This site contains affiliate links.

If you sign up through one of those links I may earn a commission, at no extra cost to you. I’ve kept the recommendations honest — a tool that pays well but fits badly is worth nothing to either of us.

Every pricing page in this category leads with a number that means nothing

“50 prompts tracked.” “100 prompts.” “400 prompts.”

Line them up and it looks like a straightforward ladder. It isn’t, because a tracked prompt is not a unit of anything until you know two more things: how many AI engines it runs against, and how often it re-runs.

Take two real examples from this comparison. Profound’s Starter plan is $99 a month for 50 prompts — on ChatGPT only. Otterly’s Lite plan is $29 a month for 15 prompts across four engines, refreshed daily. On the marketed unit, Profound gives you more than three times as much. On the unit that describes what you’re actually measuring — one prompt, on one engine, once a day — Otterly is roughly four times cheaper.

Neither vendor is lying. They’re just selling in units that don’t convert, and the industry has settled on the one that flatters whoever’s quoting it.

So this comparison normalises everything to dollars per prompt, per engine, per month. When you do that, something uncomfortable falls out: the dashboards cluster in a narrow band of roughly $0.28 to $0.70, while their headline prices range from $29 to $899. Most of the spread you see on pricing pages isn’t data volume. It’s packaging, engine gating, and seats.

Three questions that decide this

1. What does one tracked prompt actually cost?

The formula is prompt × engine × refresh. Vendors price two of those three separately and hope you only look at the first.

Engine gating is where the money is. Otterly includes four engines at every tier and then sells the rest as add-ons: Google AI Mode and Gemini at $9 to $149 a month depending on tier, and Claude at $29 to $439. Add all three to the Premium plan and $489 becomes $1,226. Peec lets you pick three engines from a pool of seven and charges $35 to $165 per extra model — and puts Claude and GPT-5 Search behind Enterprise entirely, so the self-serve plan can’t reach them at any price.

Refresh rate is the multiplier nobody quotes. Profound is the honest exception here: it publishes both the prompt count and the monthly response count, and the arithmetic reconciles exactly — Starter’s 1,500 responses divided by 50 prompts divided by 30 days is precisely one run per day on one engine. AIclicks does the same thing, publishing “LLM responses per month” alongside prompt count. Almost nobody else does, and without it “50 prompts” is unpriceable.

Rank Prompt is the clearest illustration, because it doesn’t sell prompts at all — it sells credits, one per prompt analysis, and lets you choose your own schedule. That flexibility is genuinely useful and it also means the same plan has wildly different value depending on how you use it. Starter’s 150 credits a month is five prompts if you refresh daily, or about 35 if you refresh weekly. That’s $9.80 versus $1.42 per prompt per month, from one plan, decided entirely by a setting.

Whatever tool you’re evaluating: find the response count, or find the refresh cadence, before you compare anything to anything.

2. Are these tools even measuring the same thing?

Mostly no, and this is the part that gets skipped.

There are three methodological forks, and each one means two tools can give you different answers about the same brand without either being wrong.

Browser capture versus API. Profound, Otterly, Peec and Cloro all query the consumer web interfaces the way a person would. Peec’s public docs explain why: API responses use different retrieval and cite different sources than the interface, so an API-based measurement is measuring something your customers never see. Profound puts it more bluntly — “what you see in Profound is what your customers see.” If a tool doesn’t tell you which it does, you don’t know what its numbers describe.

Your prompts versus a prompt database. Ahrefs Brand Radar is built on a corpus of 405 million-plus prompts derived from Google’s People Also Ask and its own keyword database, expanded by semantic fanout. It’s answering “how visible is this brand across the query space.” Profound, Peec and Otterly run your prompts and answer “how visible are you on these hundred questions.” Both are legitimate. They are not the same product, and the second one is only as good as your prompt list.

Daily versus monthly, which is a 30× difference in sampling. LLM output is stochastic — ask the same question twice and you can get different sources. That’s precisely why Profound justifies daily runs as producing an average. Ahrefs refreshes its chatbot data monthly, on a 90-day window. A tool sampling once a month isn’t reporting an average; it’s reporting a single draw. Any comparison table that puts “daily” next to “monthly” without weighting them is misleading, and most published ones do exactly that.

And a fourth thing, which is a gap rather than a fork: Rank Prompt, AIclicks and OmniSEO don’t publish a methodology at all. I looked. That’s not an accusation — it’s an early category and documentation lags. But it does mean you’re buying a number without knowing how it was produced.

