Key takeaways
- Otterly.AI is the cheapest entry point at $29/month, good for teams that just want to know if they're showing up in AI responses
- Peec.ai sits in the mid-market at €85/month, with stronger multi-model flexibility and multi-language support (115+ languages)
- Promptwatch is the only platform here that closes the full loop: it finds your visibility gaps, generates content to fix them, and tracks whether it worked
- If your goal is just monitoring, Otterly or Peec can do the job; if you want to actually improve your AI visibility, you need something that takes action
- All three tools have free trials -- worth testing before committing
The AI visibility tool market has gotten crowded fast. Two years ago there were maybe five platforms doing this. Now there are dozens, and the pricing ranges from $29/month to "call us for enterprise pricing." Sorting through them is genuinely confusing.
This guide focuses on three tools that come up constantly in comparisons: Peec.ai, Otterly.AI, and Promptwatch. They're often grouped together because they all sit in a similar price range and serve similar audiences -- marketing teams, SEO professionals, and digital agencies trying to understand how their brand appears in ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, and other AI models.
But they're not the same tool. The differences matter, especially once you move past the "I just want to see if I'm being mentioned" phase and start asking "how do I actually get mentioned more?"
What these tools are actually doing
Before comparing features and pricing, it's worth being clear about what AI visibility tools do at a basic level.
When someone asks ChatGPT "what's the best project management software for remote teams," the model generates a response that may or may not include your brand. AI visibility tools run thousands of prompts like that, record the responses, and tell you how often your brand appears, how competitors compare, and what the AI says about you.
That's the core function. Where tools diverge is in what they do with that information.
Some tools stop at the data. They show you a dashboard with mention rates, sentiment scores, and share-of-voice charts. That's useful for reporting and benchmarking, but it doesn't tell you what to do next.
Other tools try to close the loop -- they show you where you're invisible, explain why, and give you tools to fix it.
Peec.ai and Otterly.AI are primarily in the first camp. Promptwatch is built around the second.
Otterly.AI: the budget-friendly starting point
Otterly.AI is the most accessible entry point in this category. At $29/month, it's significantly cheaper than most competitors, and it does the fundamentals well.
The platform monitors four AI models on the base plan (with add-ons available), tracks brand mentions and sentiment, and includes a GEO Audit feature that's genuinely useful for diagnosing why your content might not be getting cited. Zapier named it one of the best AI visibility tools for affordability, and it was recognized as a Gartner Cool Vendor in 2025 -- which is a real signal that it's not just a side project.
Where Otterly runs into limits: it's primarily a monitoring tool. You see the data, but the platform doesn't help you act on it. There's no content generation, no answer gap analysis that shows you which prompts competitors rank for but you don't, and no crawler log analysis to understand how AI bots are actually reading your site.
For a solo marketer or a small team that wants to track AI visibility without a big budget, Otterly is a reasonable choice. For a team that wants to move from "we know we're invisible" to "we fixed it," you'll hit the ceiling quickly.
Otterly.AI pricing
- Starter: $29/month (4 LLMs, limited prompts)
- Higher tiers available with more prompts and models
Peec.ai: mid-market with strong multi-language support
Peec.ai targets what one analysis called "the mid-market sweet spot where speed and usability matter more than exhaustive features." That's a fair description.
The platform starts at €85/month (roughly $93 at current rates) and supports up to 10 AI models with add-ons. Its standout feature is multi-language support across 115+ languages, which makes it genuinely useful for international brands that need to monitor AI visibility in markets where English isn't the primary language. Unlimited seats on paid plans is also a practical advantage for larger teams.
Peec also offers flexible model selection -- you can choose which AI models to monitor rather than being locked into a fixed set. That's useful if your audience is concentrated on specific platforms.
The limitations are similar to Otterly's, just at a higher price point. Peec is a monitoring platform. It surfaces data well and has a cleaner interface than some competitors, but it doesn't generate content, doesn't analyze which prompts you're missing, and doesn't connect your AI visibility to actual website traffic.
One thing worth noting: Peec's €85/month entry tier is roughly 3x Otterly's starting price. For that premium, you're getting better multi-language support and more model flexibility -- but not a fundamentally different type of tool.
Peec.ai pricing
- Entry: €85/month (~$93)
- Higher tiers for more prompts and features
Promptwatch: monitoring plus the action layer
Promptwatch is built around a different premise. Monitoring is table stakes -- the more interesting question is what you do with the data.
The platform covers 10 AI models (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini, Grok, DeepSeek, Copilot, Meta AI, Mistral, and Google AI Overviews), which is the broadest coverage of the three tools here. But the real differentiator is what happens after you see your visibility scores.
The Answer Gap Analysis shows you exactly which prompts your competitors appear for that you don't. Not just "you're invisible for some queries" -- it shows you the specific questions, the specific competitors winning them, and what content is getting cited. That's a different level of actionability than a mention count.
From there, Promptwatch has a built-in AI writing agent that generates articles, listicles, and comparisons grounded in citation data. The content is engineered around what AI models actually cite, not generic SEO best practices. Once you publish, the platform tracks whether your new content starts getting cited and connects that visibility to actual traffic through Google Search Console integration, a code snippet, or server log analysis.
