Key takeaways
- Profound's entry price is $499/month, which is roughly 48% above the market average for comparable AI visibility tools.
- Peec AI starts at $95/month but limits you to 3 AI models at the entry tier -- a real constraint if you need broad coverage.
- Otterly.AI is the cheapest option at $29/month, but it's monitoring-only with no content tools and limited model coverage.
- Promptwatch sits in the middle on price ($99-$579/month) but is the only platform here that goes beyond monitoring to help you actually create content that fixes visibility gaps.
- All four tools track AI citations, but only Promptwatch closes the loop from "you're invisible" to "here's the content to fix it."
If you've been evaluating AI visibility platforms in 2026, you've probably run into Profound's pricing page and done a double-take. $499/month just to get started is a lot to swallow, especially when several competitors are offering similar tracking capabilities for a fraction of that.
But pricing comparisons in this space are genuinely tricky. The headline number rarely tells the full story. What models are included? How many prompts can you track? Is there any content functionality, or are you just getting a dashboard that tells you you're invisible without helping you fix it?
This guide breaks down what you actually get at each pricing tier across Profound, Peec AI, Otterly.AI, and Promptwatch -- so you can make a real decision instead of guessing.
Profound pricing: What you get and what you don't
Profound positions itself as the enterprise-grade option in the AI visibility space, and the pricing reflects that. Based on current data, the entry plan (Lite) starts at $499/month. Enterprise pricing is custom and negotiated directly.
What the Lite plan includes
At $499/month, Profound gives you solid analytics depth. You get multi-model tracking across the major AI engines (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, and others), prompt-level visibility data, and competitive benchmarking. The reporting is genuinely good -- stakeholder-ready dashboards, share-of-voice metrics, and citation analysis.
The catch? $499 is just the entry point. Several of the more advanced features -- deeper competitive analysis, API access, higher prompt volumes -- are locked behind Enterprise, which means a sales conversation and a custom quote.
What Profound doesn't do
Here's the thing that keeps coming up in user reviews and comparison articles: Profound is a monitoring platform. It tells you where you're invisible. It doesn't help you do anything about it.
There's no content generation. No answer gap analysis that produces briefs. No AI crawler logs showing you which pages AI bots are actually reading. You get the diagnosis without the treatment.
One analysis from ContentMonk put it bluntly: Profound costs 48% more than competitors and only shows you visibility gaps -- it won't help you create the content to fix them.
For enterprise teams with dedicated content resources who just need the data, that's fine. For everyone else, it's a meaningful limitation.
Peec AI pricing: Cheaper, but with real trade-offs
Peec AI takes a more tiered approach, with plans designed for different stages of growth. Here's the full breakdown:
| Plan | Price | Prompts | AI models | Projects | Notable limits |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Starter | $95/month | 50 | 3 | 1 | Chat support only |
| Pro | $245/month | 150 | Not specified | 2 | Email + chat support |
| Advanced | $495/month | 350 | All | 5 | Multi-country, GSC/GA/Looker integrations |
| Enterprise | Custom | Custom | All | Unlimited | API access, SSO |
The Starter plan looks affordable until you notice the "3 AI models" limit. In 2026, with ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude, Grok, DeepSeek, and others all actively sending traffic, tracking only 3 models at the entry tier means you're missing a significant chunk of the picture.
The Advanced plan at $495/month is where Peec starts to get genuinely useful -- multi-country tracking, integrations with Google Search Console and Looker Studio, and access to all models. But at that price point, you're paying roughly the same as Profound's Lite plan, which raises the obvious question of which actually delivers more value.
Peec AI's strength is clean, fast data. The interface is well-regarded, and the platform is easier to get up and running than Profound. It's a reasonable choice for mid-market teams who want solid monitoring without the enterprise overhead.
What it doesn't have: content generation, AI crawler logs, or any mechanism to turn visibility data into published content.
Otterly.AI pricing: The budget option
Otterly.AI is the most affordable entry point in this comparison, with plans starting around $29/month. It's designed for teams that want basic AI mention and citation tracking without a large budget commitment.
The trade-offs are significant, though. At the lower tiers, model coverage is limited, prompt volumes are small, and there's no content functionality. Otterly is essentially a monitoring dashboard -- useful for getting a first read on your AI visibility, but not a platform you'd build a serious GEO strategy around.
For freelancers, small agencies dipping their toes into AI visibility, or teams that just want to see whether they're being cited at all, Otterly makes sense. For anyone who needs to actually improve their visibility, it runs out of road quickly.
Promptwatch pricing: The most complete option
Promptwatch takes a different approach to pricing -- and to the product itself. Here's the tier breakdown:
| Plan | Price | Sites | Prompts | Articles/month | Key features |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Essential | $99/month | 1 | 50 | 5 | 10 AI models, basic tracking |
| Professional | $249/month | 2 | 150 | 15 | Crawler logs, city/state tracking, all integrations |
| Business | $579/month | 5 | 350 | 30 | Full suite, multi-site management |
| Agency/Enterprise | Custom | Custom | Custom | Custom | White-label, API, custom workflows |
The headline difference from Profound, Peec, and Otterly is that Promptwatch isn't just a monitoring tool. It's built around what you might call an action loop: find the gaps, create content to fill them, then track whether that content actually gets cited.
