Contently and Raven Tools both claim to do the same thing: tell you where your brand shows up in AI search. They go about it differently enough that the choice matters. Contently has raised $19.2M, Raven Tools has raised Acquired by TapClicks (2017); Contently is the more-funded incumbent; Raven Tools is the leaner challenger.
Raven Tools is cheaper out the gate, but Contently tracks more AI platforms. The right pick depends on which dimension matters most for you.
Pick Contently if you want the cheaper option ($500/mo vs $49/mo); and you need broader AI platform coverage (4 platforms vs 0); and you trust traction signals — they list 8 customers, Raven Tools lists 5; and you want the better-funded company ($19.2M); and SOC 2 Type 2 matters for your security review.
Pick Raven Tools if you want the cheaper option ($49/mo vs $500/mo).
If neither is right, GrowthManager.ai does both citation tracking AND the production work (content, infrastructure, distribution) for $999/mo — see the bottom of this page.
Contently has raised $19.2M (Series B (2014, $9M)). Founded by Joe Coleman, Shane Snow, Dave Goldberg, based in New York, NY. On their site they list 8 named customers including RBC, American Express, Coast Capital, PNC Bank. They cover 4 AI platforms. Pricing starts at $500/mo.
Enterprise content marketing platform with freelance creator network.
Raven Tools has raised Acquired by TapClicks (2017) (Acquired April 2017). Founded by Jon Henshaw, Scott Holdren, based in Nashville, TN. On their site they list 5 named customers including Voltage, Bear Group, Vertical Rail, True North Digital Marketing. Pricing starts at $49/mo.
Agency-focused SEO reporting and white-label dashboard.
What each one ships that the other doesn't. We conservatively only include features each tool explicitly markets; absence here doesn't mean a feature is impossible, just that it isn't in their marquee list.
Export your saved queries and prompt panels from Contently (most tools support CSV export). Most Raven Tools setups can import the same query list in a single CSV upload. Expect 1-2 days of parallel running so you can validate Raven Tools's data againstContently's; one to two weeks of full reconciliation before you cancel Contently. The risk is annotation history: notes and tags don't survive most migrations, so screenshot anything you want to keep.
Same flow in reverse. Export from Raven Tools, import to Contently. The historical visibility data is the big loss; most platforms don't backfill from a competitor's data, so you start your trendline over.
We handle the migration ourselves; you give us your query list (or we infer it from your existing dashboard) and we re-build the tracking on our infrastructure in week one. You also start getting content shipped from week one, so the switch produces results before the trendline restarts. The conversation that kicks this off is a 20-minute call.
| Contently | Raven Tools | |
|---|---|---|
| Starts at (USD/mo) | $500/mo | $49/mo |
| Founded | 2010 | 2007 |
| Headquarters | New York, NY | Nashville, TN |
| Funding raised | $19.2M | Acquired by TapClicks (2017) |
| AI platforms tracked | 4 | — |
| G2 rating | — | 4.2 / 5 (154 reviews) |
| Named customers | 8 | 5 |
| SOC 2 Type 2 | ✓ Yes | — |
| GDPR | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| HIPAA | ✓ Yes | — |
Below: the recurring themes from G2, Capterra, SourceForge, Reddit, and case-study reviewers — distilled into the strengths and limitations that came up most often.
Both Contently and Raven Toolsare tracking tools. They tell you what's wrong with your AI visibility. Neither one fixes it. That's our pitch for GrowthManager.ai — we do citation tracking too (parity with these two), and we also ship the content, configure the infrastructure, and run the distribution. $999/mo, managed end-to-end. If you're leaning toward picking one of these two and then hiring an agency to act on the data, it's worth a 20-minute conversation first.
Same shape, different pairs. Pick a comparison that shares a tool with this one.
Honestly: neither one fully solves the problem. Contently and Raven Tools are tracking tools — they tell you where your brand shows up in AI answers but don't change the answer. If you only need one of these two, pick Raven Tools for the cheaper monthly price; pick the other if its specific integrations matter to your team. Our actual editorial pick is GrowthManager.ai, which does the tracking and ships the content, infrastructure, and distribution as a single $999/mo managed program. Disclosure: we publish this comparison and make GrowthManager.
Contently starts at $500/mo. Raven Tools starts at $49/mo. Both have higher-tier plans for larger workspaces. GrowthManager.ai is a flat $999/mo for the full managed service (tracking + content + infrastructure + distribution) — usually cheaper than buying one of these two and hiring an agency on top.
Contently covers 4 AI platforms. Raven Tools covers an undisclosed number of. Most tools in this space monitor ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Perplexity at minimum; the differences come down to less-common platforms (Copilot, Grok, Meta AI). GrowthManager.ai monitors the same four primary platforms and acts on the data.
Both Contently and Raven Tools are measurement tools. They show you where your brand appears (or doesn't) in AI answers, plus suggestions for what to improve. Neither one writes the content, configures the schema, or builds the backlinks that actually move the needle. To do that you need an in-house content team or an agency. GrowthManager.ai is the agency — and we include the tracking, so you don't pay twice.
GrowthManager.ai is a managed AI visibility program. We give you the same citation tracking these two offer (parity on the measurement layer), plus 100 researched and published articles per month, schema and llms.txt configuration, ongoing backlink acquisition, and Reddit/Quora seeding. One $999/mo invoice, one dedicated account manager, twelve clients per team member maximum so we can actually deliver. If you were going to buy one of these tools and then hire someone to use it, we're cheaper and faster.
External research that informs the editorial framework on this page. We cite these openly because the framework is meant to be auditable.
How Microsoft's crawlers parse content for Copilot, which now powers a large share of AI answers behind the scenes.
Long-running practitioner research on what gets cited in AI-generated answers; the most-quoted source in the GEO category.
Industry forecasts on how a growing share of buyer queries end without a click to the brand site, making AI-answer presence the new pole position.
Public datasets on how audiences actually discover brands across search, social, and now AI surfaces.
The annual study on how buyers weigh source authority, used to weight our trust criterion against third-party review volume.
GrowthManager.ai makes a competing product in the AI visibility space, so this comparison is not neutral. Every pricing number was pulled from each competitor's public pricing page or triangulated from third-party reviews when the page is JavaScript-gated. Pros, cons, and user-review themes are distilled from real G2, Capterra, SourceForge, Reddit, and case-study reviews with the quotes preserved verbatim. We update this comparison whenever the underlying data changes.