Key takeaways
- Peec AI tracks ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Google AI Mode, Perplexity, Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot by default on every paid plan; Claude Sonnet and Claude Haiku are paid upgrade models, not native inclusions.
- For each engine, Peec AI reports the same four data points: sources/citations, sentiment, position, and mention frequency, which makes cross-engine comparison straightforward.
- Claude support comes in two forms: the Claude Sonnet/Haiku models as tracked engines (an add-on), and a separate MCP server that lets you query Peec's data from inside Claude, Cursor, or VS Code.
- Pricing starts at $95/mo for the Starter plan (50 prompts, pick 3 models), scaling to $495/mo for Advanced (350 prompts, 5 projects) and custom Enterprise pricing that unlocks up to 13 LLM models.
- Peec AI is a monitoring and analytics layer, not a content-generation or attribution tool. If you want the data acted on automatically, that's a gap worth knowing about before you buy.
What "brand mentions" actually means in Peec AI
When people say they want to track "brand mentions" in AI search, they usually mean something looser than what Peec AI actually measures. It's not just counting how many times a chatbot says your company name. Peec AI breaks a mention down into four separate signals, tracked per engine:
- Whether your brand appeared at all, and how often, for a given tracked prompt
- Where in the answer it appeared (position matters, especially in comparison-style answers)
- What sources the model cited to generate that answer, so you know which pages are actually influencing what gets said
- Whether the mention was favorable, neutral, or negative (sentiment)
This is a meaningfully different job than classic brand monitoring tools like Brand24 or Mention, which scan the open web for text matches. Peec AI is querying the AI engines themselves, on a schedule, with a defined prompt set, and parsing structured data out of the answers. That's a harder problem, and it's why the pricing and prompt limits look the way they do.
The engine list: what's default, what's an add-on
Here's where I want to be precise, because vendor pages and third-party reviews describe this differently and it changes what you're actually paying for.
Included by default in every paid plan:
- ChatGPT (tracked via UI simulation, not the raw API)
- Google AI Overviews
- Google AI Mode
- Perplexity
- Gemini
- Microsoft Copilot
Available as paid upgrade models, unlocked separately:
- OpenAI Search API (a distinct product from the native ChatGPT tracking)
- Claude Sonnet
- Claude Haiku
- DeepSeek API
- Qwen API
- Grok
- Mistral
That Claude distinction matters more than it looks. Peec isn't scraping Claude.ai's consumer chat interface the way it scrapes ChatGPT's UI, it's querying the Claude Sonnet and Haiku APIs directly. A third-party audit from BrandJet flagged exactly this: Peec's Claude coverage is "a paid upgrade rather than proof of Claude.ai monitoring." That doesn't make it useless, API responses still tell you how the underlying model talks about your brand, but if a client asks "are you tracking what people actually see when they open Claude.ai," the honest answer for Peec is closer to "we track a comparable model response, not the exact consumer product."
On the free-tier plans, most brands pick 3 of the 6 default engines to focus their prompt budget on. Starting at $95/mo, you're not automatically getting all six, you're choosing three, and Claude requires bumping up to unlock it as a fourth or fifth model on top.
Why Claude coverage is worth paying for anyway
Given that Claude is a paid add-on, it's fair to ask whether it's worth the extra spend. The crawler-traffic data says yes, cautiously.
Anthropic's Claude citation crawler grew from about 0.04% of tracked AI-crawler traffic in mid-December 2025 to a peak of 1.73% share by mid-April 2026, according to Promptwatch's Claude citation crawler data. That's a real jump, and the inflection point clustered in late March 2026 when daily visits went from hundreds to thousands within two weeks. But even at that peak, Claude is still roughly 1% of total tracked AI citation-crawler traffic. ChatGPT dominates the rest.
So Claude coverage is a fast-growing secondary channel, not the primary battleground. If your prompt budget is tight, I'd rather see it spent covering ChatGPT and Google's surfaces thoroughly before stretching to Claude. But if you've got budget for a fourth model and you're already seeing Anthropic's crawler show up in your server logs, it's worth turning on. One thing the Promptwatch report calls out that's easy to miss: check your robots.txt, CDN, and WAF rules aren't silently blocking Anthropic's crawlers. A block that was harmless six months ago might now be quietly excluding you from a channel that's growing 40x.
Why ChatGPT and Gemini get more attention than raw "mention counts" suggest
A useful number to keep in your head: ChatGPT typically cites around 5 sources per web-search-enabled answer, versus roughly 10 for Google AI Overviews and almost exactly 10 for Perplexity, per Promptwatch's average-sources-per-response data. That means every ChatGPT citation slot is roughly twice as contested as an AI Overviews slot. A brand can genuinely disappear from ChatGPT while still showing up fine in AI Overviews, simply because there's half as much room in the answer.
This is exactly why Peec AI (and most serious GEO tools) insist on per-engine dashboards instead of one blended "AI visibility score." Peec's own ChatGPT tracker page puts it bluntly: "ChatGPT mentions and cites a different competitor set than Gemini, Perplexity, or Claude." If you only look at an aggregate number, you can miss that you're winning on Gemini and losing badly on ChatGPT, which are two very different problems with two very different fixes.
Sources and sentiment: the part that actually helps you act
The mention count is the least interesting number Peec AI produces. The more useful pair is sources and sentiment, tracked identically across ChatGPT, Google AI Mode, and Gemini so you can actually compare them.
Sources tell you which domains and URLs the model leaned on to generate its answer. If a competitor's blog post keeps showing up as a Gemini grounding source and yours never does, that's a specific, fixable gap, not a vague "improve your visibility" directive. Sentiment tells you whether being mentioned is even good news. Plenty of brands get named in AI answers in a lukewarm or outright negative frame (