Rankability Review 2026: Four Prices in Twenty Days

Rankability’s pricing page is unusually honest about what separates its four plans. “Every plan includes full platform access, unlimited clients, and unlimited users,” it says. “Plans differ only by how many monthly credits you get.”

Then it never says what a credit buys.

Update, 27 August 2026: the tiers are back, and the thing being metered has changed for the third time. Rankability’s pricing page now sells Core at $199 a month, Team at $399 and Agency at $799, and what separates them is daily prompts: 75, 150 and 250, alongside 3, 10 and 25 projects. Seats are unlimited on all three and every tier says full tool access, so the ladder is a volume ladder again. Annual billing is $1,990, $3,990 and $7,990, which the page calls a 17 per cent saving.

Three days earlier the same page sold one rate with no tiers at all. That is the fourth structure in twenty days, and each reading was correct on its day:

All four were found by the same automated freshness pass and none by anyone rereading this page, which is worth saying because it is the argument for having the pass at all. A review is reread when someone has a reason to; a pass has a reason every day. Everything below is the arithmetic of the 7 August page and is kept as the record of what that page said, not as a description of what you would buy today. What survives the restructure is the thing the first version of this review was actually about: the unit of what you are buying has been redefined twice in under three weeks, and a buyer who signed an annual contract in early August bought a ladder that no longer exists.

That is the whole review. Everything below is the arithmetic that follows from it.

Disclosure: EchoWi sells AI visibility measurement, so Rankability is a competitor in part of what it does. Every figure below was read from rankability.com/pricing on 7 August 2026 and is recorded in our verified catalogue with that date.

The short version

1. $99, $199, $399 and $799 a month, for 10,000, 30,000, 75,000 and 200,000 monthly credits.
2. The feature list is identical on every tier. Full platform access, unlimited clients, unlimited users. The page says so twice.
3. No credit rate is published anywhere. The FAQ asks “What are credits used for?” and answers with a list of workflows, not a price.
4. The entry plan pays 2.5 times more per credit than the top one.
5. One AI system is named on the entire pricing page. ChatGPT, once, inside the description of a different product.

What it costs, verified

Read from rankability.com/pricing on 7 August 2026.

Every one of them lists exactly the same four inclusions: full platform access, unlimited clients, unlimited users, one-month credit rollover.

There is a Monthly/Annually toggle advertising “Save 17%”. The served HTML contains only these four numbers, so we cannot tell you what the monthly price is. We are not going to derive it and present the result as a price we read.

The arithmetic nobody does

If credits are the only variable, then price per credit is the only comparison the page permits. It publishes the credits and the dollars on the same row and never divides one by the other.

$99 ÷ 10 = $9.90 $799 ÷ 200 = $4.00 $9.90 ÷ $4.00 = 2.5

The smallest customer pays two and a half times more per unit than the largest one, for a platform that is identical on both plans. That is a normal volume discount and we are not calling it a scandal. It is worth naming because the page’s own framing invites it: when you strip features out of the comparison, price per unit is all that is left, and the ratio is steeper than the tier labels suggest.

The unit that has no definition

Here is the FAQ, quoted whole:

What are credits used for? “Credits are used for tracking, research, content creation, audits, Serena, and other platform workflows.”

That is a list of the five products plus an etcetera. It is not a rate. Nowhere on the page does it say what one tracked prompt costs, what one audit costs, what one generated article costs, or what one Serena query costs.

So a buyer choosing between $99 and $399 cannot answer the only question the page says matters. Is 10,000 credits a month a lot? There is no way to know from the pricing page, which is the page whose job that is.

Compare that with how the rest of the market prices the same promise. Rank Prompt publishes that a prompt across four engines is one credit and each premium engine adds one, so you can compute your own bill before paying. Promptmonitor states prompts and responses per tier. Gumshoe prints personas times prompts times models in the table itself. Rankability sells the unit and withholds the rate.

To be fair to them: the FAQ does say you can buy more credits when you run out, and credits roll over for one billing cycle. Both reduce the cost of guessing wrong. Neither tells you what you are buying.

The AI visibility question

Rankability is sold as “SEO and AI visibility software for agencies”. Its Track product is described as:

“Monitor visibility across Google, AI platforms, local search, and video.”

“AI platforms” is the entire specification. Across the whole pricing page, exactly one AI system is named, and not in that sentence. It appears in the description of Serena, a separate product: “Your AI search agent, get found and recommended by ChatGPT”.

No Perplexity, no Gemini, no Claude, no AI Overviews, no AI Mode, no Copilot. Not as a list, not as a count, not as a footnote.

This matters more here than it would for a pure SEO tool, because the market it is selling into has settled on naming engines. Of the tools in our catalogue that publish a price at all, the overwhelming majority also publish which engines they cover, and several publish it per tier. Rankability’s page is a well-built, confident, agency-focused pricing page that answers “how many clients” and “how many users” without hesitation, and does not answer “which AI”.

We are not saying the coverage is bad. We are saying we could not find it, and we looked at the page whose purpose is to tell us.

What the same $99 buys elsewhere

Ninety-nine dollars is a crowded price in this market, which makes it a fair place to test the point. This table is the 7 August comparison and stays as it was read: Rankability’s entry is $199 today, so its row is a record of what that price bought then and not a quote you can act on now.

