AI visibility tools compared
The short answer
Peec AI is the cheapest credible entry at around $95 a month for 50 prompts across three of six models with unlimited seats. Profound runs $99 for a ChatGPT-only starter and $399 for three engines, with agency pricing effectively from $498, and is positioned as the enterprise option. Scrunch starts at $250 a month on annual billing and targets mid-market teams needing multi-engine coverage. All of them measure the same underlying thing, and for a single brand with a narrow category you can get most of the value manually for nothing.
- Peec AI: ~$95/month, 50 prompts, 3 of 6 models, unlimited seats.
- Profound: $99 starter (ChatGPT only, 50 prompts), $399 growth (3 engines); agency from ~$498.
- Scrunch: $250/month annual, $300 monthly; Growth tier $417–$500.
- Most of these bill annually, and several hide pricing from crawlers.
Pricing, as at September 2026
| Platform | Entry price | What you get | Positioning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Peec AI | ~$95/mo | 50 prompts, 3 of 6 models, unlimited seats | Growth teams, best value per seat |
| Profound | $99/mo | ChatGPT only, 50 prompts, 1,500 responses | Enterprise; $399 for 3 engines, agency from ~$498 |
| Scrunch | $250/mo annual | Multi-engine, citations, sentiment, topic visibility | Mid-market, agency reporting |
| Otterly | Agency partner programme | Citation tracking with an agency tier | Agencies |
Two practical warnings. Most of these bill annually, and the headline monthly figure usually assumes it. And several — Peec among them — deliberately hide pricing from crawlers, so quotes found in search results may be stale.
What they all actually do
Underneath the differences, every one of these products does the same three things: runs a set of prompts on a schedule, records whether your brand is mentioned and which domains are cited, and charts it over time.
That is worth understanding before you compare feature lists, because it tells you what you are really buying: scheduling and storage. The measurement itself is not proprietary and not difficult. What you are paying for is not having to do it manually every month, and having a consistent historical series to compare against.
When you genuinely need one
- Your prompt set is large — more than about thirty prompts across several engines.
- You need history you did not have to remember to collect.
- Multiple people need access to the same numbers.
- You are an agency reporting across many clients, where per-seat and multi-brand pricing dominates the decision.
When you do not
- One brand, one narrow category, and you are just starting.
- You have not yet written a prompt set worth tracking. This is the common case, and buying a platform first is a way of avoiding the harder work of figuring out what your buyers actually ask.
- The number you want is “does ChatGPT recommend us today”, which takes five minutes by hand.
We built a free browser-based check for exactly that last case. It generates the prompt set, you run it in a real logged-out session, and it scores mention and citation separately. Nothing is transmitted and there is no signup, because there is no cost to us in running it.
The metric to distrust
Every vendor in this space has a composite “visibility score”. Treat all of them as internal-use only. They are not comparable between vendors, they shift when the vendor adjusts its formula, and you cannot audit the calculation. Citation share against a prompt set you wrote yourself is the number that survives changing vendors.
Questions people actually ask
Do I need one of these at all?
If you are tracking one brand in one category, probably not at first. The measurement is running a fixed prompt set in clean sessions and recording who gets cited. You can do that by hand in an afternoon, and doing it manually measures the product your customers actually use rather than the API. Buy a platform when the prompt set gets large enough that running it by hand every month stops happening.
Why do API-based tools and manual checks disagree?
Because they are measuring different systems. ChatGPT with browsing, logged in, on the web, retrieves differently from the API. A platform querying the API is giving you a consistent, reproducible number that is not quite the thing your buyer sees. Neither is wrong; they answer different questions. Use platforms for trend direction and manual checks for ground truth.
What should I actually look at in the dashboard?
Citation share against a prompt set you wrote, and the list of source domains the engine quotes for your category. Ignore composite visibility scores — they are not comparable between vendors, they change when the vendor changes its formula, and no one outside the vendor can audit them.