Noma vs AirOps
Two AI search visibility tools, compared on what each one tracks, what it costs, and which problem it is actually built to solve.
- AirOps does track AI prompts, but its centre of gravity is content production. Solo tracks 100 prompts and pages with ChatGPT insights only. Pro tracks 250 across multiple engines. Enterprise is custom with regions, personas and languages. Around that sits a content operations platform built for volume.
- They publish no prices for any tier. Solo, Pro and Enterprise are listed with feature differences and no figures. Noma runs a 14-day trial with no card, so you can establish the cost and the value in the same fortnight.
- Noma names five engines and records what was cited. ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude and Grok, polled daily, with the page behind each citation recorded and share of voice measured per prompt. AirOps names Google, Perplexity, OpenAI and Google AI Studio on Pro, and ChatGPT alone on Solo.
- On seats they are closer than most. AirOps includes unlimited seats on Pro and Enterprise, single-user access on Solo. Noma includes unlimited on every plan. Neither charges per head once you are past the entry tier, which is not true of most of this category.
Why AI search visibility needs its own tool
AirOps sits at a different layer of the same workflow. Its Quill agent, Grids and Brand Kits exist to produce and govern content at volume, and its prompt tracking exists to point that production somewhere useful. Noma has no content production at all; it tells you where you are absent and which pages engines cite instead of you.
That makes this less of a head-to-head than most pages on this site, and the honest version of it says so. The overlap is real — both track prompts across AI engines — but the products are shaped around different bottlenecks.
Everything said about AirOps here comes from their published pricing page as checked on the date above. On price that page states nothing, and this comparison says so rather than estimating.
What to look for in an AI visibility tool
Four questions separate tools that change what a team does from tools that add a dashboard. They are worth asking of both products below, and of whatever you are using today.
Engine coverage and cadence
A tool that watches four engines cannot tell you about the fifth, and an infrequent reading cannot separate a real shift from noise. Ask which engines are covered and how often each is polled before anything else.
Mentions versus citations
Knowing you were mentioned is a score. Knowing which page the engine drew on is a task list. If a marketplace listing is cited instead of your own product page, that is a fixable problem you cannot see from mention counts alone.
Prompts, not keywords
Nobody types "best sunscreen oily skin india" into an assistant; they ask a question. A prompt set assembled from real customer questions gives a different — and more honest — visibility picture than one derived from a keyword export.
Recommendations you can action
Most tools in this category are good at telling you that you are absent. The useful ones tell you why, and rank the fixes by expected impact so a content team knows what to write first.
Noma vs AirOps, feature by feature
| Capability | Noma | AirOps |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | A tool built only for AI search visibility | A content operations platform that tracks prompts |
| Published pricing | 14-day free trial, no card; paid plans after | None — Solo, Pro and Enterprise listed with no figures |
| Engines on the entry tier | Five — ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude, Grok | ChatGPT insights only, on Solo |
| Engines on the next tier | Five, the same on every plan | Google, Perplexity, OpenAI and Google AI Studio, on Pro |
| Claude and Grok coverage | Yes | Not on the published list |
| Tracked prompts | Not metered by plan | 100 on Solo, 250 on Pro, custom on Enterprise |
| Team seats | Unlimited on every plan | Single user on Solo; unlimited on Pro and Enterprise |
| Polling cadence | Daily | Not published |
| Citation source tracking | Records which page each engine cited | Not published |
| Content production at volume | Not offered | The core product — Quill, Grids, Brand Kits |
| Regions, personas and languages | Not offered | On Enterprise |
| Creator marketing | Included via Nia — free, 10M+ profiles | Not offered |
| Paid media analysis | Included via Pulse — Google and Meta Ads | Not offered |
Rows come from AirOps’s public pricing and product pages as checked at publication. “Not published” means their documentation does not state a position, not that the answer is bad. “Not offered” means outside the product’s stated scope, and a row saying so is a note about what each one sets out to do rather than a criticism.
Where Noma fits
Noma runs your category prompts against ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude and Grok on a schedule and records whether your brand is named in the answer each one generates. Five engines, polled daily — the fifth being Grok, which most tools in this category do not cover.
Being mentioned is only half the reading. When an engine cites a page, Noma records which page: your own site, a marketplace listing, a review roundup, or a competitor’s blog. That is the difference between knowing you are invisible and knowing what to do about it. Alongside the mention it captures the wording used to describe you, because being named as a budget option is a different outcome to being named as the category leader.
Share of voice is measured per prompt rather than as one site-wide number, because visibility is never uniform across a category — most brands are strong on a handful of questions and absent on the rest. The prompt set is built from questions customers actually ask rather than from a keyword list, and the recommendations that come back are ranked by expected impact: the pages to write, the wording to fix, the structured data to add.
Noma also sits on one platform with Nia for creator marketing and Pulse for paid media, so AI visibility can be read next to the channels competing with it for budget. Whether that matters depends entirely on whether you have those problems too.
What Noma actually measures
The rest of the platform: Noma for AI search visibility, Nia for creator marketing and attribution, Pulse for Google and Meta Ads — or how the three apply in your category.
Where AirOps fits
AirOps solves a problem Noma does not touch. If your bottleneck is producing and governing a large volume of content — repeatable playbooks, structured workflows, brand consistency enforced across everything that ships — that is what Quill, Grids and Brand Kits are for, and Noma has no answer to any of it. Their prompt tracking is a sensible complement to that work rather than a bolt-on, and unlimited seats on Pro means the production team is not metered. Multi-region, persona and language tracking on Enterprise is also more than most of this category offers.
