Conductor Review 2026: The Enterprise AEO Platform That Names No Prices and No Engines

Conductor’s homepage says “Win in AI Search”. Its pricing page contains three tiers, twenty allowance lines, and not one monetary figure in any currency. It also does not name a single AI engine, model or assistant anywhere on that page.

That is not unusual for enterprise software. What is unusual is the number underneath it. The cheapest tier lists no AI search credits at all, and the tier above it lists 2,500 a year, which is about 208 a month for a platform whose keyword allowance on the same row is 5,000 tracked continuously.

Disclosure: EchoWi competes with Conductor, though barely: it sells six-figure enterprise SEO suites and we sell measurement from €29. Every allowance, tier name and absence below was read from Conductor’s own pricing page on 7 August 2026. Where we say a number is not published, we mean we could not find it on that page.

The short version

1. No price is published, on any tier, in any currency.
2. No AI engine is named on the pricing page. Not ChatGPT, not Gemini, not Perplexity.
3. The entry tier has zero AI search credits. The AEO product starts one tier up.
4. 2,500 AI search credits a year on that tier, roughly 208 a month.
5. Enterprise lists “2,500+”, the same figure with a plus sign, so climbing guarantees you nothing more.

What it costs, verified

Nothing to report, and that is the finding. Here is the entire published allowance table, transcribed:

Everything in that table is a number Conductor chose to publish. The one number a buyer needs first is the one it did not.

The AEO product does not exist on the entry plan

Read the second row again. Essentials lists no AI search credits.

Conductor’s positioning is AI search. The homepage headline is about winning in it, the company describes itself as an end-to-end enterprise AEO platform, and its own Wikipedia entry now lists generative engine optimization alongside SEO. The cheapest way to buy it does not include the thing.

That is a legitimate packaging decision and every vendor is entitled to it. It is worth stating plainly because the marketing does not: if you buy Conductor at the entry tier because you read “Win in AI Search”, you have bought a keyword tracker, a site monitor and a writing assistant.

The number that gives the game away

Now compare the two allowances that sit on the same Growth row.

• 5,000 tracked keywords. Tracked continuously, in the way rank trackers have worked for twenty years.
• 2,500 AI search credits per year. Which is 208 a month.

That is roughly 24 keywords tracked for every one AI credit, and the AI number is the only one on the page metered annually rather than as a standing capacity.

Split it further, because Growth also allows 5 tracked websites. If an agency or a multi-brand company used all five, each site would get 500 AI credits a year, or about 42 a month. Against the sample sizes this actually requires, 42 observations a month spread across an unnamed number of engines is not a measurement programme. It is a dashboard tile.

For scale, take a tool near the bottom of our catalogue on price: Rank Prompt at $470 a year gives 150 credits a month, which is 1,800 a year. Conductor’s Growth tier gives 2,500. An enterprise platform is offering under 40% more AI measurement than a tool costing a small fraction of it, and it does not say what it charges for the difference.

We cannot compute a cost per answer, because there is no cost. That is the second consequence of an unpriced page and it is why this review has no arithmetic table where every other review here has one.

Enterprise buys you no more AI than Growth

The Enterprise column reads “2,500+ AI Search Credits / Year”.

Every other line on that tier scales properly: pages analysed go from 25,000 to 125,000, tracked keywords from 5,000 to 60,000, competitors from 25 to 75. The AI allowance goes from 2,500 to 2,500 with a plus sign after it.

A plus sign is a negotiation, not an allowance. Whatever you end up with is decided in a sales call, which may well be generous, and is not something a buyer can compare before entering one. On the published page, the only line that does not improve when you buy the most expensive plan is the AI line.

No engine is named, anywhere

Every other vendor in our comparison names its engines, because the engine list is the product. Nightwatch names four plus three AI Overview surfaces. Rank Prompt names six. Scrunch names seven. Even the vendors that hide Claude behind an Enterprise tier tell you that is what they are doing.

Conductor’s pricing page names none. It sells “AI Search Credits” without saying which AI.

This matters more than it sounds, because our own measurements keep showing that engines disagree with each other, that markets disagree within an engine, and that some categories are stable while others churn every run. A credit that might be spent on any unnamed subset of surfaces cannot be reasoned about. You cannot ask whether 208 a month is enough without knowing what it is divided by.

To be fair: the engines are very likely named elsewhere in Conductor’s product documentation or in a demo. Our rule here is that we verify against the vendor’s own published pages, and we report what those pages state. The pricing page is where a buyer compares, and on the pricing page there is nothing to compare.

Where Searchlight went, and what it costs

conductor.com/searchlight/ returns a 301 to conductor.com/platform/, checked on 16 August 2026. Searchlight was the name this platform was sold under, and Conductor has taken it out of its own copy: across its platform, pricing and searchlight URLs the word now survives in exactly one place, an account identifier the site sets called searchlightAccountId.

So the answer to what Searchlight costs is the answer above, unchanged. The product is the platform, its pricing page carries three tiers, twenty allowance lines and no monetary figure in any currency, and the name you searched for resolves to that same page. If you are comparing quotes against an older Searchlight contract, the tier names will not match: Essentials, Growth and Enterprise are what the page lists today.