The Answer Gap Analysis shows you exactly which prompts your competitors are visible for that you're not -- not just as a data point, but as a starting point for content creation. The Content Agents then generate articles, listicles, and comparisons grounded in real prompt data, citation patterns, and competitor analysis. This isn't generic AI writing; it's content engineered around the specific questions AI models are already asking that your site can't answer.
At $99/month for the Essential plan, you're getting 10 AI models tracked (vs Peec's 3 at a similar price), 50 prompts, and 5 articles per month. That's a meaningful difference in scope.
The Professional plan at $249/month adds AI crawler logs -- a feature most competitors don't offer at all. These logs show you in real time which pages AI bots are reading, what errors they're hitting, and when a page moves from "crawled" to "cited." That kind of visibility into the crawl-to-citation pipeline is genuinely useful for diagnosing why certain pages aren't getting picked up.
Head-to-head comparison
Here's how the four platforms stack up across the dimensions that actually matter:
| Feature | Profound | Peec AI | Otterly.AI | Promptwatch |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Entry price | $499/month | $95/month | ~$29/month | $99/month |
| AI models at entry | Multiple | 3 only | Limited | 10 |
| Content generation | No | No | No | Yes (Content Agents) |
| Answer gap analysis | Basic | No | No | Yes (full) |
| AI crawler logs | No | No | No | Yes (Pro+) |
| Reddit/YouTube tracking | No | No | No | Yes |
| ChatGPT Shopping tracking | No | No | No | Yes |
| Prompt volume/difficulty scores | Limited | No | No | Yes |
| Traffic attribution | No | No | No | Yes |
| Multi-language/region | Enterprise only | Advanced+ | No | Yes |
| Free trial | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Best for | Enterprise analytics | Mid-market monitoring | Budget monitoring | Full-cycle GEO |
A few things stand out from this table. First, the gap between Profound's $499 entry price and what you get isn't obviously justified when Promptwatch covers more models, adds content generation, and costs $400/month less to start. Second, Peec AI's 3-model limit at the Starter tier is a real problem in 2026 -- you're essentially blind to half the AI search ecosystem.
Third, and most importantly: three of these four platforms stop at monitoring. They tell you the problem. Promptwatch is the only one here that also helps you solve it.
Who should use which platform
This isn't a one-size-fits-all decision. Here's a practical breakdown:
Choose Profound if you're at an enterprise with a large budget, a dedicated analytics team, and you need the deepest possible reporting for stakeholder presentations. The data quality is strong and the dashboards are polished. Just be prepared to bring your own content strategy.
Choose Peec AI if you're a mid-market team that wants clean, fast AI visibility data and you're comfortable tracking only the top 3-5 models at entry level. The interface is well-regarded and the platform is easy to use. Step up to Advanced if you need multi-country tracking.
Choose Otterly.AI if you're just getting started with AI visibility tracking, have a tight budget, and mainly want to know whether you're being cited at all. It's a reasonable first step, but expect to outgrow it.
Choose Promptwatch if you want to actually improve your AI visibility, not just measure it. The combination of gap analysis, content generation, crawler logs, and traffic attribution makes it the only platform here that closes the full loop. It's also the only option tracking all 10 major AI models from the entry tier.
The monitoring-only problem
It's worth dwelling on this for a moment, because it's the core issue with most AI visibility platforms right now.
Knowing you're invisible in AI search is step one. It's useful. But it's also kind of useless on its own if you don't know what to do next.
Profound, Peec AI, and Otterly all stop at step one. They show you the gap. They don't show you what content would fill it, they don't generate that content, and they don't track whether new content actually gets crawled and cited by AI models.
Promptwatch is built around the full cycle. The Answer Gap Analysis identifies specific prompts where competitors appear and you don't. Content Agents generate the articles designed to fill those gaps. Page-level tracking and crawler logs then show you whether those articles are being picked up. And traffic attribution connects the whole thing back to actual revenue.
That's a fundamentally different product from a monitoring dashboard, and it's why the price comparison isn't quite apples-to-apples. You're not just paying for data -- you're paying for a workflow.
Pricing verdict
If you're purely optimizing for the lowest price to get started with AI visibility tracking, Otterly.AI wins. If you want solid mid-market monitoring without enterprise overhead, Peec AI's Pro plan at $245/month is reasonable.
But if you're asking which platform gives you the most value per dollar -- and which one actually helps you move the needle on AI visibility rather than just measuring it -- Promptwatch is the clear answer. $99/month for 10 models, content generation, and gap analysis beats $499/month for monitoring-only by a wide margin.
Profound makes sense for large enterprises that need deep analytics and have the internal resources to act on the data. For everyone else, the price premium is hard to justify when alternatives offer more functionality at lower cost.
All four platforms offer free trials or demos, so the best move is to test them with your actual brand and prompts before committing. The difference in what they surface -- and what they help you do about it -- will be immediately obvious.