FOUNDER-LED SEARCH + AI DECISION REVIEW
They gained visibility. Decide if it deserves budget.
We test whether a rival’s Search or AI visibility reaches your buyers, what may explain it and which move—if any—is worth the budget. A decision you can defend, not another gap report.
A rival’s visibility is a reason to check—not permission to spend.
Free to start · No payment commitment · Engagements from €1,250
Founder-led consulting, not an AI visibility tracker. Best for: a decision about buyer impact. Not for: monitoring software or an ongoing AI visibility subscription.
Founder-reviewed by Pero BaldjievPrincipal reviewer of every SERPIFAI Decision Brief · See founder profile
WHAT YOU GET · WHAT YOU PAY · WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
SEO competitor analysis services compare real business alternatives across relevant Google results, sampled AI answers and the sources behind them. SERPIFAI checks which differences could affect a buyer’s choice, tests possible explanations and recommends whether to invest, investigate further or leave the gap alone. Visibility is a signal; buyer impact is the decision.
Which of these brought you here? A rival outranked you. Your brand disappeared from an AI answer. Your CEO wants a response. Start by testing whether those signals affect the buyers who choose—and pay for—your offer.
FIRST STEP · FREE
Bring four things: your website, the competitor signal, the market or buyer that matters, and the decision you need to make.
Next: submit the short intake. The review identifies FIT, ONE CHANGE or NOT FIT and whether a paid decision service is appropriate.
The form is free. Include your deadline so we can assess timing and fit. If paid work fits, the written scope confirms the delivery date before payment.
ONE NARROW QUESTION
Scope: one company or domain, one market, one offer and up to three core competitors.
Get: a bounded written decision, key supporting evidence, what remains uncertain and the smallest sensible next step.
You provide the decision, the relevant market and buyer, competitor candidates and any records you can share. No implementation or continuous monitoring.
A HIGHER-STAKES DECISION
Scope: one decision, one primary market, one primary offer, and up to five core competitors.
Get: a written Decision Brief, evidence and alternatives, ranked next steps, risks, spending limits and a founder walkthrough.
An eligible reduced Brief fee (€1,500 / $1,750) may be offered in your individual written scope. It is not automatic, and the free Scope Review does not reserve it.
Before payment, your written scope confirms the deliverables, needed inputs, delivery date, total price, applicable tax treatment and agreed revision terms. Compare the published service terms.
Unsure whether the gap matters? Try the free Gap check (six questions) — no budget or account needed.
Two questions. Two stages. The free Scope Review answers FIT / ONE CHANGE / NOT FIT. A paid review then explains what the budget should do, in plain language:
Whichever outcome fits, the written recommendation explains why—and what evidence would change the answer. Decision Check reports name these same choices Proceed, Investigate, Defer and Stop, in that order.
FREE GAP CHECK · SIX QUESTIONS
Check the strength of your signal before you ask for budget. Six choices, no numbers, no email and no assumed outcome.
Six questions, about a minute. You can skip the Gap check and go straight to a free Scope Review.
0 of 6 questions answered
ILLUSTRATIVE RESULT · NOT A DIAGNOSIS
Gap check lean PREPARE
Only your selections were considered. No site, query, competitor or commercial evidence was independently examined. A real Scope Review can conclude FIT, ONE CHANGE or NOT FIT.
Your answers stay on this page and are not sent with the Scope Review link. With analytics consent, only starts, completions and Scope Review link clicks may be counted—never your answers or result. Copying the note puts it on your clipboard.
Gap check — six illustrative questions about the Search or AI signal, with a provisional evidence-first result. It does not qualify a paid engagement.
Competitor Fit Challenge — checks whether a named company could compete for the same buyer. It is a separate free tool.
Scope Review — asks whether a bounded SERPIFAI decision engagement fits your actual question. The request is free and does not commit you to payment.
The check uses these ordered rules, not a hidden score. FUND means only a possible small, stoppable learning test after human verification; it does not approve a campaign. The check never retrieves real evidence or guarantees an outcome. The first question selects the scenario wording; it does not change the lean. A later rule applies only if earlier rules do not.