What it does not cover
- No prices are published for any tier, so the cost cannot be compared without a sales conversation.
- The entry tier tracks ChatGPT only and allows a single user, so the first thing you can see is the narrowest possible view.
- Claude and Grok are not on the published engine list.
- Tracked prompts are capped at 100 and 250, so how much of your category you can watch depends on your tier.
- Polling cadence and whether the source page behind a citation is recorded are both unpublished.
Which one your team actually needs
Category presence, before it is gone
AI answers name two or three brands and stop. There is no tenth position to occupy and no long tail to fall back on — you are in the answer or you are not in the consideration set at all. The number worth reporting upward is share of voice across the questions customers actually ask, tracked over time, because it moves slowly and then all at once.
A discipline that diverges from ranking
AEO shares fundamentals with SEO — crawlability, structured data, credible sources — then parts company on what counts as success. A page can rank third for a keyword and never be named by an engine answering the same question. Measuring the two with one tool produces a confident answer to the wrong question.
What to write, in what order
Citation source data turns AEO from a theory into a queue. If engines are quoting a review roundup for your category, the work is getting into that roundup. If they are quoting a competitor’s comparison page, the work is writing a better one. Both are concrete; a visibility score is not.
The cost of finding out
For a brand that has not yet established whether AI search matters in its category, the first question is what it costs to find out. A trial that needs no card answers that in a fortnight. A monthly commitment answers it in a procurement cycle.
What a rollout looks like
AI visibility is not a switch. This is the sequence that gets a team from “we think we are missing from these answers” to a trend a content team can work against.
Phase 1 — Baseline
Week 1–2- Build the prompt set
Start from the questions customers ask in your category rather than from a keyword export. Twenty good prompts beat two hundred derived ones.
- Name the competitors you care about
Share of voice is only meaningful against a defined set. Pick the brands you actually lose to.
- Take the first reading
Establish where you appear, where you do not, and which sources engines cite instead of you. This is the number everything after is measured against.
Phase 2 — Fix the sources
Week 3–8- Answer the question in the first two sentences
Engines quote what is quotable. A page that opens with positioning and reaches the answer in paragraph six will not be cited.
- State facts that can be verified and attributed
Add the structured data that lets an engine attribute a claim to your brand rather than to whoever restated it.
- Get into the roundups engines already cite
If a third-party comparison is the source for your category, being absent from it is the whole problem. That is outreach work, not on-page work.
Phase 3 — Hold and widen
Ongoing- Read the trend weekly, not daily
Answers move as models and their sources update. Weekly is enough to tell a shift from noise in most categories.
- Widen the prompt set as the category moves
New questions appear. A prompt set fixed at launch slowly stops describing the category it was built for.
- Judge it against the rest of the budget
Nia for creator and Pulse for paid sit on the same platform, so AI visibility can be read next to the channels competing with it for spend.
The verdict
These two are complements far more often than they are alternatives, and a comparison page that pretended otherwise would be selling rather than comparing. Noma tells you which questions you are absent from and which pages engines cite instead of you. AirOps is built to then produce the content at volume, with governance. If your bottleneck is knowing what to write, start with Noma. If it is writing enough of it consistently, start with AirOps. Teams doing serious AI search work at scale will plausibly want both.
Choose Noma if
- Knowing where you are absent is the bottleneck, not producing content
- Claude and Grok coverage matters to your category
- You need the page behind each citation, not only a mention count
- You want a price and a trial rather than a sales conversation
- AI visibility should sit beside creator and paid performance in one place
Choose AirOps if
- Producing and governing content at volume is the actual bottleneck
- You need multi-region, persona or multi-language tracking
- Brand governance across everything that ships matters more than engine breadth
Common questions
Is AirOps an alternative to Noma?
Usually not. AirOps is a content operations platform that also tracks prompts; Noma is built only for AI search visibility. The overlap is real but narrow. Teams often want both: Noma to identify which questions they are absent from and which pages engines cite, AirOps to produce the content that closes those gaps at volume.
What does AirOps cost?
Their pricing page lists Solo, Pro and Enterprise with no published figures for any of them. Enterprise requires contacting sales. Solo includes 100 tracked prompts with ChatGPT insights only and single-user access; Pro includes 250 tracked prompts, multi-engine insights and unlimited seats.
Which AI engines does each one track?
Noma names five — ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude and Grok — polled daily on every plan. AirOps publishes ChatGPT insights only on Solo, and Google, Perplexity, OpenAI and Google AI Studio on Pro. Claude and Grok are not on their published list.
Can Noma produce content?
No. Noma tells you which prompts you are absent from, which pages engines cite instead of you, and ranks the fixes by expected impact. Writing and shipping that content is your team’s job, or a tool like AirOps. Noma is deliberately the intelligence layer rather than the production one.
Why does the tracked prompt limit matter?
A prompt set is how you describe your category to the tool. A hundred prompts describe a narrow product; a real category with its comparisons, objections and variations usually needs more. When the allowance is tied to your tier, the completeness of the picture becomes a budget decision.
Does Noma have unlimited seats?
Yes, on every plan. AirOps also includes unlimited seats on Pro and Enterprise, though Solo is single-user. On this point the two are closer than most of the category, where per-seat fees are the norm.
AirOps is a trademark of its respective owner. Nurdd is not affiliated with, endorsed by or sponsored by AirOps. Marks and product names are used only to identify the products being compared, and every claim about AirOps was taken from their own public pages on the date shown above.
Other comparisons
Find out whether AI engines name you
Build your prompt set and see your first visibility report inside the trial. Fourteen days, no credit card.