Noma vs Conductor
Two AI search visibility tools, compared on what each one tracks, what it costs, and which problem it is actually built to solve.
- Conductor tracks AI visibility and names its engines, which is more than most enterprise platforms do. ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini and Copilot, with AI Visibility Analysis checking your brand’s presence in generated answers. Copilot is a surface Noma does not cover.
- They also have a free entry point, contrary to how they are usually described. Their pricing page shows three tiers — Essentials, Growth and Enterprise — with a Try for Free option on Essentials and a usage-based model. Claims that Conductor is enterprise-only with no self-serve entry are out of date.
- What they do not publish is any actual price. The model is described as pay for what you use, with no figures for any tier and no per-unit costs. So the free tier tells you what the product feels like, and a sales conversation tells you what it costs.
- Noma names five engines and states the rest. ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude and Grok, polled daily, source page recorded per citation, share of voice per prompt, unlimited seats, 14-day trial with no card.
Why AI search visibility needs its own tool
Conductor is a mature marketing platform with deep roots in organic search, and it has taken AI visibility seriously enough to name the engines it watches — which, on this list of nine competitors, is rarer than it should be. It also has a free entry tier, so the barrier to seeing the product is lower than its enterprise reputation suggests.
The comparison therefore comes down to depth and specifics rather than to whether they compete at all. Four named engines against five. A usage-based price nobody publishes against a trial with a stated shape. A broad platform with AI inside it against a tool that does nothing else.
Everything said about Conductor 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 Conductor, feature by feature
| Capability | Noma | Conductor |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | A tool built only for AI search visibility | A marketing platform with AI visibility analysis |
| AI engines named | Five — ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude, Grok | Four — ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Copilot |
| Claude and Grok coverage | Yes | Not on the published list |
| Microsoft Copilot coverage | Not covered | Covered |
| Entry point | 14-day free trial, no card | Try for Free on the Essentials tier |
| Published pricing | Paid plans after the trial | None — usage-based, no figures for any tier |
| Tiers | Plans plus custom | Essentials, Growth, Enterprise |
| 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 |
| Team seats | Unlimited on every plan | Not published |
| Broader SEO and content platform | 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 Conductor’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 Conductor fits
Conductor does two things well that most of this list does not. It names the AI engines it watches, including Microsoft Copilot which Noma does not cover, so you can tell before buying whether it sees the surfaces your buyers use. And it offers a free tier, so you can form a view of the product without a procurement process. Underneath that sits a mature organic marketing platform with content strategy and competitive intelligence, which is a genuine consolidation argument for a team that wants one vendor rather than three.
What it does not cover
- Claude and Grok are not on their published engine list, so two of Noma’s five surfaces are unaccounted for.
- No prices are published for any tier. The model is described as usage-based with no per-unit costs stated, so budgeting requires a sales conversation.
- Polling cadence is not published, so how quickly a change in AI answers reaches the dashboard is unknown.
- Whether the source page behind a citation is recorded is not published, and that is what turns a score into a list of pages to fix.
- Seat counts are not published, so what it costs to give the wider team access cannot be established up front.
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
Conductor is a more credible AI visibility competitor than its enterprise-platform reputation suggests: named engines, a free tier, Copilot coverage Noma lacks. Where Noma pulls ahead is specificity — Claude and Grok on the list, daily polling stated, the source page behind each citation recorded, unlimited seats, and a trial whose shape you know before you start. If you want one vendor across organic marketing and AI, or Copilot is a surface you must watch, Conductor is a reasonable buy. If AI search visibility is the actual job, a tool that does only that will go deeper.
Choose Noma if
- Claude and Grok coverage matters to your category
- You need the page behind each citation, not only a mention count
- You want to know seats and cadence before committing
- AI search visibility is the job, not organic marketing consolidation
- AI visibility should sit beside creator and paid performance in one place
Choose Conductor if
- Microsoft Copilot is a surface your buyers actually use
- You want one vendor across organic marketing, content and AI visibility
- A free tier to explore matters more than a published price
Common questions
Does Conductor track AI search visibility?
Yes, and it names the engines: ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini and Copilot, with AI Visibility Analysis checking your brand’s presence in generated answers. Naming the engines is more than several competitors in this category do.
Is Conductor enterprise-only?
No. Their pricing page lists Essentials, Growth and Enterprise with a Try for Free option on Essentials and a usage-based model. Comparisons describing Conductor as enterprise-only with no self-serve entry point are out of date, and this page does not repeat that.
What does Conductor cost?
They do not publish figures for any tier. The model is described as usage-based, pay for what you use, with no per-unit costs for tracked keywords, pages or credits. The free Essentials tier lets you see the product; the price still comes from a conversation.
What is the difference between Noma and Conductor?
Conductor watches four named engines inside a broader marketing platform, with a free entry tier and unpublished pricing. Noma watches five including Claude and Grok, polls daily, records which page each engine cited, measures share of voice per prompt and includes unlimited seats, starting on a 14-day trial with no card. Conductor covers Copilot, which Noma does not.
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.
Can I use both?
Yes, and for a team that needs Copilot as well as Claude and Grok it would genuinely close the gap. Most teams will not want two AI visibility subscriptions, so the practical question is which set of surfaces matches where your buyers actually ask.
Conductor is a trademark of its respective owner. Nurdd is not affiliated with, endorsed by or sponsored by Conductor. Marks and product names are used only to identify the products being compared, and every claim about Conductor 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.