In Search Console, the Generative AI performance report is the tool to use to measure how your content is performing in generative AI features on Google Search and Discover (1). For a sceptical reader, the decision is which of those reports to read first and how to judge paid third-party tools before buying. Recala's own baseline recorded zero citations in 648 captured answers, which is an earlier reading that later results can be compared against.
Which AEO and GEO tools can I rely on in 2026, and what does each one show?
Sites that appear in AI features are also counted in overall Search Console traffic, so those clicks are already in the numbers you track (2).
For Bing, the AI Performance dashboard in Bing Webmaster Tools shows the total number of citations displayed as sources in AI-generated answers during the selected time frame (3). The dashboard also lists grounding queries, the key phrases the AI used when retrieving cited content, but that data is only a sample of overall citation activity. Bing's AI Performance dashboard also shows citation counts for individual URLs, which reflect how often a page is cited rather than its importance, ranking or placement.
Google also notes that conversions and time spent on site can be tracked in other tools such as Google Analytics, and that clicks from search results pages with AI Overviews have tended to be higher quality, with users more likely to spend more time on the site (2).
How should I judge third-party AEO and GEO tools before paying for one?
Search guidance from Google describes AEO as answer engine optimization and GEO as generative engine optimization, and says both are terms for work specifically focused on improving visibility in AI search experiences (1). From Google Search's perspective, optimizing for generative AI search is still optimizing for the search experience, which means it is still SEO. Before buying AEO or GEO advice or services, review Google's guidance on evaluating third-party SEO advice.
Use a third-party tool if it helps your workflow, but check its advice against Google's official guidance (1). Be wary of any tool that promises ranking success or claims to use internal Google metrics, since no third-party tool has access to Google's internal ranking or AI systems.
Recala's own practice takes the same line on measurement. Its concept notes say to report observed mentions and citations without promising a lift.
Why should I record a baseline before I trust any tool's numbers?
Recala measured its own AI search visibility baseline on 2 October 2026, before publishing its first article aimed at those questions. In that baseline, recala.co was cited zero times in 648 captured answers and named in the answer text zero times.
Capturing that zero first, with zero citations in 648 captured answers and zero mentions in the answer text, gives later readings something to be compared with. The baseline covers recala.co in 648 captured answers, so it describes Recala's own site and not any customer's results. Recala does not guarantee rankings or AI citations, so no tool output, including a rising number, should be read as a promise of future visibility.
Next step
Continue with Recala to turn this plan into a concrete next step.
Sources
Optimizing your website for generative AI features on Google Search, Google Search Central, last updated 10 July 2026developers.google.com
AI features and your website, Google Search Central, 10 December 2025developers.google.com
Introducing AI Performance in Bing Webmaster Tools Public Preview, Bing Webmaster Blog (Microsoft), February 10, 2026blogs.bing.com
recala.co