The shape this fits

Cataloguing this market has made a split visible that no vendor describes, and Conductor sits firmly in one half of it.

Tools built for AI visibility from nothing. Profound, Peec AI, Otterly, Scrunch, Rankscale, Superlines, Athena HQ, Siftly, Cognizo, Dageno, Rank Prompt, Evertune, Brandlight, Bluefish, Wellows and ourselves. They price by prompts or credits, monthly, and the engine list is the product.

Tools that already sold something else and added AI. Semrush, Ahrefs, Surfer, Writesonic, Nightwatch and Conductor. They price by the old unit, keywords or documents or pages, and the AI half arrives inside a plan you were buying anyway.

Conductor is the purest example of the second shape we have found. Its old units are enormous, its new unit is annual and small, and the entry tier omits the new unit entirely. The buying question that falls out of this is the same one the whole taxonomy produces: ask what the vendor was selling before, because that is what the pricing is still shaped around.

Where Conductor is the right call

You are a large organisation that needs enterprise SEO with governance, workflow, content operations and 24/7 monitoring of a very large site, and AI search reporting is a component of that rather than the reason you are buying. Conductor is an established platform with a long track record in exactly that job, and 60,000 tracked keywords with monitoring for a site of any size is a serious capability that most tools in our comparison cannot touch.

If your procurement process expects a sales cycle anyway, the absence of published pricing costs you nothing, because you were going to negotiate.

Where it is the wrong call

You want to measure AI visibility, specifically, and compare what you are paying for it. You cannot, from the public page. There is no price, no engine list, and an AI allowance that does not increase on the top tier.

It is also wrong if you need depth on a small set of questions. Two hundred and eight credits a month across an unstated number of surfaces cannot support repeated measurement of the kind our own data says unstable categories require, and Conductor publishes nothing that would let you check whether it can.

What we could not verify

• Any price, on any tier.
• Which AI engines are covered, and whether the list differs by tier.
• What one AI Search Credit buys. One answer, one prompt across several engines, or one report is not stated on this page.
• Whether unused annual credits roll over, which matters far more on an annual meter than a monthly one.
• What “2,500+” resolves to on Enterprise.
• Whether Essentials genuinely excludes AI search or simply omits the line.

That last one deserves its own note. We are reporting the absence of a line item, which is weaker evidence than a stated zero. We looked for it and did not find it, and a vendor that publishes nineteen other allowances on the same card has had the opportunity to state it.

Conductor versus the alternatives

Against the AI-native tools, this is not really a comparison. They sell measurement by the prompt and publish what it costs; Conductor sells an enterprise suite and publishes neither.

Against the other suites that added AI, Conductor is the least legible of them. Semrush publishes $99 per domain per month for its AI product, standalone. Ahrefs publishes an add-on price and the plans it sits on. Nightwatch publishes prompts and responses side by side, which is what let us derive its sampling rate. Conductor publishes allowances with no prices and credits with no engines.

For a named engine list and a price you can divide by it, that is what we build EchoWi for.

The honest summary is that this is a strong enterprise SEO platform whose AEO offering cannot be evaluated from the outside. That is a defensible commercial choice and it is also a reason it appears in this comparison with fewer verified numbers than anything else in it.

Every price here sits alongside the rest, each read from the vendor’s own page, in our comparison of every tool we verified.

Common Questions About Conductor

How much does Conductor cost?

Conductor does not publish a price. Its pricing page lists three tiers, Essentials, Growth and Enterprise, with detailed allowances for each and no monetary figure in any currency. Pricing is obtained through a sales conversation.

What happened to Conductor Searchlight?

Searchlight was the platform’s earlier name. conductor.com/searchlight/ now returns a 301 to conductor.com/platform/, checked on 16 August 2026, and the word appears on Conductor’s own pages only inside an account identifier called searchlightAccountId. Its price is the platform’s price, which is not published.

Does Conductor track AI search visibility?

Yes, on the Growth tier and above. The Essentials tier lists no AI search credits at all, so the cheapest way to buy Conductor does not include AI search measurement.

How many AI checks does Conductor include?

2,500 AI Search Credits per year on Growth, which works out at about 208 a month. The Enterprise tier lists “2,500+”, the same figure with a plus sign, so the published allowance does not increase with the top plan. What one credit buys is not stated.

Which AI engines does Conductor monitor?

Its pricing page does not name any. No model, assistant or AI surface is identified on that page, which is unusual: nearly every competitor treats the engine list as a headline feature.

Is Conductor good value for AI visibility?

It cannot be assessed, and that is the answer. With no published price and an unstated engine list, there is no cost per answer to calculate. If AI visibility is your main requirement, tools that publish prompts, engines and prices let you check what you are buying before you talk to anyone.

Is Conductor better than a dedicated AI visibility tool?

For enterprise SEO with large-scale site monitoring and content workflow, it is a different and more capable class of product. For measuring AI answers specifically, its published AI allowance is smaller than the cheapest dedicated tool in our comparison, and unlike that tool it does not tell you what you are paying or which engines you are measuring.