Source: boringmarketing.com AI-visibility audit citation tests (2026-07). Query "What should buyers compare when evaluating free versus paid real-time intelligence dashboard alternatives?" → worldmonitor.app cited by 0/4 AI platforms (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini). The other three query families score 2-3/4. Third-party publishers (darkwebinformer.com, linkedin.com threads) take the comparison/setup citations instead.

Gap

We have no page that answers comparison intent. Closest is the blog post "worldmonitor-vs-traditional-intelligence-tools" (brand-vs-category, not free-vs-paid). The audit's format guidance: comparison/alternatives pages, structured proof, stats, question-headed sections, answer capsules.

Fix

Add a comparison post to blog-site/src/content/blog/ (deploy-generated static HTML, already in sitemap pipeline with JSON-LD, bylines, visible dates):

• Slug: free-vs-paid-real-time-intelligence-dashboards
• Lead with a quotable answer capsule (2-3 sentence direct answer)
• Comparison tables: what free tiers actually include (data layers, refresh rates, API/MCP access, alerting) vs paid tiers, across the category
• Question-headed H2s matching buyer queries ("What does a free intelligence dashboard include?", "When is paid worth it?", "What should you compare?")
• Concrete stats (data-point density was 0.7/100 words site-wide; audit recommends higher)
• Pricing facts must match convex/config/productCatalog / live pricing.md (pricing bullets are generated — do not invent numbers)

Related: #4960 (crawlable content corpus — this is one concrete high-value page of that program; comparison intent is not covered by #4960's programmatic country/chokepoint/glossary scope).