3. Does it tell you what to change, or just what happened?

Every vendor here claims to go “beyond measurement.” What that means in practice, across all of them, is content generation — the tool writes articles it thinks will get cited.

None of these products can tell you that changing X caused citation lift Y. The attribution problem in AI search is genuinely unsolved, and a tool that implies otherwise is overselling. Rank Prompt’s Agent Mode is the most ambitious attempt, with a live article-editing canvas and fifty-odd tools, and note that it comes with a hard monthly dollar budget of $5 to $25 — so it’s a capped feature, not an open-ended assistant.

The one genuinely different capability in the category is Profound’s demand-side data: what people are actually asking AI engines, as opposed to how you rank on questions you guessed. That’s a different dataset, not a different action, and it’s the clearest reason to pay Profound’s premium.

The comparison

Verified 27 August 2026. The last column is the one to read.

Tool Entry plan Prompts Engines Refresh $ per prompt / engine / month
Rank Prompt Starter $49 ($39 annual) 150 credits, not prompts 4 bundled, +1 credit each for Gemini/Grok You choose $2.45 daily · $0.36 weekly
OmniSEO Essentials $89 50 4 (10 on Professional) Not published $0.45
Otterly.ai Lite $29 ($25 annual) 15 4, extras $9–$439/mo Daily $0.48
Peec AI Starter ~$95 50 3 of 7, extras $35–$165/mo Daily $0.63
AIclicks Starter $59 30 3 of 11 Daily $0.66
Profound Starter $99 50 1 — ChatGPT only Daily $1.98
Ahrefs Brand Radar $129 + $699 add-on ~14 at full coverage 6+ Monthly, 90-day window ~$9.93
Semrush Starter $199 50 daily “& more” — not published Daily ~$1.00, whole suite included

Best value per unit at the top of the range is OmniSEO Enterprise at $0.18 and AIclicks Business at $0.28. Worst by an order of magnitude is Ahrefs. Profound sits at two to seven times the cluster — deliberately.

Tool by tool

Otterly.ai

What it’s for: Getting a real, daily-refreshed answer for the least money, if you can live with four engines.

Otterly has the most transparent pricing in the category and the cleanest entry point — $29 a month for 15 prompts across ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity and Copilot, refreshed daily. No credit abstraction, no engine lottery, the number on the page is the number you get.

It’s also the only bootstrapped company here. Founded 2023 in Austria by people who previously sold Usersnap, with zero raised and a stated intention not to seek funding. In a category where Profound has taken $151 million and Peec $21 million, that’s a strategic fact, not trivia: Otterly can’t be pushed upmarket by an investor’s growth expectations, and it also can’t outspend anyone on R&D.

The catch is the add-on ladder. Four engines are included forever; the rest are billed monthly, and Claude on the Premium tier costs $439 a month on its own. A genuinely comprehensive Premium setup lands at $1,226. If your reporting requirement names specific engines, price them before you sign.

Pros

  • Cheapest honest entry in the category, with daily refresh at every tier.
  • Four engines included at all tiers, including the $29 one.
  • 54 G2 reviews at 4.7 — the largest genuine review base here outside Profound’s cultivated one.
  • Publishes its methodology reasoning (live interfaces, not APIs).
  • Bootstrapped, profitable-by-necessity, no investor clock.

Cons

  • Engine add-ons are steep and Claude is punitive at the top tier.
  • 15 prompts on Lite is small; extra prompts are $99 per 100.
  • The site contradicts itself on trial length (7 days in one place, 14 in another) and on user count (30,000 and 40,000 on different pages).
  • Smallest team here, which cuts both ways.

See Otterly’s pricing →

Peec AI

What it’s for: Agencies and mid-market brands who want clean daily reporting and don’t need Claude.

Peec is the European fast-riser — Berlin, $21 million Series A in November 2025, and reportedly around $10 million ARR by mid-2026 having roughly doubled in six months. Its docs are unusually candid about method: “sophisticated browser automation to interact with AI models through their web interfaces,” with an explicit explanation that API responses cite different sources than the UI.

The structural limitation is engine choice. You pick three from a pool of seven, and extra models cost $35 to $165 a month each. Claude Sonnet and GPT-5 Search aren’t in the self-serve pool at all — they’re Enterprise-only. So if Claude coverage is a requirement, Peec’s self-serve tiers cannot satisfy it at any price.

