Profound vs Peec vs Otterly: Which AI Visibility Platform Fits

Here is the short version, as of late 2026: Profound is the enterprise platform with the deepest coverage and the biggest price tag, Peec fits mid-market marketing teams and agencies that live in the data weekly, and Otterly is the affordable way to start measuring at all. All three are monitoring platforms for generative engine optimisation (GEO), which some of the market calls answer engine optimisation (AEO). Same job either way: understanding how [AI engines answer](/blog/what-a-geo-agency-does) your buyers, and whether you appear when they do.

I run GEO programmes for clients every week, and we use monitoring tools daily, so I should declare the bias upfront. Lore sells the work these tools measure. That cuts both ways: I have a commercial interest in you eventually wanting help, and I also watch, month after month, what happens to businesses that buy a dashboard and stop there. This comparison covers what each platform is good at, who each one fits, and where a subscription ends and the work begins. If the category itself is new to you, start with [what generative engine optimisation is](/blog/what-is-generative-engine-optimization) and [what answer engine optimisation is](/blog/what-is-answer-engine-optimization), then come back.

What a GEO tool does and where it stops

A GEO tool runs prompts against AI engines on a schedule and reports what comes back: whether your brand was mentioned, where you sat in the answer, how you were described, and which sources the engine cited. The better platforms add competitor share of voice, sentiment, and source-level analysis so you can see which third-party pages are feeding the answers in your category.

That last part is the genuinely valuable bit. The mentions chart shows your standing, and the source data underneath it hands you the work list. If the engines keep citing two review sites and a Reddit thread when buyers ask about your category, you now have a concrete target list for the off-site work.

Where every GEO tool stops: none of them restructures your pages, publishes citation-ready content, fixes the robots.txt file that is quietly blocking AI crawlers, or earns the brand mentions the engines treat as evidence. A frequent finding when new clients arrive with an existing tool subscription is a beautifully instrumented decline, month after month of clean charts recording work that nobody was doing. Keep that in mind as the frame for everything below.

The three platforms at a glance

Everything in this table comes from the vendors' own sites, checked in late 2026. Features in this category change monthly, so treat it as a snapshot and verify before you buy.

| | Profound | Peec | Otterly | |---|---|---|---| | **Positioning** | Enterprise AEO platform | AI search analytics for marketing teams | AI search monitoring for everyone | | **Engines** | Up to 9 at enterprise tier | Choice of models, up to 11 on enterprise | 4 on all plans, 3 more as add-ons | | **Entry price** | Starter tier, ChatGPT only (see pricing page) | $80/mo annual, 50 prompts | $29/mo, 15 prompts | | **Beyond monitoring** | Prompt volumes, crawler analytics, content agents | Sentiment, position, Looker Studio reporting | GEO audits, free tools, link citation analysis | | **Best fit** | Enterprise and large agency teams | Mid-market teams and agencies | Solo marketers and first-time buyers |

Profound: the enterprise depth play

Profound ([tryprofound.com](https://www.tryprofound.com)) has built the widest platform of the three. Its site lists monitoring across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, Google AI Mode, Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, Claude, Grok, and DeepSeek at enterprise tier, plus three features the other two mostly lack: Prompt Volumes (demand data for what people ask AI engines), Agent Analytics (tracking how AI crawlers visit and interpret your site), and Agents (autonomous content workflows for AEO tasks). Enterprise plans add SSO, SOC 2 compliance, and custom prompt tracking.

On pricing, Profound publishes a Starter tier limited to ChatGPT tracking with 50 prompts, a Growth tier with three engines and 100 prompts, and custom enterprise pricing above that. Their pricing page presents the tiers without stable public figures in places, and third-party comparisons quote numbers I could not confirm on the vendor's own page, so I will keep it qualitative: budget more than you would for the other two, and confirm current figures on their pricing page directly.

Who it fits: brands with real revenue exposure to [AI answers](/blog/patterns-that-keep-startups-out-of-ai-answers), a team that will use crawler analytics and prompt demand data, and procurement requirements that rule out smaller vendors. If your entire GEO effort is one marketer with two spare hours a week, Profound is more platform than you will use.

Peec: the mid-market analytics workhorse

Peec ([peec.ai](https://peec.ai)) pitches itself as [AI search](/blog/why-reddit-is-underrated) analytics for marketing teams, and the product matches the pitch. It tracks three core metrics per brand and prompt set: visibility (share of chats mentioning you), position within answers, and sentiment. Prompts are organised with tags, tracked daily across countries, and benchmarked against competitors you choose. The site claims more than 3,000 brands and agencies as customers and a 4.9/5 G2 rating; both are vendor claims, so weigh them as marketing.

