What a GEO audit for crypto in Spain should examine
A GEO audit examines how AI search tools explain your project and what evidence they appear to rely on. For a crypto team targeting Spain and LATAM, that means checking project identity, product details, token information, security disclosures, and Spanish-language context—not just whether a brand name appears in an answer.
Start by defining what a useful answer should communicate. Write a short fact sheet that names the official project, its product, supported networks, token role if applicable, official channels, and current status. Mark claims that must not be confused with similarly named projects. This becomes the reference point for reviewing responses.
Scope the audit around audiences and decisions, such as someone comparing wallets, researching a protocol, or checking whether a project serves users in Spain. Include prompts that do not name your project: these reveal whether the project is surfaced for category questions, rather than only for branded searches.
A practical scope should identify:
- Which tools will be checked, such as ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Google AI Overviews.
- Which project facts and user questions matter most.
- Which markets and Spanish-language variants are in scope.
- What evidence and recommendations the final report must contain.
For the broader audit method, see GEO audit.
How to check whether ChatGPT knows your crypto project
To check whether ChatGPT knows your crypto project, ask a consistent set of branded and unbranded questions, then record the answer and any sources shown. One answer is not a reliable assessment: use varied wording and repeat the same prompt set when you review progress.
Build prompts from real user intent. For example, ask what the project does, which network it supports, how its product differs from alternatives, what risks a user should understand, and where official documentation can be found. Add Spanish versions written naturally for the intended audience; direct translations can miss the words people actually use.
Keep the wording neutral. Avoid prompts that assume the project is safe, leading, or already well known. Include questions that test important distinctions: project versus token, mainnet versus testnet, current versus discontinued features, and official channels versus third-party commentary.
Use a simple prompt log with columns for tool, market or language, prompt, date checked, answer summary, cited or named sources, factual issue, and follow-up. Keep the full response when possible, because a short summary can hide a qualification or attribution error. For a separate playbook on earning useful citations, read how to get your business recommended by ChatGPT.
Compare ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Google AI Overviews carefully
Compare AI search tools by recording what each one says and how it supports the answer, not by ranking tools from a single prompt. The audit should distinguish a correct answer with useful evidence from a confident-sounding answer that leaves a key fact unclear.
Use the same intent across tools, but allow natural wording where an interface or answer format calls for it. Record whether the project is named, whether the answer describes the right product, and whether the displayed sources are official, independent, outdated, or unrelated. When no source is displayed, note that rather than guessing where the answer came from.
A compact review table helps teams make consistent judgments:
| Check | What to record |
|---|---|
| Identity | Is the correct project distinguished from similar names? |
| Core facts | Are product, network, and token details accurate? |
| Evidence | Are useful sources visible and relevant to the claim? |
| Language | Does the answer read naturally for the intended audience? |
| User usefulness | Can a reader find a sensible next step or official resource? |
Do not merge tool findings into one score without preserving the underlying evidence. A difference between two answers can point to missing or conflicting sources, and is more useful when the exact prompt and response remain available.
Which project facts and reputation signals should you verify?
Verify the project’s most decision-relevant facts first, then check whether independent sources and official materials tell a compatible story. The purpose is not to make every mention positive; it is to make material information findable, attributable, and current.
Check the project name, website, product description, supported networks, token purpose, documentation, team or organization details that are publicly disclosed, and security information. For each fact, note the best source, whether that source is maintained, and whether other pages contradict it. Treat claims about audits, partnerships, listings, and availability with particular care: identify exactly what is documented rather than relying on a broad label.
Review reputation as a source landscape. Look at official pages, relevant editorial coverage, documentation, community discussions, and public project profiles. Separate an opinion from a verifiable fact, and distinguish an old announcement from a current product state. If an answer repeats a false association, capture the wording and source context before deciding what to correct.
For each finding, write a concise record: the statement, why it matters to a user, the evidence checked, the preferred correction, and the owner responsible for the next action. This makes the audit actionable for content, communications, product, and legal reviewers without asking any one team to infer the underlying issue.
How should Spain and LATAM be assessed separately?
Assess Spain and LATAM as related but distinct audiences: Spanish is shared, while vocabulary, local context, and relevant sources may differ by country. A single Spanish-language test can hide whether information works for the specific market you intend to reach.