One caveat on the numbers above: Peec’s pricing page doesn’t render its figures to anything but a browser. The prices here are corroborated from Capterra’s vendor-supplied listing and a third-party review, not read off the vendor page. Check them yourself before budgeting.

Pros

  • Publishes its measurement methodology in real detail, which most competitors don’t.
  • Daily refresh across all tiers, with multi-country on Advanced.
  • Well-funded enough to still be here in two years.
  • A dedicated agency plan track with credit pooling across brands.

Cons

  • Three engines from seven, with real money for each addition.
  • Claude and GPT-5 Search are structurally unavailable below Enterprise.
  • Pricing figures aren’t machine-readable from the vendor’s own page.
  • 18 G2 reviews, 0 on Capterra — thin, though normal for the category’s age.
  • Multiple independent reviews describe it as reporting-only, lighter on action than its price suggests.

Check Peec’s pricing →

Profound

What it’s for: Enterprises that need the demand-side data, and can justify paying two to seven times the category rate for it.

Profound is the capital leader by a distance — $96 million Series C at a $1 billion valuation in February 2026, on top of a $35 million B and a $20 million A, with Target, Walmart, Figma and MongoDB named as customers.

Its spec sheet is the most auditable here. It publishes prompts and monthly response counts, and the arithmetic reconciles exactly. It states its methodology plainly. And it’s the only tool in this comparison offering something that isn’t measurement of your own visibility: Conversations and Prompt Volumes, which is data on what people actually ask AI engines. That’s the demand side, and nobody else has it.

Two things to be clear-eyed about. First, Starter at $99 is ChatGPT only — one engine, one seat. At $1.98 per prompt per engine per month it’s the most expensive entry in the cluster, and Growth at $399 for three engines is $1.33. You’re paying for the dataset and the enterprise posture, not for volume.

Second, its review base needs context. Roughly 1,100 G2 reviews against Otterly’s 54 and Peec’s 18 looks like overwhelming market validation. It isn’t organic — Profound runs an explicit G2 review-solicitation programme and publishes a knowledge-base article about it. The reviews are presumably real; the volume is a marketing output, and treating it as evidence of a hundred-fold quality gap would be a mistake.

Pros

  • The only demand-side dataset in the category — what people ask, not just how you rank.
  • Most auditable published spec: prompt counts and response counts reconcile.
  • Clear methodology statement, daily runs on every tracked prompt.
  • Up to nine engines at Enterprise, the widest coverage here.
  • Best-capitalised, least likely to disappear.

Cons

  • Starter is a single engine at the highest per-unit price in the cluster.
  • Two to seven times the category rate at every tier.
  • The G2 review count is cultivated and shouldn’t be read as organic consensus.
  • Trial length, headcount and ARR are all unpublished.

See Profound’s pricing →

AIclicks

What it’s for: Getting the most tracked prompts per dollar, if you don’t need a documented methodology.

AIclicks is the volume play and it does one thing better than everyone: it publishes LLM responses per month. Starter is 30 prompts across 3 models with 4,650 responses — which works out to about 1.7 runs per model per day, and means you can actually verify what you’re buying. That single disclosure is more useful than most of what’s on the other pricing pages, and the fact that it’s rare is itself the story.

On normalised cost it’s excellent: $0.32 per prompt per engine per month on Pro, $0.28 on Business, at the cheap end of the cluster. The model pool is the widest available at eleven, and you pick three, four or six.

The gap is documentation. No methodology, no founding year, no funding disclosed, and the annual prices are advertised as “up to 29% savings” without publishing the actual figures. The trial is three days, the shortest here. For a tool whose entire output is a number you’ll present to someone, not being able to explain how the number was made is a real weakness.

Pros

  • The only vendor besides Profound publishing response counts — you can verify the refresh rate.
  • Widest model pool at eleven, and cheap per prompt-engine.
  • Unlimited websites and countries from Pro upward.
  • 46 G2 reviews at 4.9, decent for a young product.

Cons

  • No published methodology at all.
  • Three-day trial is barely an evaluation.
  • Annual pricing is advertised as a percentage without figures.
  • Company details — founding, funding, team — are unpublished.

Compare AIclicks’ plans →

Rank Prompt

What it’s for: People who want to decide their own trade-off between coverage and frequency.