| Self-reported condition | Provisional lean | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| A publisher or directory is cited and a large or hard-to-reverse response is proposed | DEFER | Do not treat an information source as a direct competitor; investigate buyer influence before any major work. |
| A publisher or directory is visible with no reported buyer effect | IGNORE | Exclude it from the direct-competitor response; investigate discovery value separately if relevant. |
| A publisher or directory has reported buyer influence | DEFER | Check whether it influences discovery or referral without selling the same alternative. |
| It is not yet known whether the company sells a direct alternative | PREPARE | Qualify the buyer, offer and market before choosing a competitor response. |
| The company sells an adjacent, not directly substitutable offer, with no reported buyer effect | DEFER | Record what buyer evidence would justify revisiting the gap. |
| A large or hard-to-reverse programme is proposed | PREPARE | The self-reported check cannot authorize major work; commission a separate review or narrow the proposal. |
| Only one comparable observation has been captured | DEFER | Repeat the same buyer searches and prompts before treating the visibility change as persistent. |
| No proposal or budget decision exists, and no buyer effect was reported | DEFER | Record the signal and the evidence that would trigger a future decision; do not invent work. |
| No proposal or budget decision exists, but buyer influence was reported | PREPARE | Define the buyer question, decision owner and smallest reasonable evidence check first. |
| Repeated signal, direct substitute and small reversible test, with measured buyer evidence OR an explanation tested against alternatives | FUND (limited test only) | Consider a capped learning test after human verification; anecdotes alone do not meet this condition. |
| All remaining combinations | PREPARE | Close the specific commercial or causal evidence gap before spending. |
WORKED EXAMPLE · HOW THE DECISION CHANGES
Start with the same fictional alert: “A name appears in an AI answer instead of ours.” Four different evidence trails can justify four different responses. The apparent rival may turn out to be a substitute, an information source or an unproven signal; the alert alone cannot decide.
ONE FICTIONAL VISIBILITY ALERT
*Fictional illustration. These are example conditions, not measured SERPIFAI client observations or revenue outcomes.
Visibility starts the question. Buyer relevance earns the budget.
WHAT WOULD CHANGE THE DECISION?
Open Fund, Prepare, Defer or Ignore to inspect the evidence and what could change the answer.
Assume matched buyer queries repeatedly surface an actual competing alternative. The team can test one useful page improvement and stop if the evidence does not support expanding it.
FUND · Smallest responsible next step: Draft one narrow buyer-useful clarification, review it with the offer owner, and test it within an agreed reversible scope. Track whether qualified enquiries ask the targeted question; do not attribute sales changes to one edit without evidence.
Evidence boundary: Repeated buyer-stage evidence and either measured buyer consequences or an explanation tested against alternatives may justify evaluating a limited test; this fictional example does not establish revenue lift or prove that the page caused AI mentions.
What would change it: Stop or revise if the supposed buyer need is wrong, the test does not improve the specified buyer information, or an alternative explanation becomes stronger. Broader work requires a separate decision.
Suppose an executive shares an AI-answer screenshot and a ranking report. Neither record yet proves that the cited company competes for the same purchase.
PREPARE · Smallest responsible next step: Build a compact evidence sheet: matched Search queries, sampled buyer prompts, competing-offer comparison, possible causes and named unknowns. Decide whether a bounded test is even on the table.
Evidence boundary: PREPARE is not an instruction to launch a link campaign, rewrite sitewide content or commission broad monitoring.
What would change it: Move toward a limited FUND test only if the direct competition and repeated signal are confirmed, with either measured buyer evidence or an explanation tested against alternatives. Otherwise consider DEFER.
Imagine a visible AI-answer change during early research queries while the same offer still appears for purchase-stage searches. There is no approved response budget or time-critical decision.
DEFER · Smallest responsible next step: Record the query/prompt set and observation date. Recheck the same buyer questions when a defined trigger occurs, instead of purchasing immediate remediation.
Evidence boundary: DEFER keeps the decision open; it does not promise that the signal will stay unimportant.
What would change it: Reopen if the gap repeats for buying-intent questions, a sales conversation names the source as influencing provider choice, or a known decision deadline arrives.
Suppose an AI answer cites an independent directory. It is prominently visible, but there is no evidence it sells an alternative to the business or is influencing its customers’ final choice.
IGNORE · Smallest responsible next step: Remove the directory from the direct-competitor comparison. Do not authorize content copying or an authority campaign simply because it was cited.
Evidence boundary: IGNORE applies to this proposed competitor-response spend—not to the broader usefulness of directories as discovery or referral sources.
What would change it: Reopen if new buyer evidence shows that the source affects provider choice, the source begins selling a substitute, or a separate distribution decision becomes worth evaluating.
Fictional teaching scenarios only. No measured client data, guaranteed result, verified sale loss or approved spending is implied.
SEE THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT FORMAT
The public Asterline sample shows the longer decision-first format for a different fictional business problem. Its USD scenario amounts are not SERPIFAI fees or Search + AI performance results.
ACCOUNTABILITY · NAMED REVIEWER
Pero Baldjiev is SERPIFAI’s founder and principal reviewer. He personally reviews and approves each customer-facing Decision Brief before release. You can inspect the named reviewer and his professional background, read the decision methods in Research & Insights, and examine the public sample format. Previous professional experience is background—not evidence of results delivered to SERPIFAI customers.
We do not present fictional examples as customer wins or claim a revenue uplift without evidence. Inspect the evidence standard and corrections policy
KEEP THE EVIDENCE SURFACES SEPARATE
OBSERVED — seen in the sampled evidence. INFERRED — an explanation drawn from it. UNRESOLVED — what we still need to know. CONTRADICTION — two sources disagree.
