// COMPARISONS

Measured, not asserted.

Comparison pages are usually a rigged fight. Ours try not to be: each one opens with what the other tool is genuinely good at, states our differences as differences, sources every claim to the vendor's own public pages, and tells you how to check it without taking our word for anything.

// WHO WROTE THIS

We did — we sell one of the products on this page, so read it as an argument, not a review. What we can offer instead of neutrality is checkability: every claim about another product is attributed to their own public pages, dated, and comes with instructions for verifying it without us. Found something wrong or out of date? hello@citeworthy.io and we'll fix it.

// THE PAGES
Citeworthy vs OTTO (Search Atlas)

A broad SEO suite with an agent that pushes on-page fixes through a script on your site.

read the comparison →

Citeworthy vs Surfer

Best-in-class on-page content optimization for writers, built around SERP-derived guidance.

read the comparison →

Citeworthy vs Profound

Deep visibility analytics for AI answer engines — where and how your brand gets cited.

read the comparison →

Three, not thirty. We only publish a comparison we can substantiate from a competitor's own public materials — a page about a tool we have only heard of would be filler with a competitor's name on it.

// THE DIFFERENCE THAT REPEATS

Every one of these pages ends the same way.

We publish a measured verdict on the changes we make — d14 and d28, per change, labelled correlation and not causation — and autonomy is earned by those verdicts rather than asserted in advance.

It is the only claim we make on all three pages, because it is the only one that is structural rather than a feature that anyone could ship next quarter. You can also read the engine that produces those verdicts — it is MIT-licensed and public.

run a free audit see pricing