Noma vs Clearscope
Two AI search visibility tools, compared on what each one tracks, what it costs, and which problem it is actually built to solve.
- Clearscope tracks AI prompts on every plan, which older comparisons get wrong. Their pricing page lists prompt tracking across ChatGPT and Gemini to monitor brand mentions on all tiers, with 50 tracked prompts on Essentials at $129 and 300 on Business at $399. The claim that Clearscope has zero AI search features is false and this page does not make it.
- They also include unlimited users, which most of this category does not. That is the same position Noma takes, and it is worth noting rather than glossing over. On seats, these two agree and most of their competitors do not.
- Noma covers five engines to their two, 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. Clearscope publishes ChatGPT and Gemini, and does not publish whether the source page is captured.
- Clearscope is a content optimisation tool first, and that is the real difference. Its centre of gravity is helping writers produce content graded against what ranks. The prompt tracking sits alongside that. Noma does no content grading at all; it tells you where you are absent and what to fix.
Why AI search visibility needs its own tool
Clearscope built its reputation on content grading: analyse what ranks for a term, tell a writer what to include. That is a well-solved problem and they solve it well. What has changed is that they now also track AI prompts, on every plan, which makes the usual framing of this comparison wrong before it starts.
So the honest question is narrower than it looks. Both products can tell you something about whether AI engines mention your brand. The differences are how many engines, how often, whether you learn which page was cited, and whether the tool is built around that job or around the writing that follows it.
Everything said about Clearscope here comes from their published pricing page as checked on the date above, and this page says so plainly wherever their documentation does not state something.
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 Clearscope, feature by feature
| Capability | Noma | Clearscope |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | A tool built only for AI search visibility | A content optimisation tool that includes prompt tracking |
| Entry price | 14-day free trial, no card; paid plans after | Essentials at $129/month |
| Next tier | Custom | Business at $399/month; Enterprise custom |
| Free trial | 14 days, no card | 14 days |
| AI engines named | Five — ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude, Grok | Two — ChatGPT and Gemini |
| Prompt allowance | Not metered by plan | 50 on Essentials, 300 on Business |
| Team seats | Unlimited | Unlimited |
| Polling cadence | Daily | Not published |
| Citation source tracking | Records which page each engine cited | Not published |
| Share of voice per prompt | Against competitors you name | Not published |
| Content grading for writers | Not offered | The core product |
| 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 Clearscope’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 Clearscope fits
Clearscope does content grading better than Noma ever will, because Noma does not do it at all. For a team whose bottleneck is writers needing to know what to cover before they publish, that is the product. They have also handled the AI shift more sensibly than most of this category: prompt tracking is included on every plan rather than gated behind an upgrade, seats are unlimited, and there is a 14-day trial. A content team already paying $129 a month gets a real first look at AI mentions without buying anything else.
What it does not cover
- Two engines published, ChatGPT and Gemini, against the five Noma names. Perplexity, Claude and Grok are unaccounted for.
- Prompts are capped at 50 on Essentials and 300 on Business, so how much of your category you can watch depends on your tier.
- Polling cadence is not published, so how quickly a change in the answers reaches you is unknown before buying.
- Whether the source page behind a citation is recorded is not published, and that is what turns a score into a task list.
- Share of voice per prompt against named competitors is not published, so it is unclear whether visibility can be read question by question.
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 less opposed than a comparison page normally wants them to be. Clearscope grades content for writers and now tracks two engines while doing it; Noma tracks five, records the source page, and does no grading. If your bottleneck is writers needing direction before they publish, buy Clearscope and treat the prompt tracking as a bonus. If your bottleneck is not knowing which engines name you or which pages they cite, that is what Noma is for. A content team running both would not be doing anything foolish.
Choose Noma if
- Perplexity, Claude or Grok coverage matters to your category
- You need the page behind each citation, not only a mention count
- A prompt cap of 50 or 300 would not cover your category
- Share of voice per prompt matters more than a single score
- AI visibility should sit beside creator and paid performance in one place
Choose Clearscope if
- Content grading for writers is the job you are hiring a tool to do
- ChatGPT and Gemini are the only engines your buyers use
- You want AI prompt tracking bundled with the content tool you already need
Common questions
Does Clearscope track AI search visibility?
Yes, on every plan. Their pricing page lists prompt tracking across ChatGPT and Gemini to monitor brand mentions, with 50 tracked prompts on Essentials at $129 a month and 300 on Business at $399, plus unlimited users and a 14-day trial. Comparisons claiming Clearscope has zero AI search features are out of date.
What is the difference between Noma and Clearscope?
Clearscope is a content optimisation tool that added prompt tracking for two engines. Noma is built only for AI search visibility, covers five engines including Perplexity, Claude and Grok, polls daily, records which page each engine cited, and measures share of voice per prompt. Clearscope grades content for writers; Noma does not do that at all.
What does each one cost?
Clearscope publishes Essentials at $129 a month and Business at $399, both with unlimited users and a 14-day trial, plus a custom Enterprise tier. Noma runs a 14-day trial with no card, then paid plans, also with unlimited seats.
Can Noma replace Clearscope?
Not for content grading. Noma tells you where you are absent from AI answers and which pages engines cite instead of you; it does not score a draft against what ranks. Teams that need both the writing guidance and the wider engine coverage generally run both.
Which AI engines does Noma track?
ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google Gemini, Claude and Grok — five engines, polled daily, on every plan, with the source page recorded for each citation and the wording used to describe you captured alongside the mention.
Why does the prompt allowance matter?
A prompt set is how you describe your category to the tool. Fifty prompts describe a narrow product; a few hundred describe a real category with its comparisons, objections and variations. When the allowance is tied to your tier, the completeness of the picture becomes a budget decision, and the questions you drop are the ones you never learn you were absent from.
Clearscope is a trademark of its respective owner. Nurdd is not affiliated with, endorsed by or sponsored by Clearscope. Marks and product names are used only to identify the products being compared, and every claim about Clearscope 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.