Pricing is published plainly, which I rate: as of late 2026, Starter at $80 per month on annual billing for 50 prompts and 3 models, Pro at $205 for 150 prompts, Advanced at $420 for 350 prompts with multi-country tracking and Looker Studio integration, and custom enterprise plans with API access and up to 11 tracked models. There is separate agency pricing for tracking prompts across multiple client brands.

Who it fits: a marketing team or agency that will hold a weekly ritual around the numbers. Peec gives you clean deltas to report and act on. It offers less of an action layer than Profound, and that is fine if you already have hands to do the work.

Otterly: the accessible entry point

Otterly ([otterly.ai](https://otterly.ai)) is the platform I point founders to when the honest answer is start small. Its pricing page lists a Lite plan at $29 per month for 15 tracked prompts, Standard at $189 for 100 prompts with API and MCP access, Premium at $489 for 400 prompts, and enterprise from $1,000 per month. All plans track ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity, and Microsoft Copilot, with Claude, Gemini, and Google AI Mode available as add-ons, and all include unlimited team members and daily tracking.

Two things stand out on the vendor's site beyond price. First, the free GEO tools: prompt research, a content checker, an AI crawler simulator, and a query fan-out tool, all usable without a subscription. Second, Otterly bundles GEO audits and weekly recommendations even at the bottom tier, which nudges it slightly past pure monitoring. The site claims 40,000+ marketing professionals use it; again, a vendor claim.

Who it fits: solo marketers, founders running a short list of commercially important prompts, and anyone who wants to learn the category for the price of a few coffees before committing to a bigger platform.

Watching them side by side

Reading feature pages only gets you so far; seeing the dashboards handle the same brand is more useful. The comparison below from AllAboutAI walks through Profound and Peec on real prompts, and it is a fair snapshot of how differently the two present the same underlying question.

<YouTube id='FhtXmiHrdsI' />

One honest note on research method: two of the pages ranking for this exact comparison are owned by the vendors themselves. Peec publishes a Peec vs Profound page, and Profound publishes a Profound vs Otterly page. Both are worth reading and both are marketing. Every comparative claim in a vendor's own comparison should be checked against the competitor's current site, the same way you would read any brand's page about its rival.

How to choose between them

Match the platform to your operating reality rather than to the feature list:

• Pick Otterly if you are new to AI visibility, budget-constrained, or testing whether the channel matters for your category yet. The $29 entry makes the decision reversible.
• Pick Peec if a marketing team or agency will work the data weekly and needs clean reporting. The per-prompt analytics and published pricing make it easy to scope.
• Pick Profound if you are enterprise-scale, need the widest engine coverage, want crawler-level analytics, and have the budget and staffing to use the depth you are paying for.

Whichever you choose, ask the same questions before you sign: which engines are tracked on my tier, how often do prompts re-run, can I export the source lists behind each answer, and what happens to my prompt limit as I grow. The source-data export matters most, because that list is your to-do list.

What no tool can do on its own

The market backdrop makes monitoring feel urgent, and it should. Organic search traffic is down roughly 30% across the board as AI answers absorb clicks, while AI referrals convert at 3 to 6x the rate of traditional organic visitors. Those are the two numbers we publish on our own site, and they are why this tool category exists at all.

A subscription can only measure the distance, though, and closing it stays manual. When we took Tides Mental Health from page 2 to page 1 with 4.7x organic traffic growth in five months, the monitoring told us where the citations were going, and the movement itself came from technical cleanup, citation-ready content, and third-party mentions, in that order. BizScout's programme included the same loop, and over twelve months more than 450 AI mentions accumulated alongside it, with ChatGPT now citing them as a go-to source for business buyers. In both cases the tool measured the progress that the work created.

If you want the full breakdown of what that work involves, [what an AI visibility audit checks](/blog/ai-visibility-audit) covers the diagnostic side, and [GEO agency vs DIY](/blog/geo-agency-vs-diy) covers the honest decision about who should do it. Plenty of teams should run the loop themselves with one of these three platforms, and I have said so to prospects who expected a pitch.

Start with the measurement question either way. Our free [46-point AI visibility checklist](/checklist) covers seven categories, from technical crawlability to competitor citation gaps, and it will tell you whether your problem is knowing where you stand or acting on what you already know. Work through it before you pick a platform, and the choice above usually makes itself.