Key takeaways
- Otterly.AI is the cheapest entry point ($29/mo) and the only one of the three offering API access below its top tier, but engine coverage beyond ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity, and Copilot costs extra.
- Peec AI (official pricing: Starter €85/mo, Pro €205/mo, Advanced €425/mo) wins on citation/source classification depth and competitive benchmarking, but ships zero site auditing or content generation.
- Scrunch ($250/mo Core, now a Sitecore company) has the most built-out action layer of the three, including basic content generation and, at Enterprise, the Agent Experience Platform that serves AI-optimized HTML directly to bots.
- None of the three tools connect citations to revenue automatically. You'll still be doing UTM and CRM attribution by hand regardless of which one you pick.
- If your actual goal is turning visibility data into published, AI-optimized content without manual attribution work, platforms with an agentic execution layer like Promptwatch are worth a look before you commit.
Why this comparison, and why now
I've read four or five "AEO tool comparison" posts in the last month and most of them read like they were assembled from the same three press releases. Prices get quoted in whatever currency a 2025 blog post happened to use, feature lists get copied wholesale from vendor marketing pages, and somehow every post concludes that the tool publishing the post is the best fit for "most teams."
This one is different in one specific way: every price and feature claim below comes straight from each vendor's own pricing page, checked in the days around October 2026, not from a third-party tracker repeating a stale number. Where vendors disagree with themselves (looking at you, Scrunch's Agency Core pricing, which shows $250/mo on some pages and $500/mo on the official FAQ), I'll flag it instead of picking the number that sounds better.
Otterly.AI, Scrunch, and Peec AI get grouped together constantly because they occupy similar price brackets below the Profound/Bluefish enterprise tier. But they're not interchangeable. One is a lean monitoring tool that's quietly grown an audit and content-brief layer. One is a European analytics-first platform with the deepest source classification in this trio. One just got acquired by a $1.2B company and is building toward something closer to an "optimization platform" than a tracker.
The official pricing, verified
| Tool | Entry price | Entry prompts | Engines at entry | Seats at entry | API access |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Otterly.AI | $29/mo (Lite) | 15 prompts | 4 (ChatGPT, Google AIO, Perplexity, Copilot) | Unlimited | Standard tier ($189/mo) and up |
| Peec AI | €85/mo (Starter) | 50 prompts | 3 of your choice (up to 6 base models) | Unlimited | Enterprise only |
| Scrunch | $250/mo (Core) | 125 unique prompts | 4 (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AIO, Copilot) | 5 licenses, +$25/mo each | Enterprise only (Query API + CLI) |
A quick note on Peec: its own live pricing page shows Starter at €85/mo, Pro at €205/mo, and Advanced at €425/mo, all billed monthly, no annual discount tier published at the time of writing. Several third-party comparison posts quote €70/€180/€360 (annual) or converted dollar figures like $95/$245. Those aren't wrong exactly, they're just not current. Always check peec.ai/pricing directly before you budget around a number you read somewhere else.
Engine coverage: the gap closes fast at enterprise, but not at entry
At entry-level pricing, Otterly and Scrunch both track the same four engines: ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity, and Microsoft Copilot. Peec gives you a choice of any 3 from a larger base pool, which in practice means you can swap Copilot for Gemini or AI Mode if those matter more to your market, something the other two don't let you do at entry.
Where it gets interesting is the ceiling. Peec scales to as many as 13 LLM models at Enterprise, including Claude and GPT-5 variants via API. Scrunch tops out at 9 on Enterprise, adding Claude, Gemini, Google AI Mode, Meta AI, and Grok to its Core four. Otterly charges per-engine add-ons instead of a tier jump: Gemini and Google AI Mode run $9 to $149/mo depending on your base plan, and Claude runs $29 to $439/mo. That structure means a small team chasing just one extra engine (say, Claude because a competitor is winning citations there) can add it without upgrading the whole plan, which Scrunch and Peec don't let you do.
If your business lives or dies by how it shows up in ChatGPT specifically, this matters less. Promptwatch's own research on average sources per response found ChatGPT surfaces roughly five sources per web-search answer, versus around ten for Google AI Overviews and Perplexity, and wildly inconsistent counts for Copilot (sometimes under two, sometimes nearly seventeen in a given week). Fewer slots on ChatGPT means each one is more contested, so if that's your primary engine, depth of tracking there matters more than breadth across engines you barely need.
The action layer: this is where the three actually diverge
This is the part most comparison posts gloss over, and it's the part that actually decides whether you can do anything with the data these tools give you.
Scrunch has built the most complete action layer of the three. Core includes basic content generation and one page optimization per month. Enterprise adds the Agent Experience Platform (AXP), a CDN-layer system that detects AI bot traffic in real time and serves a simplified, AI-optimized version of your existing pages to known crawlers, without touching what human visitors see or requiring a site rebuild. Scrunch addresses the obvious "isn't this cloaking?" question directly in its FAQ, for what it's worth. Adobe's LLM Optimizer is the only other platform I've seen with a comparable content-delivery layer.
Peec's "Actions" feature, by contrast, is a prioritized list of earned-versus-owned recommendations, things like "this source cites your competitor but not you, go pitch it." It's genuinely useful for planning outreach, but it stops at the recommendation. No content gets written or served for you.
