Key takeaways
- Otterly.AI was the cheapest entry point at $29/month, but its feature set reflected that price: basic monitoring, limited LLM coverage, no content tools.
- Peec.ai sat in the mid-market at around €89/month (~$103), offering cleaner analytics and competitive tracking but still no content generation.
- Profound priced itself as an enterprise tool starting around $499/month -- powerful data, but monitoring-only and expensive for most teams.
- Promptwatch offered the most complete feature set at $99-$579/month depending on tier, and was the only platform in this group that combined tracking with content generation and traffic attribution.
- Price alone doesn't tell the full story. A $29/month tool that shows you a problem but gives you nothing to fix it may cost more in the long run than a $249/month tool that closes the loop.
The AI visibility platform market in 2025 was a mess in the best possible way. New tools launched every few weeks, pricing changed constantly, and buyers had to figure out what they were actually getting for their money. Four platforms kept coming up in almost every comparison thread and buyer conversation: Promptwatch, Profound, Peec.ai, and Otterly.AI.
This guide is a retrospective look at what those platforms actually charged in 2025, what each tier included, and -- honestly -- where the value held up and where it didn't. If you're making a buying decision now in 2026, this context matters because pricing structures and feature sets from 2025 still shape how these tools are positioned today.
How the market was structured in 2025
Before getting into individual platforms, it's worth understanding how the category split itself. By mid-2025, there were roughly three types of AI visibility tools:
- Monitoring-only dashboards: Track where your brand appears in AI responses. Show you data. Stop there.
- Monitoring + light optimization: Add some competitive analysis, prompt tracking, maybe basic recommendations.
- Full-loop platforms: Monitor visibility, identify gaps, generate content to fix those gaps, then track whether it worked.
Most platforms in 2025 fell into the first or second category. That distinction matters enormously when you're evaluating price, because a $29/month monitoring tool and a $249/month optimization platform aren't really competing for the same job.
Otterly.AI: The budget entry point
Otterly.AI was the most accessible platform in this group, with plans starting at $29/month. For teams that just wanted to dip their toes into AI visibility tracking without a major commitment, it made sense.
At that price point, you got basic brand monitoring across a handful of AI engines -- primarily ChatGPT and Perplexity -- with simple dashboards showing mention frequency and sentiment. The interface was clean and easy to navigate, which helped with adoption for teams new to GEO.
The limitations were real, though. LLM coverage was narrow. There was no content generation, no crawler log analysis, no traffic attribution, and no prompt volume data to help you prioritize which queries to target. You could see that you were invisible in certain AI responses, but Otterly gave you no tools to do anything about it.
For a solo marketer or a small business just wanting a basic pulse check, $29/month was reasonable. For a marketing team trying to actually move the needle on AI visibility, it was a starting point that quickly hit a ceiling.
Peec.ai: Mid-market with better analytics
Peec.ai positioned itself between Otterly and Profound, with its Starter plan at €89/month (roughly $103 at 2025 exchange rates). That covered ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Google AI Overviews, with daily monitoring and competitive analysis features.
The competitive tracking was genuinely useful. Peec showed you how your brand's AI visibility compared to specific competitors across different prompt categories, which gave marketing teams something concrete to bring to leadership. The Slack integration for direct support was a nice touch for mid-market teams that didn't want to file tickets and wait.
Where Peec fell short was the same place Otterly did: it was a monitoring tool. The data was cleaner and more actionable than Otterly's, but "actionable" in this context meant "you now know what to go fix yourself." There were no built-in tools to generate content, no guidance on which specific pages to update, and no way to close the loop between a visibility gap and a published fix.
Higher Peec tiers added more LLM coverage and additional features, but the core limitation -- monitoring without optimization -- carried through the entire product.
Profound: Enterprise pricing, enterprise expectations
Profound was the most expensive platform in this comparison by a significant margin, with plans starting around $499/month and enterprise tiers going well above that. It positioned itself as the serious, data-heavy option for brands that needed depth.
The data quality was strong. Profound tracked 10+ AI engines with real-time monitoring, offered SOC 2 Type II certification for enterprise security requirements, and provided detailed analytics on brand visibility trends over time. For large brands with dedicated AI search teams, the depth of reporting was genuinely impressive.
But at nearly $500/month to start, the value equation got complicated fast. One analysis from ContentMonk noted that Profound priced itself about 48% above market rate -- and still delivered a monitoring-only product. You got excellent visibility into the problem. You didn't get tools to fix it.
For an enterprise brand with a full content team that just needed the data layer, Profound made sense. For a mid-market company that needed both the insight and the execution support, paying $499/month for a dashboard felt like a lot.
Promptwatch: The widest range, the most complete loop
Promptwatch took a different approach to pricing in 2025, offering tiered plans that scaled from $99/month up to $579/month for the Business tier, with agency and enterprise pricing available on request.