That full cycle -- find gaps, create content, track results -- is what separates Promptwatch from monitoring-only tools.
A few other capabilities worth mentioning: AI Crawler Logs show you which AI bots (ChatGPT's crawler, Perplexity's crawler, etc.) are visiting your site, which pages they're reading, and any errors they're hitting. This is genuinely useful for diagnosing indexing issues that monitoring dashboards won't surface. Reddit and YouTube tracking surfaces discussions that influence AI recommendations -- a channel most tools ignore entirely. ChatGPT Shopping tracking monitors when your brand appears in product recommendation carousels.
Promptwatch pricing
- Essential: $99/month (1 site, 50 prompts, 5 articles)
- Professional: $249/month (2 sites, 150 prompts, 15 articles, crawler logs, city/state tracking)
- Business: $579/month (5 sites, 350 prompts, 30 articles)
- Agency/Enterprise: custom pricing
Free trial available. Annual billing discounts apply.
Side-by-side comparison
| Feature | Otterly.AI | Peec.ai | Promptwatch |
|---|---|---|---|
| Starting price | $29/month | €85/month (~$93) | $99/month |
| AI models covered | 4 base + add-ons | Up to 10 (add-on based) | 10 |
| Brand mention tracking | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Sentiment analysis | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Share of voice / competitor benchmarking | Basic | Yes | Yes |
| Answer gap analysis | No | No | Yes |
| Content generation | No | No | Yes (built-in AI writer) |
| AI crawler logs | No | No | Yes |
| Reddit & YouTube tracking | No | No | Yes |
| ChatGPT Shopping tracking | No | No | Yes |
| Multi-language support | Limited | 115+ languages | Yes |
| Traffic attribution | No | No | Yes (GSC, snippet, logs) |
| Prompt volume & difficulty scoring | No | No | Yes |
| Free trial | Yes | Yes | Yes |
The table makes the trade-off clear. Otterly and Peec are cheaper, but you're paying for data without the tools to act on it. Promptwatch costs more and gives you the full loop.
Who should use which tool
The right answer depends on where you are and what you're trying to do.
Otterly.AI makes sense if you're just starting to think about AI visibility, you have a tight budget, and your main goal is to confirm whether your brand is showing up at all. The GEO Audit feature is a useful diagnostic tool even if you don't upgrade. For a solo marketer or a small business dipping their toes in, $29/month is a low-risk way to start.
Peec.ai makes sense if you're an international brand with genuine multi-language needs, or if you want more model flexibility than Otterly offers. The unlimited seats policy is also useful for teams where multiple people need dashboard access. If you're operating in non-English markets and need to monitor AI visibility in French, German, Japanese, or Portuguese, Peec is probably the strongest option at this price point.
Promptwatch makes sense if you've moved past the "are we visible?" question and you're asking "how do we get more visible?" The content generation and gap analysis are only useful if you're actually going to use them -- but for marketing teams that want to treat AI visibility as an optimization channel rather than a reporting metric, the action layer is what makes the difference.
It's also worth considering the total cost of the alternative. If you use Otterly for monitoring and then hire a content writer to produce AI-optimized articles based on manual research, you're probably spending more than Promptwatch's Professional plan anyway -- and getting less precision.
A note on what monitoring alone misses
One thing that came up in testing documented by LLMClicks.ai is worth flagging: monitoring tools that count mentions can miss accuracy problems. If ChatGPT is mentioning your brand but getting your pricing wrong, or attributing a competitor's feature to you, a mention count shows that as a positive signal. It isn't.
This isn't a knock specific to Otterly or Peec -- it's a limitation of any tool that focuses on presence rather than accuracy. But it's a real-world issue that can affect pipeline. Prospects who arrive at a sales call with wrong information they got from an AI model are harder to convert.
Promptwatch's citation tracking and page-level analysis help here because you can see exactly what content AI models are pulling from when they mention you -- which makes it easier to spot and correct inaccurate sources.
Other tools worth knowing about
These three aren't the only options in the market. A few others that come up in comparisons:
Profound is the enterprise-grade option with deep research analytics and prompt volume data. Higher price point, but strong if you need board-level reporting.
Nightwatch combines traditional rank tracking with AI visibility monitoring, which is useful if you want both in one subscription.
SE Visible (from SE Ranking) supports multi-brand dashboards with unlimited seats, which makes it practical for agencies managing multiple clients.
ZipTie is worth a look for deep-dive analysis if you want more granular data than the mid-market tools provide.
The bottom line
Peec.ai and Otterly.AI are solid monitoring tools. They do what they say, they're priced accessibly, and they're reasonable starting points for teams that are new to AI visibility tracking. Otterly is the better choice if budget is the primary constraint; Peec is better if you need multi-language support or more model flexibility.
Promptwatch is a different kind of tool. It monitors, but the monitoring is in service of optimization -- finding gaps, generating content, tracking whether it worked. For teams that want to treat AI visibility as a growth channel rather than a reporting metric, that distinction matters.
The market is still early. Most brands are still in the "we should probably be tracking this" phase. The ones that move to the "we're actively optimizing for this" phase in 2026 will have a real advantage over those that don't.