Otterly has quietly repositioned itself over the past several months from a pure monitoring tool into what it now calls a "Content Intelligence Platform." The GEO Audit checks pages against AI search best practices and flags specific issues; Content Briefs and a Content Audit & Prediction tool extend that into planning territory. It's more mature than Peec's on-page guidance, but it's still recommendations, not automated publishing.
None of the three will write and ship a page for you the way an agentic content system does. If that's the gap you're trying to close, that's effectively the entire pitch behind Promptwatch's Content Agents, which plan, write, and publish GEO-optimized content directly to Webflow, Framer, or WordPress on a schedule, closing the loop between "we found a gap" and "we fixed it" without a human rewriting every page by hand.
Crawlability auditing: a quieter but genuinely useful differentiator
Both Otterly and Peec now ship crawlability checks that most comparison posts miss entirely. Otterly's GEO URL Audits test your robots.txt and live server against 19 named AI crawlers. Peec's Crawlability audit covers more than 40 AI bots and tells you which ones your robots.txt currently allows or blocks. Scrunch doesn't appear to publish an equivalent standalone crawlability check at the Core tier, though Enterprise includes fuller site audits.
This matters more than it sounds. How Meta-WebIndexer's share of AI crawler traffic jumped from roughly 2% to nearly 38% of all tracked AI crawler requests in a few weeks in mid-2026 is a good example of how fast the crawler landscape shifts. If your robots.txt was written before some of these bots existed, you could be invisible to an engine for a reason that has nothing to do with your content.
What actually gets cited, and why that should shape which action layer you need
Promptwatch's daily breakdown of ChatGPT citation types for August 2026 found product pages holding roughly 28.7% of citations for the month, listicles at 10.1%, how-tos at 6.3%, and news at 5.6%. But the trend inside the month is the interesting part: how-tos climbed from 4.3% in week one to 9.1% in the final nine days, documentation rose from 3.3% to 8.2%, and social posts collapsed from 4.4% to under 1% after August 14, the same day Reddit's share of ChatGPT citations cratered industry-wide (from around 4% to 0.5%, per Promptwatch's Reddit citation data).
Practically: if your AEO tool's action layer is nudging you toward building out how-to guides and documentation right now, that's the right call based on where citations are actually moving. If it's still telling you to chase listicle placements or Reddit threads, it's optimizing for last quarter's AI search behavior. This is worth checking against whichever tool's recommendations you're following, regardless of which one you pick.
Side by side, feature by feature
| Feature | Otterly.AI | Peec AI | Scrunch |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entry price | $29/mo | €85/mo | $250/mo |
| Entry prompts | 15 | 50 | 125 |
| Base engines | 4 | 3 of 6 (choice) | 4 |
| Max engines (Enterprise) | 7 (via add-ons) | Up to 13 | Up to 9 |
| Seats included | Unlimited | Unlimited | 5, +$25/mo each |
| Site/crawlability audit | Yes (19 crawlers) | Yes (40+ bots) | Enterprise only |
| Content generation | Content Briefs | No | Basic (Core), advanced (Enterprise) |
| Agentic content delivery | No | No | AXP, Enterprise only |
| API access | Standard tier and up | Enterprise only | Enterprise only (+CLI) |
| Free trial | 14-day evaluation | 7-day | 7-day |
| Owner | Independent | Independent | Sitecore (acquired June 2026) |
Who should actually pick which one
Pick Otterly.AI if you're a solo marketer, a small agency tracking several clients, or anyone who wants ongoing monitoring plus a reasonably mature content-brief layer without paying for engines you don't need yet. The per-engine add-on pricing is annoying if you want everything, but it's cheap if you only need one extra engine.
Pick Peec AI if source and citation analysis is your actual job, not just a nice-to-have dashboard. Its domain and page-type classification, plus regional and prompt-by-prompt competitive benchmarking, is the most granular of the three. Just budget for the fact that it gives you zero help actually fixing what it finds.
Pick Scrunch if you're mid-market or larger, you have the engineering capacity to deploy AXP, and you want one platform that at least attempts monitoring, auditing, and content delivery together rather than stitching three tools. Being folded into Sitecore gives it a longer runway than most independents in this bracket, for better or worse depending on how you feel about acquisitions changing product roadmaps.
A Discovered Labs review I came across while researching this put it bluntly: all three "diagnose the problem but don't fix it," and none of them link citations to pipeline or revenue without manual UTM and CRM tagging. That tracks with what I found digging through the actual pricing pages. If closing that attribution and execution gap is the point, not just watching a number move on a dashboard, it's worth comparing these three against platforms built around an end-to-end execution loop, and against the broader field in the GEO software directory at bestgeosoftware.com.
A few things worth double-checking before you buy
Scrunch's own FAQ page lists Agency Core at $500/mo, while several third-party trackers still quote $250/mo for the same tier. That's a 2x difference, worth a direct email to sales before you sign anything.
Peec's pricing has changed at least twice in the past year according to the trail of conflicting figures across review sites, so treat anything older than a few weeks as potentially stale, including some of the numbers in this very article by the time you read it.
And none of these three tools, by their own vendors' admission in feature comparisons against Scrunch's own benchmarking, currently meet all five criteria (monitoring, auditing, optimization, content delivery, enterprise readiness) simultaneously at their standard tiers. Only Enterprise plans close most of those gaps, and Enterprise pricing on all three is custom, which means it's negotiable and worth pushing on.