NO CLAIM STRONGER THAN ITS EVIDENCE.Coverage boundary: Search and AI results can vary by query, prompt, market, platform and date. Depending on the agreed scope, examples may include Google Search, Google AI Overviews, ChatGPT, Gemini and Perplexity. These are sampled observations—not access to private ranking systems or a promise of permanent visibility. Page methodology reviewed 28 October 2026.
WHEN A FULL DECISION BRIEF IS THE RIGHT FIT
Which competitors, searches, AI answers and sources were examined—and why they matter to this decision.
Answers: what actually changed?What the evidence supports, which other explanations remain plausible and what information is missing.
Answers: why might it be happening?The recommended next step, decision owner, spending boundary and what would justify another review.
Answers: what should we do now?A portable brief connecting evidence to consequence so SEO, content, product marketing and leadership are working from the same decision.
See the Sample Decision Brief →CHOOSE THE RIGHT KIND OF HELP
SERPIFAI is decision-first competitive intelligence consulting. This Search + AI review is one focused way to use it. Choose a monitoring platform when you need ongoing data, an execution agency when work is already approved, and buyer research when interviews are what is missing. We will say when the right next step is elsewhere.
Already have an approved plan and need the work done? The separate Implementation Scope Review is the appropriate route. A Decision Check or Decision Brief is for the analysis and recommendation—not ongoing execution.
Comparing SaaS competitors on pricing, positioning or why buyers switch? See B2B SaaS competitive analysis for that different decision.
BUYER QUESTIONS
SERPIFAI compares companies a buyer could choose instead of yours across relevant Google searches, sampled AI answers and the sources they cite. The review records applicable queries and prompts, platform, market and capture dates, then checks whether the visible difference concerns the same buyer and offer. We test plausible explanations before recommending a response; being mentioned is not evidence of a lost sale.
You share your website, the competitor signal, your market and intended buyer, and the decision you need to make. We assess FIT, ONE CHANGE or NOT FIT and whether a bounded paid review could help. The intake is free and never starts a paid engagement. See the timing question below for deadlines and delivery.
Include your deadline in the free intake. We assess fit and practical timing before proposing paid work; the written scope specifies the delivery date, required evidence and fee before payment. Timing depends on markets, competitors, Google queries, AI prompts and access to supporting material. No standard reply window or turnaround guarantee is currently published.
The Scope Review is €0. A Decision Check is €1,250 / $1,500 for one company or domain, one market, one offer and up to three core competitors. The standard Decision Brief is €3,000 / $3,500 for one defined decision, one primary market, one primary offer and up to five core competitors. An eligible reduced Brief fee (€1,500 / $1,750) may be offered in your individual written scope. It is not automatic, and the free Scope Review does not reserve it. Your accepted written scope confirms the total price, tax treatment, delivery date and revision terms before payment. See current Services pricing and terms.
We separate what was OBSERVED, what is INFERRED, what remains UNRESOLVED and where sources CONTRADICT each other. We do not fill an evidence gap with invented confidence. A justified paid recommendation may be PREPARE or DEFER, while a free Scope Review can find that a paid review is not suitable. The agreed written scope defines deliverables and revision terms before payment.
They can be included when relevant to the agreed question. We record the exact buyer prompts, platform, market and capture dates wherever evidence is available. AI answers may change between runs, and a citation is not automatically an endorsement or proof of lost customers. We do not claim insight into private model ranking logic.
A real competitor sells an alternative that your buyer could reasonably choose for the same need and market. Publishers and directories may be visible without competing for the sale. See the competitor qualification method
AEO means answer-engine optimization; GEO means generative-engine optimization. Both describe efforts to improve how a business is understood, cited or recommended in AI-generated answers. Here we evaluate whether such work is justified. Content production, technical changes and ongoing monitoring are not automatically part of the Decision Check or Brief; implementation is scoped separately.
We evaluate each channel against the same buyer question, market and purchase stage rather than averaging unrelated visibility scores. A competitor may rank in Google while a neutral publisher is cited in an AI answer; those are not automatically competing sales opportunities. If the mismatch does not justify spending, DEFER or IGNORE can be the responsible decision.
SERPIFAI is newly launched, and we do not yet publish independently verified SERPIFAI customer outcomes on this page. The four Search + AI examples are fictional teaching scenarios, and the Asterline Sample Decision Brief is a fictional example of the output format for a different decision. Meet the named reviewer, inspect the methods in Research & Insights and read the Trust Centre evidence policy. We publish actual SERPIFAI customer outcomes only when supported and authorized.
ONE GAP · ONE DEFENSIBLE DECISION
Bring one competitor gap. We’ll first check whether a decision review is the right fit—before you buy anything.
Free Scope Review · no payment commitment.
Selected implementation · optional
If Search or website work is already approved, we can review the smallest responsible implementation.
Separate free Implementation Scope Review · no payment to request