Pick
Goodie
Pick Goodie if you need broader AI platform coverage (11 platforms vs 0).
Head-to-head review · Updated June 2026
Goodie vs Lumar: which one wins in 2026?
Goodie and Lumar 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. Lumar is the more-funded incumbent; Goodie is the leaner challenger.
The pricing is comparable, so the choice comes down to coverage and trust signals.
The verdict
★ Our pick
Pick
Lumar
Pick Lumar if you trust traction signals — they list 7 customers, Goodie lists 0; and you want the better-funded company ($37.6M); and SOC 2 Type 2 matters for your security review.
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.
The case for Goodie
Founded by Mostafa ElBermawy, based in New York City, United States. They cover 11 AI platforms. Pricing starts at Custom (quote-based) with no free trial.
Goodie is an enterprise AEO platform that monitors, analyzes, and optimizes brand and product presence across 11 AI search engines including ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude, Amazon Rufus, and more.
What people praise
- Broadest AI engine coverage in the category (11 platforms including niche engines like Amazon Rufus, DeepSeek, Grok, and Meta AI)
- Actionable optimization layer that closes the loop between insights and execution inside a single platform
- Delivers measurable, defensible business outcomes — documented client results across conversions, citations, and traffic
- User-friendly dashboard with digestible metrics accessible to both technical and non-technical marketers
Where it falls short
- No free trial — only demos and a free AI Search Assessment, putting it at a disadvantage vs. competitors that allow self-serve evaluation
- Premium pricing with no published rates makes ROI justification difficult for smaller or budget-constrained teams
- Onboarding complexity and setup friction — not self-serve; requires hands-on support and operational discipline to get started
- Rapid product roadmap velocity creates a 'moving target' effect — users must stay constantly informed of changes
The case for Lumar
Lumar has raised $37.6M (Series B (Aug 2022)). Founded by Michal Magdziarz, Matt Jones, based in London, UK. On their site they list 7 named customers including Adobe, Deloitte, Motley Fool, Comcast. Pricing starts at Custom.
Enterprise website intelligence platform (formerly DeepCrawl).
What people praise
- Handles very large sites (millions of URLs) where desktop crawlers like Screaming Frog hit resource limits
- Renders JavaScript pages to capture client-side content, critical for modern stacks
- Protect app runs SEO QA in CI/CD pipelines to catch noindex or blocked resource regressions before launch
- Visual dashboards are clearer than Excel exports from competing crawlers and prioritize fixes by impact
Where it falls short
- Pricing is entirely custom, no public tiers, and reviewers consistently call it expensive vs competitors
- Steep learning curve, the UI is described as overwhelming and very technical for non-SEO users
- No competitor data inside the product, you cannot benchmark against rival domains
- Crawls can be slow on very large sites because of the depth of analysis
Pricing, tier by tier
Tier 1
Goodie
Explorer
Custom (quote-based)
- 3 seats
- 100 prompts tracked
- 10 optimization actions per month
- 3 AI engines (ChatGPT, AI Overview, Perplexity)
Lumar
Custom (modular)
Custom
- Lumar Analyze, Monitor, Protect and Impact apps available individually
- Technical SEO, GEO/AEO, site speed, accessibility and custom analytics metrics
- Pricing scales with URL volume crawled (estimated $2,667/mo for 5M URLs)
- Professional services and enterprise support
Tier 2
Goodie
Pro
Custom (quote-based)
- 5 seats
- 250 prompts tracked
- 30 optimization actions per month
- 6 AI engines (adds Gemini, Copilot, Rufus)
Lumar
—
—
Tier 3
Goodie
Enterprise
Custom (quote-based)
- 10+ seats
- 500+ prompts tracked
- 60+ optimization actions per month
- All 11 answer engines
Lumar
—
—
Feature parity
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.
Only on Goodie
- AI Visibility Monitoring. Tracks brand mentions, sentiment, ranking position, and top domains citing the brand across all 11 AI models. Segments performance by geography, persona, model language, and topic category. Enables competitive share-of-voice benchmarking.
