Siteimprove AEO vs Conductor (2026): two enterprise suites, neither ships the page
Siteimprove's AEO module has no public price; Conductor's median contract is about $49K a year. Both draft or brief content, neither publishes it. How they compare on real work.
The short version: Siteimprove Advanced AEO Insights drafts content against your brand and accessibility rules inside a governance suite, while Conductor turns AI visibility into briefs and tasks inside an editorial workflow. Both sit one step short of execution. A person still publishes the page, and neither documents a way to see whether an AI crawler fetched it afterwards.
That matters on a site that ranks tools by how much work they take off your plate. Enterprise suites are good at routing work. Routing is not the same as doing it.
Side by side
| Siteimprove AEO | Conductor | Promptwatch | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Category | Enterprise GEO platform | Enterprise GEO platform | AI visibility platform |
| Published price | Not published; demo and quote | Custom (median ~$49K/yr per Vendr data) | Explore free; Essential $95/mo; Professional $245/mo |
| Engines | Differs by page: ChatGPT, Perplexity, AI Overviews; other pages add Gemini, Copilot or Claude | ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, Claude, AI Overviews | ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Perplexity, Grok, Llama, DeepSeek, Mistral, Copilot, AI Overviews, AI Mode |
| What it does with a gap | Writing and Optimization Agent drafts content | Content briefs with GEO recommendations, tasks and approvals | Content Agents plan, write and publish to Webflow, Framer or WordPress |
| AI crawler logs | Not described | Not published | Agent Analytics with crawl-to-citation path |
| AI-referred conversions | Revenue attribution listed; own guide calls it an estimate | Not published | Visitor analytics via script or GTM |
| Trial | Not published | 3-week trial, no card | 7-day trial on Essential |
How Siteimprove works
Siteimprove announced Advanced AEO Insights on 20 April 2026 at Adobe Summit, as part of its Siteimprove.ai Search solution. The AI Visibility dashboard tracks citations and citation frequency, share of answers, brand sentiment, competitive positioning and content performance. Its agents run a structured prompt set repeatedly and record brand mentions and content citations separately, which is a useful distinction: being named and being linked are different wins.
You start from a suggested prompt set and edit it, grouping prompts by product line, region or buying stage. Then the Writing and Optimization Agent drafts content checked against brand and accessibility standards. For a public-sector body or a regulated enterprise that already runs Siteimprove for accessibility, that check is the selling point. The draft arrives already screened against rules your compliance team cares about.
Now the problems. Siteimprove publishes no price; the pricing URL showed a platform overview with no plan table when we read it on 20 October 2026. The engine list changes from page to page: the AEO page names ChatGPT, Perplexity and Google AI Overviews, the SEO platform page adds Gemini and, in its FAQ, Copilot, and the platform overview mentions Claude. And the launch release lists revenue attribution as a feature, while Siteimprove's own measurement guide says AI answers often pass no referral data and that attribution leans on indirect signals like branded search lift and post-purchase surveys. That's an honest guide. It is also an estimate, not AI-referred sessions joined to conversions.
Siteimprove's marketing says it replaces Conductor among other tools. We couldn't verify that, and this comparison is partly a test of it.
How Conductor works
Conductor is the older enterprise content platform, with AI visibility added to its Intelligence module. Its strength is workflow. GEO recommendations flow into the same briefs, tasks and approvals that large content teams already run there, with unlimited seats on most plans and a 3-week no-card trial, which is rare at this price level.
The price level is the catch. Conductor publishes no rate card. Vendr data in our catalog puts the median contract around $49K a year across 13 transactions, with implementation of $20K to $150K pushing first-year cost to 1.5 to 2 times the subscription. One G2 enterprise reviewer reported six months of configuration before full value, and another said the AI layer "doesn't yet provide the depth of insight we need to act confidently." You also can't buy the AI tracking on its own.
In agentic terms, Conductor diagnoses and assigns. It does not execute. Someone on your team writes from the brief and ships it.
Who should pick which
Pick Siteimprove if you already pay for its accessibility and governance modules and want AI visibility in the same data model. Saving a procurement cycle is worth something, and the accessibility-checked drafts are a real step past a brief. Get the engine list and the meaning of "revenue attribution" written into the contract.
Pick Conductor if a ten-plus person content organization already lives in its workflow and GEO is one more column, not the reason to buy. Budget for implementation.
If AI search is the actual reason for the purchase, neither is the obvious answer.
The Promptwatch option
Both suites leave the same two gaps: nobody ships the page for you, and nobody shows you the crawler side. Promptwatch closes both. Content Agents plan from a content gap analysis, write, and publish to Webflow, Framer or WordPress, with a review inbox so editorial and compliance can still sign off. Agent Analytics reads AI crawler logs from Cloudflare, AWS CloudFront, Fastly, Vercel, Netlify, Akamai, Google Cloud CDN or a custom HTTP source, and links a crawl to the citation that followed. Visitor analytics tracks AI-referred sessions through to conversions, which is the measured version of what Siteimprove's guide calls an estimate.
The price is published. Business is $579/mo with 5 projects, 350 prompts, 42,000 responses, 100M crawler logs and 30 AEO articles; annual billing is 12 months for the price of 10, so about $5,790 a year. Enterprise pricing with SSO and white-label exists for larger organizations. Either way, the comparison with a ~$49K median contract is not close.
Verdict
Siteimprove is the better fit for an existing Siteimprove customer, because its drafts respect accessibility rules and the module rides on a contract you already have. Conductor fits content teams already inside its workflow. Neither publishes or reads crawler logs, so for a program judged on AI search outcomes we would evaluate Promptwatch first and keep the suite for governance.
FAQ
Does Siteimprove's AEO module publish content?
Its Writing and Optimization Agent drafts content checked against brand and accessibility standards. The pages we read don't describe it publishing to a CMS.
Which engines do Siteimprove and Conductor track?
Siteimprove's pages disagree, so confirm your contract. Our Conductor listing names ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, Claude and AI Overviews.
Is Promptwatch an enterprise option?
Yes. Business at $579/mo covers five projects, and Enterprise adds SSO, white-label and dedicated support. Details are on promptwatch.com.