Here's what each tier actually included:
- Essential ($99/month): 1 site, 50 prompts, 5 articles per month, monitoring across 10+ AI models
- Professional ($249/month): 2 sites, 150 prompts, 15 articles, AI crawler logs, state/city-level tracking
- Business ($579/month): 5 sites, 350 prompts, 30 articles, full feature access
The LLM coverage was the broadest in the category -- ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini, Google AI Overviews, Grok, DeepSeek, Meta AI, Copilot, and Mistral, all on every plan. Peec.ai and Otterly covered 3-4 base platforms with paid add-ons for additional models.
What separated Promptwatch from the other three platforms wasn't just the monitoring breadth. It was the built-in content generation. The platform analyzed which prompts competitors were visible for that you weren't (Answer Gap Analysis), then used a built-in AI writing agent to generate articles, listicles, and comparisons designed to get cited by AI models. That content was grounded in 880M+ citations analyzed, not generic SEO templates.
The traffic attribution piece was also distinct. Most platforms in 2025 showed you AI visibility scores but couldn't connect those scores to actual website traffic or revenue. Promptwatch offered three attribution methods: a code snippet, Google Search Console integration, or server log analysis. That closed the loop from "we're getting cited more" to "here's the traffic and revenue impact."
For teams evaluating price, the honest comparison isn't Promptwatch at $249/month vs. Otterly at $29/month. It's Promptwatch at $249/month vs. Otterly at $29/month plus a content writer, plus a separate analytics tool, plus the time your team spends manually connecting the dots.
Side-by-side pricing and feature comparison
| Platform | Starting price | LLM coverage | Content generation | Traffic attribution | Crawler logs | Prompt volume data |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Otterly.AI | $29/month | 2-3 engines | No | No | No | No |
| Peec.ai | €89/month (~$103) | 3 engines (base) | No | No | No | Limited |
| Profound | ~$499/month | 10+ engines | No | No | No | Yes |
| Promptwatch | $99/month | 10+ engines (all plans) | Yes (built-in AI writer) | Yes (3 methods) | Yes (Professional+) | Yes |
A few things jump out from this table. First, Profound and Promptwatch both cover 10+ AI engines, but Profound charges 5x more for its entry tier while offering fewer tools to act on the data. Second, content generation and traffic attribution are Promptwatch-only features in this group -- none of the other three platforms offered them in 2025. Third, Otterly's price looks attractive until you realize what's missing.
What teams actually said about the pricing
The Reddit thread on r/seogrowth from 2025 captured the buyer sentiment pretty well. Teams that tried Otterly often described it as a good starting point that they quickly outgrew. Peec got credit for cleaner UX and better competitive data, but users consistently mentioned hitting a wall when they needed to actually do something with the insights. Profound users tended to be at larger companies where the price was less of a concern, but even there, the monitoring-only limitation came up.
The recurring frustration across all three monitoring-only platforms was the same: you'd run the tool, see that you were invisible for a bunch of high-value prompts, and then... have to figure out the rest yourself. That's not nothing -- knowing where the gaps are is genuinely valuable. But it's also not a complete solution.
Other platforms worth knowing about
Beyond the four main platforms in this comparison, a few others were gaining traction in 2025 that are worth a mention.
AthenaHQ tracked visibility across 8+ AI engines with solid monitoring capabilities, though like most competitors it stopped at the monitoring layer.
Peasy offered real AI performance tracking at a lower price point, appealing to smaller teams.
Rankscale focused on AI search ranking and visibility with a clean interface.
SE Ranking added an AI visibility toolkit to its existing SEO platform, making it a reasonable option for teams already using it for traditional SEO.
How to think about price vs. value in 2026
The 2025 pricing landscape taught buyers a useful lesson: the cheapest tool isn't the most cost-effective tool if it leaves you doing all the hard work manually.
A few questions worth asking when evaluating any AI visibility platform:
Does the price include content tools, or just monitoring? If you're paying for monitoring only, factor in the cost of whoever on your team will be creating content based on those insights.
How many AI engines are covered, and at what tier? Some platforms advertise broad coverage but lock most engines behind higher tiers. Check what you actually get at the plan you're considering.
Can you connect visibility to traffic and revenue? A platform that shows you citation counts is useful. A platform that shows you citation counts and ties them to actual website sessions and conversions is a business tool.
What's the prompt limit, and does it match your real monitoring needs? 50 prompts sounds like a lot until you realize a mid-size brand might have 200+ relevant queries across product categories, competitors, and use cases.
The AI visibility market has matured since 2025, but the core pricing dynamics haven't changed dramatically. Monitoring-only tools are cheaper. Full-loop platforms cost more but replace work that would otherwise fall on your team. The right choice depends on whether you have the internal bandwidth to turn data into action, or whether you need the platform to help with both.
For most marketing teams, the math tends to favor a platform that does more -- even at a higher price point -- over a cheaper tool that generates a dashboard and leaves the rest to you.