Rank Prompt is the only tool here that doesn’t fix your refresh cadence. It sells credits — one per prompt analysis, ten per generated article, ten per brand audit — and you schedule scans as you like. Four engines (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Mode, Claude) are bundled into a single credit, which is genuinely good value; Gemini and Grok add one credit each.

That flexibility is the product, and it’s also the thing to be careful about. The same $49 plan is five prompts tracked daily or thirty-five tracked weekly. Nobody can tell you which is right without knowing your situation, and the pricing page can’t either — which is why the refresh cadence isn’t published as a fixed number. Work out your intended cadence first, then divide.

It’s also the most feature-dense product here for the money: Agent Mode with a live article-editing canvas, bring-your-own OpenAI key, Lighthouse audits, white-label reports, and a Developer API on every tier including the $49 one. Whether that breadth is depth is a fair question for a product launched in 2024.

One flag worth stating plainly: 31 G2 reviews at a perfect 5.0. Not a single four-star. That’s not impossible, and it isn’t evidence of anything improper, but a flawless average across 31 reviews is unusual enough that I’d weight it lightly rather than heavily.

Pros

  • Four engines bundled into one credit is the best engine-per-unit deal in the comparison.
  • You control the frequency-versus-coverage trade-off rather than buying someone’s default.
  • Developer API and white-label reporting included at every tier.
  • 10 free credits with no card, plus a 7-day trial with 50 bonus credits.

Cons

  • Credits obscure what you’re actually getting until you fix a cadence.
  • At daily refresh, Starter is five prompts — read that before buying.
  • No published methodology or refresh documentation.
  • A perfect 5.0 across 31 reviews warrants scepticism, not enthusiasm.
  • Agent Mode is capped by a hard monthly dollar budget of $5–$25.
Rank Prompt の料金プランを見る

OmniSEO

What it’s for: Ten-engine coverage in one plan, without an add-on ladder.

OmniSEO’s structural advantage is that it doesn’t nickel-and-dime engines. Professional at $349 covers all ten — ChatGPT, AI Overviews, AI Mode, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini, Copilot, Grok, Meta AI, DeepSeek — with no per-model surcharge. Against Otterly Premium at $1,226 for a comparable spread, that’s a materially different proposition, and it produces the best per-unit numbers in the comparison at the top tiers.

It’s also the only vendor here that isn’t a startup. OmniSEO is operated by WebFX and SEO.com, an agency group claiming 650-plus staff. That’s a stability argument and a bias argument at the same time — the tool exists partly as a front door to managed services, reportedly $3,000 to $6,000 a month with a six-month commitment, though that figure is third-party and not on any WebFX pricing page I could find.

Two real limitations. Essentials at $89 has no export at all — no CSV, no PDF — which for a $1,068-a-year product is a strange place to draw the line. And the free trial is restricted to ChatGPT and Google AI Overviews only, so you can’t evaluate the ten-engine coverage that is the entire reason to choose it.

Pros

  • Ten engines with no per-model add-ons — the cleanest engine story here.
  • Best normalised cost at Professional and Enterprise tiers.
  • Backed by an established agency group rather than a runway.
  • 50% off the first paid month.

Cons

  • No exports on the entry plan.
  • The trial covers two engines, so you can’t test the main selling point.
  • No published methodology or refresh cadence — you don’t know how often prompts re-run.
  • 6 G2 reviews, 0 on Capterra, and the site’s trial claim contradicts its own Capterra listing.
OmniSEO の料金プランを見る

If you already pay for Ahrefs or Semrush

Worth answering directly, because it changes the decision for a lot of people.

Semrush: probably redundant, on volume. AI visibility is now bundled into the plan line rather than sold as the old $99 add-on — Starter at $199 includes 50 prompts tracked daily, Pro+ at $299 includes 100, Advanced at $549 includes 200. If you’re already on Pro+ or above, you have roughly what a $189 Otterly seat or a $245 Peec seat would give you, plus an entire SEO suite. The reasons to buy a dedicated tool anyway are methodological: Semrush publishes no methodology document, doesn’t commit to a definitive engine list beyond “& more,” and its toolkit has been described in third-party review as using simulated prompts rather than live queries. That’s a materially different measurement, and if you’re going to act on the numbers you should know which kind they are.

Ahrefs: not redundant, and not economical either. The Brand Radar allocation included with a base plan is a demo — five prompts on Lite, twenty on Advanced. The ChatGPT and Gemini indexes sit behind a $199 or $699 monthly add-on on top of a $129–$449 base plan, so full coverage starts around $828 a month for about fourteen daily-refreshed prompts across six engines. That’s the most expensive per-prompt option in this entire article by roughly an order of magnitude.