For Spain, check terminology and examples against the product’s actual audience and local usage. For LATAM, avoid treating the region as one uniform market. Select the countries that matter to the project, then adapt prompts to the language and context a user there would recognize. Do not imply country availability, compliance, support, or payment access unless the project can substantiate it.
Compare what changes across markets:
- Product names and commonly used category terms.
- References to local availability, support, and user needs.
- Spanish wording that sounds translated rather than native.
- Sources that are relevant to the country or audience in question.
Maintain one approved source of truth for core project facts, then add country-specific notes only where the facts genuinely differ. A localized page should clarify the audience and offer useful context; copying the same page and changing a country name is unlikely to resolve a substantive information gap. If language coverage is a central issue, AI search visibility for multilingual projects is a useful related service area.
Turn audit findings into a practical correction plan
A useful audit ends with an ordered action plan, not a collection of screenshots. Prioritize a finding when it could misidentify the project, misstate an important product fact, or prevent a user from reaching reliable information.
Group actions by what can address them. A missing or unclear fact may call for a stronger official page or documentation update. Conflicting descriptions may require the team to align its own materials before seeking outside coverage. A reputation issue may call for a careful response supported by evidence, not a new promotional claim. Where the source is outside the project’s control, record the context and decide whether a public clarification is warranted.
For each action, specify the page or source to change, the exact fact or explanation to add, the responsible owner, and how you will check the change later. Keep recommendations concrete: “clarify supported networks on the product page” is more useful than “improve AI visibility.” Separate urgent factual corrections from longer-term editorial and digital PR work.
Teams can connect source quality and public context to online reputation management. If the audit surfaces broader positioning questions, a go-to-market strategy can help align market selection, messaging, and launch priorities. These activities support the audit; they do not replace accurate source material.
What an AI search audit cannot establish
An AI search audit is a documented snapshot and diagnostic, not proof that every user will receive the same answer. ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Google AI Overviews can vary their responses, source displays, and inclusion of a project as prompts, context, and product behavior change. A team can commission the agreed research and corrections, but it cannot secure a particular citation, answer position, or recommendation from those platforms.
This limitation changes how you read the findings. Treat a response as evidence of what appeared in the test, not as a universal account of what all users see. Preserve the prompt, tool, language, and check date so that another reviewer can understand the conditions. When a platform displays sources, inspect those sources directly; their presence does not by itself prove every sentence is supported.
The audit also cannot certify a project’s security, legal status, or product performance. Those questions require the relevant technical, legal, or operational evidence. A page mentioning an audit is not a substitute for examining what was reviewed and what the review covered.
Use findings to decide what the project can improve: the clarity and consistency of its own information, the usefulness of its documentation, and the quality of the evidence it publishes. Keep platform observations separate from conclusions about product quality or market demand.
Frequently asked questions
How do I check whether ChatGPT knows my crypto project?
Ask a repeatable set of branded and unbranded questions about the project, product, supported network, and user risks. Record the prompt, response, language, date, and any sources shown. Compare responses against current official materials and repeat the same test set later so you can distinguish a specific observation from a lasting pattern.
Should a crypto team run a separate AI search audit for Spain and LATAM?
Usually, yes, if the project actively targets both. Shared Spanish does not make the markets interchangeable: terminology, relevant sources, availability claims, and user context can differ. Define the LATAM countries that matter rather than treating the region as one market, and use Spain-specific prompts and sources for Spain.
What should I prepare before commissioning a GEO audit?
Prepare official URLs, current product and token facts, documentation, approved Spanish-language copy, and a list of priority audiences and markets. Flag facts that have changed or are often confused with another project. A project contact who can verify product details helps turn observations into precise recommendations.
How long does a GEO audit take?
Timing depends on the agreed scope: the number of tools, prompts, markets, and project facts to review. A focused assessment can be scoped as a defined research project, while broader country coverage or source investigation needs more review. Confirm deliverables and timing before work begins.
Can an audit guarantee that AI search tools cite or recommend my project?
No. Each platform controls its own answer generation, source display, and inclusion decisions, and those can vary across prompts and contexts. An audit can document the responses observed, identify information gaps, and deliver agreed analysis and recommendations; it cannot promise a particular citation, answer position, or recommendation.
Tell us about your project
Answer four quick questions and a manager will send you a plan, timing and a price range within the hour. Everything stays confidential.
Loading the form…