Three of the four tell you what you are measuring on before you pay. Rankability tells you something the others do not, which is that your whole team and your whole client roster are included, and that is a real answer to a real question. It just is not an answer to this one.

Note also that the comparison cannot be completed in the other direction. We can put Gumshoe’s 80 prompts beside Surfer’s 25 because both are prompts. We cannot put 10,000 credits beside either, because the page that sells credits does not convert them.

And that is the one thing three weeks of restructuring did fix. Core sells 75 daily prompts, which is a unit the other two rows are already written in, so the row that could not be compared in August can be compared now. It took the vendor four pricing pages to arrive at a number a buyer can hold against a rival, and the criticism this review was built on is the reason the change is worth noticing rather than a reason to keep making it.

Where Rankability is the right choice

You are an agency and seats are your problem. Unlimited seats on the entry plan is genuinely unusual, and it is the one thing that has survived all four restructures: it was true of the $99 credit plan in early August and it is true of Core at $199 today. Most tools in this category meter seats, clients or brands hard, and several scale their tiers on exactly that axis rather than on volume. If you have twelve people and forty clients, Rankability’s entry plan does not punish you for it, and that alone can decide the comparison.

You want one platform, not five subscriptions. Track, Research, Create, Audit and Promote are all on every tier. For an agency currently paying for a content optimiser plus a rank tracker plus an audit tool, a single bill with no feature gates is a real proposition.

You are content-led rather than measurement-led. The customer quotes on the page are overwhelmingly about content production and ranking, from agency people, several naming a switch from another content optimiser. That is the job this tool is evidently good at, and its reviewers say so in their own words.

Where Rankability is the wrong choice

You need to forecast the bill. You cannot, from the published page. If your buying process requires knowing the unit economics before signing, this is a demo call, not a self-serve purchase.

You need to know which engines you are measured on. If your board asks whether you are visible in Perplexity or in AI Overviews specifically, the pricing page will not tell you the tool covers them.

You want to pay monthly and see the monthly price first. The toggle exists; the number it reveals is not in the page we fetched.

What we could not verify

• The credit rate for any action. Not published. This is the central finding rather than a gap in our research, but it is still something we could not check.
• The monthly price. The “Save 17%” toggle implies one. The served HTML carries only the annual-billed figures.
• Which AI platforms Track covers. One name on the page, attached to a different product.
• The “500+ agencies” figure. Vendor marketing, unaudited.
• The customer results quoted, including a £12,500-in-one-month lead claim. These are G2 and Capterra reviews reproduced on the vendor’s own page, with no baseline and no control. They may be entirely true. They are not evidence.

Common Questions About Rankability

How much does Rankability cost?

$199 a month for Core, read on 27 August 2026, with 75 daily prompts, 3 projects, unlimited seats and full tool access. Team is $399 for 150 daily prompts and 10 projects, Agency $799 for 250 and 25. Annual billing is $1,990, $3,990 and $7,990, which the page calls a 17 per cent saving. Three earlier structures are on record and each was correct on its day: $99, $199, $399 and $799 by monthly credits on 7 August 2026, $199, $399 and $799 by tracked websites on 22 August, and a single rate of $99 per active client website with no tiers on 24 August.

What is the difference between Rankability plans?

Daily prompts and projects, read on 27 August 2026: 75 prompts and 3 projects on Core, 150 and 10 on Team, 250 and 25 on Agency. Seats are unlimited and tool access is full on all three, so the ladder meters volume and not features. On 7 August the same page said the plans “differ only by how many monthly credits you get”, which made cost per credit the only comparison available: $9.90 per thousand on Starter against $4.00 on Agency. The unit changed; the shape of the ladder did not.

What are Rankability credits used for?

Nothing now: the word does not appear on the 27 August page, which meters daily prompts instead. On the 7 August page its FAQ said “tracking, research, content creation, audits, Serena, and other platform workflows”, and never published how many credits any of those consume, so 10,000 credits a month could not be converted into a number of tracked prompts, audits or articles before you bought. The prompt allowance that replaced it is at least a unit a buyer can count.

Which AI engines does Rankability track?

It names eight in the selling copy and publishes no count. Read on 27 August 2026, the page names ChatGPT, Gemini, Google AI Overview, AI Mode, Perplexity, Claude, Copilot and Grok, which is a change from 7 August, when the only AI system named anywhere on it was ChatGPT inside the description of the Serena agent. What it still does not do is say how many any given plan grants: the plan table carries a Platforms row with the same logo strip on all three tiers and no number, so the entry count stays unpublished in our catalogue rather than inferred from an undifferentiated row.

Is Rankability good for agencies?

That is clearly who it is built for, and the unlimited clients and unlimited users on every tier are the strongest argument for it. The weakest is that an agency reselling this cannot model its own cost per client from the published page.

How does Rankability compare with other AI visibility tools?

It is priced in the same band as much of the market and packaged very differently: no feature gates, no seat limits, and no published engine list. Our verified catalogue has every tool’s price and engine count read from its own page on a stated date, including which ones decline to give a number.