But Ahrefs has the one thing nobody else does: a fully published methodology, including its own stated limitations. English bias, long-tail exclusion, hallucinated links not filtered, “not a traffic metric” — all stated openly. Plus a 474-million-prompt database that answers a question the others can’t: how visible are you across the query space, rather than across the hundred questions you thought to ask.

The honest summary: Ahrefs is a research database with a tracking feature attached. If you want tracking, buy tracking. If you want to know what the query space looks like, nothing else here comes close.

The layer underneath, and what it tells you about price

One more thing, because it reframes everything above.

Cloro isn’t a dashboard, and says so: “cloro is not a dashboard. It is an API that returns the raw AEO signal for teams that would rather model it themselves.” You call it, you get JSON — the full answer text plus a sources array with positions and URLs — from live browser sessions against ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Grok, Copilot, AI Mode, AI Overviews and Google Search. No Claude. Credits cost 7 for a full ChatGPT response, 4 for Perplexity, 5 for AI Overviews. There is no per-seat, per-project or per-brand charge at any tier.

Do the arithmetic. Tracking one prompt daily across all seven engines costs about 960 credits a month. On the $30 Lite plan that’s 77 cents a month. On the $100 Hobby plan, 38 cents. For seven engines.

The dashboards in the table above charge $1.22 to $3.99 per prompt per month for three or four engines.

I want to be careful about what that does and doesn’t prove. There is a claim circulating that dashboards in this category resell data from layers like Cloro — it originates in a paid newswire release from Cloro itself, names no platform, and I’d treat it as marketing rather than reporting. Don’t repeat it as fact and neither will I.

What the arithmetic does establish is architectural. Nearly every tool here except Semrush and the database side of Ahrefs is doing the same thing underneath: running headless browser sessions against consumer web interfaces. That capability is a commodity and it’s priced close to zero. The margin in this category is in the interface, the metric definitions, and the seat — not in the data.

That’s not an argument against paying for a dashboard. Definitions, a UI your team will actually open, and someone else’s on-call rotation are worth real money. It is an argument for knowing what you’re paying for, and for not assuming a $489 tool has four hundred times better data than a $30 API. It doesn’t. It has a product built on top of it.

Which one, for which situation

You want to find out whether any of this matters, for the least money. Otterly Lite at $29, or Rank Prompt’s 10 free credits with no card. Fifteen prompts across four engines daily is enough to learn whether your brand shows up at all, which is the only question worth answering first.

You’re an agency reporting to clients across several brands. Peec’s agency track or Rank Prompt Agency at $149, which includes white-label reporting and 500 brands. Confirm Rank Prompt’s cadence maths against your reporting frequency before you commit.

Your reporting requirement names specific engines including Claude. OmniSEO Professional at $349 for all ten, with no add-on ladder. Peec can’t reach Claude below Enterprise, and Otterly charges $439 a month for it at the top tier.

You need to know what people are actually asking AI engines, not just how you rank. Profound. It’s the only source for that here and the premium is the price of it. Budget Growth at $399, not Starter — Starter is ChatGPT alone.

You already pay for Semrush at Pro+ or above. Use what’s bundled. 100 daily prompts is a real allocation, and you can revisit once you know whether the methodology difference matters to your decisions.

You want to understand the query space rather than track a list. Ahrefs Brand Radar, accepting that full coverage is around $828 a month. Nothing else answers that question, and the published methodology means you can actually audit what you’re being told.

You have an engineer and you’d rather own the metric definitions. Cloro at $30 a month, and build the view you want. Be honest about the trade: you’re taking on the maintenance, the 20-to-120-second latency, and the absence of Claude.

What I’d want you to take away

This category is fifteen months old, growing fast, and consolidating faster. Two of the tools in this article will probably be acquired or gone within eighteen months, and I can’t tell you which two.

So rather than trusting the rankings — including mine — build the habit. Convert every quote to dollars per prompt per engine per month before comparing anything. Ask the vendor how often a tracked prompt re-runs, and treat an unclear answer as a finding. Ask whether they query the browser interface or an API, because the two measure different things. And check whether the engines you actually care about are included or sold separately, because that single detail moves the real price by three or four times more often than the tier does.

The numbers in the table will be stale within a quarter. The four questions won’t be.