The engines are already recommending tools in this category, and almost nobody measures which ones on the record. These files do, on a fixed protocol, with our own absence printed at full size.
Terry Carter built Namebeam, so read this as biased and check the public log yourself. We asked five AI engines one question a business owner actually asks: what tool checks if AI recommends my business. Every answer was committed to a public, append-only log the day it ran. This page publishes who the engines named, counted and dated, with our own absence printed at full size.
Six checks across five engines: Gemini, ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, and Claude, run 2026-07-24 to 2026-07-31, one prompt variant, results committed same day to the public NB-CZ log. This is a separate protocol from the twenty-answer Citation Ledger runs and the two are never blended.
| Tool | Checks naming it (of 6) |
|---|---|
| Semrush | 3 |
| Peec AI | 2 |
| Otterly | 2 |
| Mangools | 2 |
| SpyFu | 2 |
| Birdeye | 2 |
Named once each: Profound, Conductor, Athena HQ, Scrunch AI, CheckMyAI, Ahrefs, CabbageSEO, xfunnel.ai, Frizerly, SE Ranking, Finseo, PromptRush, search-visibility.ai. Namebeam: zero of six, printed here on purpose.
One: the engines do not agree. Only 6 of the 19 tools were named by more than one check, so checking your AI visibility on one engine is not checking it. Two: two checks recommended general SEO suites for a question that is not an SEO question; engines fall back to big brands when a category is young. Three: Perplexity cited Reddit as a source in one check. Where engines read from matters as much as what you publish.
On 2026-08-07 we checked the public website of each of the 19 tools from Edition 001, asking one question: does this company publish its own performance numbers about itself, dated, in public? Customer case studies and testimonials do not count. Funding posts and about-page counts with dates do count, and the table says which kind each one is. Collection ran on cheap research agents; we re-verified 3 of the 9 positive rows against the live pages before publishing. Terry Carter built Namebeam, so read this as biased and check every claim yourself.
| Tool | Publishes own numbers, dated? | What kind |
|---|---|---|
| Semrush | Yes | Quarterly financials (public company) |
| Peec AI | Yes | Growth milestones in a funding post, 2025-11-18 |
| Otterly | Yes | Launch milestone, 2024-12-18 |
| Mangools | Yes | 2018 traffic case study |
| Birdeye | Yes | About-page counts, 2023 |
| Profound | Yes | Series A post, 2025-06-18 |
| Athena HQ | Yes | Own study on 1,761 articles, 2026-05-28 |
| Ahrefs | Yes | Own index metrics, dated |
| SE Ranking | Yes | About-page usage counts, 2021 and 2024 |
| SpyFu | No evidence found | Database stats only |
| Conductor | No evidence found | Customer case studies only |
| Scrunch AI | No evidence found | Testimonials, undated client count |
| CheckMyAI | No evidence found | Testimonials only |
| CabbageSEO | No evidence found | Educational blog only |
| xfunnel.ai | No evidence found | Studies engines, not itself |
| Frizerly | No evidence found | Undated trust badge only |
| Finseo | No evidence found | Third-party stats only |
| PromptRush | No evidence found | Undated brand count only |
| search-visibility.ai | No evidence found | Studies engines, not itself |
One: 9 of 19 publish some dated number about themselves, but almost every one is a milestone that flatters: a funding round, a launch count, an about-page brag. That is publishing wins, once. Two: we found zero of the 19 publishing an ongoing dated series of their own performance, and zero publishing a miss at full size. Not one tool in the category that measures visibility for a living publishes its own visibility number on a schedule. Three: that gap is what The Receipts Standard names. We publish our own number from a daily public log, and as of this edition it is still zero third-party mentions and zero paying customers, printed here on purpose, again.
On 2026-08-07 we pulled the public Crunchbase profile of every fundable tool from Edition 001. Funding data is Crunchbase's, dated as shown on each profile, and can lag or miss rounds; we verified the largest claim (Profound) directly on its profile including the full funding table. Terry Carter built Namebeam, so read this as biased and check every profile yourself.
| Tool | Total funding | Last round | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conductor | $210.6M | $150M, 2021-11-16 | ex-WeWork, since spun out |
| Profound | $154.5M | Series C $96M, 2026-02-24, led by Lightspeed | Unicorn |
| Birdeye | $93M | Series C $60M, 2022-03-10 | 1001-5000 employees |
| Peec AI | $29.1M | Series A $21M, 2025-11-18 | founded Jan 2025, Berlin |
| Scrunch AI | $19M | Series A $15M, 2025-07-22 | acquired by Sitecore, 2026-06-03 |
| Athena HQ | $2.7M | Seed $2.2M, 2025-03-15 | Y Combinator, Bain Capital Ventures |
| xfunnel.ai | none listed | none | acquired by HubSpot, 2025-10-31 |
| SE Ranking | undisclosed | private equity, 2021-09-15 | amount not public |
| Otterly | none listed | none | bootstrapped per profile |
| Finseo | none listed | none | founded 2024 |
One: the smart money already voted. Lightspeed, Sequoia, Kleiner Perkins, Y Combinator, Bain, Sitecore and HubSpot have all paid to be in the category that measures whether AI names your business. The market is real. Two: consolidation started; two of the recommended tools became features of bigger platforms inside nine months. Three: cross this table with Edition 002 and the gap is printed in dollars. A vendor with $154M publishes a launch post; a company with zero dollars publishes its own daily number, losses included. That is not a moral claim, it is a measurable difference anyone can check, and it is the entire reason The Receipts Standard exists.
Whoever the engines name, that is who gets printed, us or not us.