Wellows Review (2026): AI Visibility Tracking Built Around Citations, Not Mentions

When we compared the AI visibility tools in August, every tool in the table measured roughly the same thing: how often an AI assistant mentions your brand across a panel of tracked prompts. Wellows is a newer entrant that argues the mention is the wrong unit. The number it leads with is the citation: whether a page on your domain is one of the sources the assistant actually pulled from to build the answer.

That is a useful reframe, and it is the reason the tool is worth a dedicated look. This review covers what Wellows measures, what it costs, who it fits, where it falls short, and where its job ends and the content work begins. Every price below was checked on the Wellows pricing page on 6 October 2026.

What Wellows is

Wellows describes itself as “The Result Crafter for AI search”. The pitch on the homepage is one sentence long: ask an AI about your category and a competitor comes back, not you. Find the answers you are missing, then get cited in them.

The company is young. Its founder and CEO is Masab Gadit, it is based in Dubai, and the AI search visibility platform in its current form was announced in February 2026. The site claims 6,341+ brands and agencies and names DigitalOcean, Cloudways, PureVPN and EY as customers. Those are vendor figures and we could not verify them independently.

It tracks five engines: ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews and Google AI Mode. Every engine is included on every plan. That matters because in the rest of the category engines are often sold as add-ons, as we noted when comparing Otterly and Profound.

What it measures: the Citation Score

Wellows reads each AI answer two ways.

• Explicit citation. The answer names your brand outright.
• Implicit citation. Your domain appears in the source pages the answer was built from, even if your name never shows up in the text.

Both roll into a Citation Score, which is the share of tracked answers where your domain is a source, and a Citation Rank, which is your position against the brands the engines keep naming beside you. The argument for leading with citations is that a mention is an output you cannot act on directly, while a cited page is a real URL you can improve, and a page that cites your competitor is a real site you can pitch.

Around that one metric there are eight working parts, and the site is unusually clear about them:

1. Unlimited projects. A project is one brand, one site or one client, with its own prompts, engines and score. A regional site reads as its own gap instead of dragging the main number down.
2. Citation-level tracking. The explicit and implicit checks above.
3. Sourced sentiment. How your brand is described inside the cited pages, not only in the answer’s phrasing.
4. Daily movement. Citations earned, lost, held or reworded surface the next day, down to the URL.
5. Performance history. Which URLs cited you a month ago versus today, for you and each competitor.
6. Content opportunities. Ranked pages to write or fix, checked against what you have already published so a new page does not cannibalize an old one.
7. Outreach lists. Pages that cite competitors but not you, refreshed daily, with a verified contact and a template.
8. Quick Wins. One card each morning: the page to write today, the outreach to send today.

There is also KIVA, a built-in writing agent that drafts a page against your own Google Search Console data, and a method the company calls C.I.T.A.T.I.O.N. that strings the eight parts into a loop. Google Search Console and a WordPress plugin are included on every plan.

One detail we appreciated: the sample report on the homepage opens without a signup. You can see a real brand tracked across five engines before handing over an email address, which is rarer than it should be.

Verified pricing (October 2026)

Wellows prices a monthly balance of AI answers rather than a fixed prompt count. One prompt, on one engine, checked on one day, spends one answer. That balance is shared across every project and every seat.

Every plan has unlimited projects, prompts and seats, all five engines, and a 7-day free trial. No annual pricing is published.

Three things to know before comparing this table with ours from August:

• The balance model changes the math. A $29 Otterly Lite plan tracks 15 prompts on four engines. A $29 Wellows Basic plan tracks 12 prompts on five engines daily, or 60 prompts on one engine, and you can shift that split mid-month. The Standard plan at $97 is the one Wellows starts new accounts on; it fits a 40-prompt setup across all five engines.
• The plan cards and the FAQ disagree. The cards put Content Opportunities on Standard and outreach, exports and history on Scale. The FAQ on the same page says engines, citations, sentiment, content work and outreach are on the $29 plan and the $497 plan alike, and that nothing is held back to sell the next tier. Ask which reading applies before you buy on a feature.
• Older reviews quote older prices. Third-party reviews from spring and summer 2026 cite a Lite plan at $37 per domain. That structure is gone. If a comparison you are reading mentions per-domain pricing, it predates the current model.

Who it fits

Agencies first. The unlimited projects, the shared balance, white-label dashboards from Growth, per-project reporting and the pricing-page calculator that works out margin per client all point the same way. Wellows wants to be the tool an agency sells AI visibility with. If that is you, the Growth plan at $249 covering six clients at 20 prompts a day is a direct comparison point against the enterprise-priced tools.

Brands that want a lever, not only a dashboard. The content opportunities, the outreach lists and the daily Quick Win are what separate it from a pure monitoring tool. If your team has been staring at a visibility number with no idea what to do about it, the gap-to-action loop is the point.

Teams on a budget who still want every engine. Five engines for $29 is the widest coverage at the bottom of the market as of this writing.

