[unCited]
ProductCitation IndexAI InfluenceBlogBook
[unCited]/Galileo
ProductCitation IndexAI InfluenceBlogBook
Claim profile →

AEO Score

0

Limited Presence

Avg Prompt Score

13

across 812 prompts

AI Share of Voice

13%

across 812 prompts

Category Visibility

#82

in UI/UX Design · of 110

Critical Issues

3

critical + high

Per-stage performance

🔍Discovery
529 category
Cited13%68/529
Share of voice12%avg
Engine consensus33%of engines
Competitors2.3avg/cited
Sentiment—no data
⚖️Evaluation
4 brand-level
Cited100%4/4
Share of voice100%avg
Engine consensus100%of engines
Competitors5.0avg/cited
Sentiment—no data
🛡️Trust
4 brand-level
Cited100%4/4
Share of voice100%avg
Engine consensus100%of engines
Competitors5.0avg/cited
Sentiment—no data
💰Conversion
4 brand-level
Cited100%4/4
Share of voice100%avg
Engine consensus100%of engines
Competitors4.8avg/cited
Sentiment—no data

Cited rate · share of voice · engine consensus · sentiment, broken out by buyer-journey stage. Sentiment is the net positive−negative skew across engines that cited the brand at this stage.

Categories Galileo is visible in

3
  • UI/UX Design81 of 110→
  • AI Applicationsnot yet measured→
  • Prototypingnot yet measured→

Executive summary

Galileo is already well-positioned to be cited for evaluation-stage queries because it has first-party comparison content (e.g., Galileo vs Arize Phoenix, Galileo vs Langfuse, Galileo vs Braintrust, Galileo vs LangSmith) and a publicly crawlable pricing page with explicit tiers. The single highest-ROI fix is to add/verify B2B structured data (SoftwareApplication + FAQPage for evaluation/pricing queries) and ensure Technical AEO crawlability signals (robots/llms.txt) are explicitly correct for AI crawlers, so the brand can win more “best platform” and “worth it” shortlist citations.

Based on audit of galileo.ai · Jun 3, 2026

Built for The Citation Economy