- Prompt Research. Discovers the actual customer prompts used in AI search and surfaces visibility opportunities. Helps teams identify which queries they are and are not appearing in across AI answer engines.
- Agentic Commerce Suite. Tracks and optimizes product visibility inside AI shopping experiences on ChatGPT, Amazon Rufus, and Perplexity. A differentiating feature for e-commerce brands not commonly offered by other AEO platforms.
Only on Lumar
- Analyze. Crawls websites at scale with 250+ built-in reports plus custom data extraction
- Monitor. Continuous tracking across multiple domains with customizable dashboards and threshold alerts
- Protect. Automated SEO QA tests wired into CI/CD pipelines, catches regressions pre-launch
- Impact. Stakeholder reporting with industry benchmarking and commercial impact prioritization
- GEO/AEO metrics. Tracks how AI search engines surface and cite your site
- WCAG 2.2 accessibility audits. Levels A, AA and AAA compliance checking integrated into the crawl
When each one wins
When Goodie wins
- Platform coverage matters. Goodie monitors 11 AI platforms; Lumar covers 0.
- Broadest AI engine coverage in the category (11 platforms including niche engines like Amazon Rufus, DeepSeek, Grok, and Meta AI)
When Lumar wins
- You're enterprise and need to call a reference. Lumar lists 7 named customers; Goodie lists 0.
- You want the better-funded incumbent. Lumar has raised $37.6M, giving it more runway and shipping velocity.
- Procurement requires SOC 2 Type 2. Lumar has it; Goodie doesn't yet.
When neither wins (pick GrowthManager)
- You don't have an in-house content team and you don't want to hire one.
- You want one $999/mo invoice instead of stacking Goodie plus an agency.
- You need the team that measures to also act on the data, in the same week.
- You're a B2B SaaS, services firm, or e-commerce brand at $20K+ MRR.
Reasons to pick one over the other
Reasons to pick Goodie over Lumar
- More plan flexibility. Goodie offers 3 pricing tiers vs Lumar's 1, so there's a better chance one fits your team size.
- Broader AI platform coverage. Goodie tracks visibility across 11 AI engines vs Lumar's 0.
- Built for the LLM era. Goodie was founded in 2022, built around AI search from day one; Lumar dates back to 2010 and is retrofitting.
- What users praise most. Broadest AI engine coverage in the category (11 platforms including niche engines like Amazon Rufus, DeepSeek, Grok, and Meta AI)
Reasons to pick Lumar over Goodie
- Better-funded incumbent. Lumar has raised $37.6M, giving it more runway and shipping velocity than Goodie.
- More named customers. Lumar lists 7 customers vs Goodie's 0, including Adobe, Deloitte, Motley Fool.
- SOC 2 Type 2. Lumar carries SOC 2 Type 2; Goodie does not yet, which can hold up procurement.
- More verified reviews. Lumar has 101 G2 reviews vs Goodie's none on file, so the average rating carries more weight.
- Faster product velocity. Lumar has shipped 5 public launches in the last year vs Goodie's 1.
- More mature platform. Lumar (founded 2010) has had more time to harden the product than Goodie (2022).
- Wider integration ecosystem. Lumar integrates with 10 tools; Goodie ships 6.
- What users praise most. Handles very large sites (millions of URLs) where desktop crawlers like Screaming Frog hit resource limits
- EU data residency. Lumar is HQ'd in London, UK, which simplifies GDPR data-processor agreements for European buyers.
Switching from one to the other
From Goodie to Lumar
Export your saved queries and prompt panels from Goodie (most tools support CSV export). Most Lumar setups can import the same query list in a single CSV upload. Expect 1-2 days of parallel running so you can validate Lumar's data againstGoodie's; one to two weeks of full reconciliation before you cancel Goodie. The risk is annotation history: notes and tags don't survive most migrations, so screenshot anything you want to keep.
From Lumar to Goodie
Same flow in reverse. Export from Lumar, import to Goodie. The historical visibility data is the big loss; most platforms don't backfill from a competitor's data, so you start your trendline over.
From either to GrowthManager.ai
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.