The honest caveats

Beyond the category-wide limits, five Wellows-specific ones:

1. No prompt-volume data. Wellows does not tell you how many people ask the prompts you track. One independent reviewer who tested it in July 2026 called this the most critical gap, and we agree: a 20% citation share on a prompt nobody asks is worth less than 2% on one everybody asks. You have to bring that judgement from your own keyword and conversation research.
2. Fewer engines than it sounds. Five engines is generous at the price, but Claude, Copilot and Grok are not among them. Otterly covers Claude as an add-on and Ahrefs Brand Radar covers Copilot and Grok. If your buyers live in Microsoft products, check that before you compare.
3. Short track record. The platform launched in its current form this year, pricing has already changed once, and there is little verified presence on the usual software review sites. Treat the case studies on the homepage as what they are: vendor-reported results from three customers over 34 to 68 days.
4. KIVA drafts are a starting point. The same reviewer found the content recommendations generic and in need of heavy editing. That matches our view of every AI writing tool: the draft is the easy part. The argument, the examples and the review are still a person’s job.
5. It is not an SEO suite. No keyword research, no crawl, no technical audit. You keep your SEO tool.

Where Wellows ends and the content work begins

Here is the part that matters most for a marketing team, and it is the same point we made about every tool in the comparison: measurement is not improvement.

Wellows is good at telling you which answer you are missing and which page would earn the citation. It will even draft that page. What it does not do is the rest of the production line: the review where a person checks the claims and the voice, the image that goes with the post, the publish to WordPress, the email and LinkedIn post that tell your own audience the page exists, and the landing page that turns a reader into a lead. Wellows said as much about Marqeable in their roundup of content optimization tools, and the reverse is just as true. Marqeable does not track or tune how you show up in AI search. The two tools stop where the other one starts.

So the loop for a team running both looks like this:

1. Wellows finds the gap. The daily Quick Win says a prompt your buyers ask is answered from a competitor’s page, and names the page you should write.
2. That becomes a brief. The target prompt, the angle and the pages already cited go into a brief in Marqeable.
3. An agent drafts, a person approves. The long-form post is drafted in your voice, reviewed with suggestions beside each passage, and marked Ready by a person before anything moves.
4. It publishes and gets promoted. The post goes to WordPress from the same workspace, and the email and LinkedIn post that announce it are drafted from the same brief and sent after approval.
5. Wellows proves the movement. Pick the two dates and see whether the citation share moved. Marqeable’s attribution shows whether the visit became a lead and the lead became revenue.

The dashboard is still the scoreboard. The page you write, the mentions you earn, and what your site does with the click when an AI-referred buyer lands on it are still the game. For more on that last part, see how AI search chooses its sources and how to get your SaaS recommended by ChatGPT.

Frequently asked questions

What is Wellows?

An AI visibility platform for brands and agencies. It runs your tracked prompts daily across ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews and Google AI Mode, and reports a Citation Score: how often your domain is a source in the answers, not just how often your brand is named. It also ranks content gaps, drafts pages with its KIVA writing agent, and lists the pages that cite competitors but not you.

How much does Wellows cost?

Verified in October 2026: Basic $29/month (1,800 AI answers), Standard $97 (6,500), Growth $249 (18,000) and Scale $497 (36,000), plus a custom plan above that. Every plan includes all five engines, unlimited projects, prompts and seats, and a 7-day trial. No annual pricing is published.

How is it different from Otterly or Profound?

It meters a monthly balance of answers rather than a fixed prompt count, includes every engine on every plan, and leads with citations rather than mentions. Otterly and Profound cover engines Wellows does not, including Claude, Copilot and Grok, and both have been on the market longer.

Does it improve visibility or only measure it?

Both, within limits. It ranks content opportunities, drafts pages against your Search Console data, and provides outreach lists with verified contacts. The drafts need a real editor, and the review, publishing and promotion still happen in your content process.

The bottom line

Wellows is the most opinionated tool we have looked at in this category, and the opinion is a good one: count the sources, not the name-drops, because sources are something you can work on. The pricing is simple and generous at the low end, every engine is included, and the gap-to-action loop gives a team something to do on Monday morning instead of a number to worry about. Against that, the company is young, there is no prompt-volume data, and the drafts are drafts.

If you run an agency, or you are a brand that has outgrown spot-checking ChatGPT by hand, the 7-day trial is cheap and the sample report costs nothing. Then do the thing the score is waiting for: write the page, review it, publish it, promote it, and turn the reader into a lead. That is how a citation becomes a customer.

See the after-the-click half live: Marqeable’s agents draft and publish your content, run your campaigns, answer and qualify every visitor with AI website chat, follow up through automations, and tie revenue to the exact message with attribution.

Marqeable runs your campaigns, answers every visitor, text, and email in seconds, and turns them into booked jobs and meetings - even at 9pm on a Saturday. We’re in private beta with a small early cohort. Get early access