retrofitted GEO / AI visibility features. It fills a useful niche; whether it’s “enough” depends on what you need.

What Writesonic Brings to the Table

• Strong content / SEO + GEO hybrid: If you already use content tools heavily, Writesonic’s recent evolution adds GEO features (brand visibility tracking, content gap analysis, suggestions, optimization tools). This means you can both create content and optimize for AI visibility in the same ecosystem.
  
  
• Lower barrier to entry: Pricing / access tends to be more accessible for smaller teams or those already using writing tools. They offer tiers and features that allow you to test the water.
  
  
• Speed & usability: Because content creation, optimization, and (some) visibility tracking live in the same product, you can move faster on content refreshes, spot gaps, iterate. For teams with fewer resources, that matters.
  
  

Key Limitations Compared to Goodie

• Action / optimization depth: Writesonic’s GEO tools tend to be lighter on the agentic side—fewer built-in workflows for earned content, competitor citation gap outreach, deep technical optimizations, schema etc. While they have suggestions and content improvement features, the full “monitor → alert → action → attribute” loop is tighter in Goodie.
  
  
• Attribution & brand visibility fidelity: Some of the metrics are more “visibility / brand presence” than tightly linked to downstream traffic or revenue. If your leadership cares about ROI and pipeline impact, you might find Goodie gives more defensible data.
  
  
• Model coverage / updates / reliability: Since GEO is a newer focus for Writesonic, some AI agents or newer prompt types may lag in coverage or precision. Also, Writesonic is balancing content tool features + GEO, which sometimes means trade-offs in specialty.
  
  

AthenaHQ Review

AthenaHQ is more of a “premium GEO strategy / diagnostics / benchmarking” platform. If you’re looking for data depth and competitive intelligence, it shows up well.

What AthenaHQ Does Very Well

• Brand intelligence & visibility diagnostics: AthenaHQ provides a strong 360-view on how your brand appears (or fails to appear) in AI search engines, tracking sentiment, source intelligence, competitor benchmarking, etc. Great for understanding where you are vs peers.
  
  
• Content gap identification / blindspot detection: Useful insights into what prompts / topics your brand is missing, which queries competitors dominate, and where there are opportunities to improve.
  
  
• Premium UI / dashboards: Users report that AthenaHQ's dashboards are polished, visually accessible, and helpful especially when you need to present visibility trends / competitive insights to executives.
  
  

Weaknesses / Trade-offs

• Cost: AthenaHQ is pricey. The plans start around US$270/month for Lite, then $545, then enterprise (often $2,000+), especially for higher usage, more credits, more features.
  
  
• Less built-in execution / action tools: While AthenaHQ is strong at diagnosing, benchmarking, and flagging, its action layer (i.e. automation / agents that suggest/facilitate execution) tends to be less rich than Goodie. For example, fewer integrated content-creation tools, or “build-this outreach campaign” workflows directly in the system.
  
  
• Value trade-off for smaller teams: Because of both cost and complexity, smaller teams may find more cost than immediate return unless they have resources to act on the insights. Sometimes you’ll need writes, developer time, etc., which adds overhead.
  
  

Side-by-Side Comparison

Here’s a handy side-by-side comparison of Goodie vs Writesonic vs AthenaHQ to help you make an informed choice.

My Pick

After testing all three, Goodie AI emerges as the best choice if you want serious GEO/AEO capability that covers end-to-end:

• You want to both monitor wider AI-search presence and act on it (content, technical, narrative).
  
  
• You need attribution so you can defend spend and show people what shifted.
  
  
• You need broad model coverage, geo/language breakdowns, and future-proofing.
  
  

Writesonic is still great, especially if your lever is content production or you have tighter budgets, but you’ll likely outgrow its lower-effort GEO features. AthenaHQ is clearly powerful in insight and benchmarking; ideal for strategy, but you’ll want to pair it with something that executes and shows ROI.

‍

Recommendations by Use Case

FAQs

What makes GEO different from traditional SEO?

GEO is about how your brand is seen, cited, and framed in AI-powered, generative answer surfaces (ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, AI Overviews, etc.), not just ranking links. It concerns visibility inside generated responses, source trust, sentiment, narrative accuracy. Goodie explicitly positions for GEO + AI Visibility + citations & narrative monitoring.

Which tool covers the most AI models currently?

Goodie appears to have the widest current model coverage among the three. AthenaHQ supports major agents, Writesonic is growing its coverage. But Goodie’s documentation emphasizes frequent additions.

How much does AthenaHQ cost?

AthenaHQ’s pricing is in multiple tiers: Lite (~US$270/month), Growth (~US$545/month), and Enterprise builds that go above US$2,000/mo depending on usage and credit needs.

Is Writesonic good for smaller teams?

Yes, Writesonic is among the more accessible options. Lower cost in entry tiers, content workflow is smooth, the GEO add-ons help. But you have to accept that some features will lag or require manual work.

What's the hardest part of GEO tools?

Turning visibility insights into execution (content, technical fixes, narratives) and then measuring impact. Also, staying up to date on what AI agents are doing (e.g. new model behavior, what they cite, new surfaces). Tools differ a lot in how much they help you do vs just watch.

My Final Take

• If I were running GEO/AEO for a brand with enough scale (content budget, team, global markets), I would standardize on Goodie AI. It gives you the richest set of tools to monitor, optimize, and prove value.
  
  
• If you have constrained resources, Writesonic gives you a lot of what you need, but plan for a bump in effort when you want to go deeper.
  ‍
• AthenaHQ is excellent for strategic visibility, benchmarking, and identifying opportunities, but you’ll want to have execution capacity (content, dev, PR) to take advantage of the insights.