Side by side, every number we could verify
| Goodie | Lumar | |
|---|---|---|
| Starts at (USD/mo) | Custom (quote-based) | Custom |
| Founded | 2022 | 2010 |
| Headquarters | New York City, United States | London, UK |
| Funding raised | — | $37.6M |
| AI platforms tracked | 11 | — |
| G2 rating | — | 4.6 / 5 (101 reviews) |
| Named customers | — | 7 |
| SOC 2 Type 2 | — | ✓ Yes |
| GDPR | — | ✓ Yes |
| HIPAA | — | — |
What real users say
Below: the recurring themes from G2, Capterra, SourceForge, Reddit, and case-study reviewers — distilled into the strengths and limitations that came up most often.
Goodie — what users praise
- Broadest AI engine coverage in the category (11 platforms including niche engines like Amazon Rufus, DeepSeek, Grok, and Meta AI)
- Actionable optimization layer that closes the loop between insights and execution inside a single platform
- Delivers measurable, defensible business outcomes — documented client results across conversions, citations, and traffic
- User-friendly dashboard with digestible metrics accessible to both technical and non-technical marketers
- Multi-market, multilingual monitoring with region and language segmentation — a differentiator for global enterprise brands
Goodie — what users complain about
- No free trial — only demos and a free AI Search Assessment, putting it at a disadvantage vs. competitors that allow self-serve evaluation
- Premium pricing with no published rates makes ROI justification difficult for smaller or budget-constrained teams
- Onboarding complexity and setup friction — not self-serve; requires hands-on support and operational discipline to get started
- Rapid product roadmap velocity creates a 'moving target' effect — users must stay constantly informed of changes
- Not a replacement for traditional SEO tools — lacks site audits, keyword explorers, backlink crawlers, and web search monitoring
Lumar — what users praise
- Handles very large sites (millions of URLs) where desktop crawlers like Screaming Frog hit resource limits
- Renders JavaScript pages to capture client-side content, critical for modern stacks
- Protect app runs SEO QA in CI/CD pipelines to catch noindex or blocked resource regressions before launch
- Visual dashboards are clearer than Excel exports from competing crawlers and prioritize fixes by impact
- Official Looker Studio and BigQuery connectors let you blend crawl data with revenue or product data
Lumar — what users complain about
- Pricing is entirely custom, no public tiers, and reviewers consistently call it expensive vs competitors
- Steep learning curve, the UI is described as overwhelming and very technical for non-SEO users
- No competitor data inside the product, you cannot benchmark against rival domains
- Crawls can be slow on very large sites because of the depth of analysis
- Limited live chat support, most help is async or via account manager
A third option
Both Goodie and Lumarare 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.
Other comparisons in this space
Same shape, different pairs. Pick a comparison that shares a tool with this one.
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Goodie or Lumar?
Honestly: neither one fully solves the problem. Goodie and Lumar 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 Goodie 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.
How much do Goodie and Lumar cost?
Goodie starts at Custom (quote-based). Lumar starts at Custom. 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.
Which AI platforms do Goodie and Lumar cover?
Goodie covers 11 AI platforms. Lumar 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.
Do Goodie and Lumar actually improve your AI visibility, or just measure it?
Both Goodie and Lumar 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.
What's the GrowthManager.ai alternative to Goodie and Lumar?
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.
Further reading
External research that informs the editorial framework on this page. We cite these openly because the framework is meant to be auditable.
- Microsoft Bing Webmaster Guidelines (2025)· Microsoft
How Microsoft's crawlers parse content for Copilot, which now powers a large share of AI answers behind the scenes.
- Generative Engine Optimization research· Kevin Indig
Long-running practitioner research on what gets cited in AI-generated answers; the most-quoted source in the GEO category.
- Zero-Click Search forecasts· Gartner
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.
- Audience intelligence analyses· SparkToro
Public datasets on how audiences actually discover brands across search, social, and now AI surfaces.
- Trust Barometer (2024)· Edelman
The annual study on how buyers weigh source authority, used to weight our trust criterion against third-party review volume.
Disclosure + methodology
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.