Positive mentions of Peec AI

Yes. If you're a startup with no developer resources, I’d start with OtterlyAI.

My shortlist

\*Prices can change; I checked current published information.

Why Otterly is my pick: it is essentially no-code: you define the prompts your prospects might ask, and it automatically runs them against multiple AI engines and reports whether your brand appears, where it ranks, sentiment, competitors, and citations. It currently covers seven major AI search engines. otterly.aiotterly.ai

The $29/month entry point makes it particularly appropriate for a bootstrapped startup. Its current site says pricing starts at $29/month and offers a free trial without requiring a credit card. otterly.aiotterly.ai

One important distinction

These aren't really monitoring every conversation an AI assistant has. They work by repeatedly testing a set of commercially relevant prompts and seeing whether your brand/product appears.

For example, you'd monitor prompts like:

• “Best [category] tools for startups”
• “[Competitor] alternatives”
• “What software should I use for [problem]?”
• “Best [product category] under $X”
• “Is [your product] worth it?”
• “Compare [your product] vs [competitor]”

That is actually more useful for marketing than trying to capture every incidental mention.

If your budget is ~$30–50/month, I'd choose OtterlyAI. If you're willing to spend ~$100+/month and want deeper competitive analytics, I'd look at Peec. Peec currently tracks visibility, position, sentiment and share of voice across AI platforms, but its starter brand plan is substantially more expensive. peec.ai

If you tell me your product/category and monthly budget (e.g. $30, $50, $100), I can narrow this to the best 1–2 options and tell you exactly what prompts I'd monitor.

Yes — but there’s an important distinction between “the prompts that cause AI to cite/use my content” and “the exact prompts real people are typing into AI.”

For a solo SEO freelancer, the tools I’d look at are:

1. Profound — probably the closest match

Profound specifically has Prompt Volumes, which uses data from real AI conversations to show what people are actually asking ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude and Perplexity. www.tryprofound.com

The particularly interesting feature for your use case is that Profound says you can:

search a specific URL and see the prompts that cause AI engines to cite that page

It also distinguishes between real-user prompts and prompts that you manually track. www.tryprofound.com

So you could theoretically get something like:

Your client's page: /best-running-shoes/

AI prompts associated with citations:

• “What are the best running shoes for beginners?”
• “Best running shoes for flat feet?”
• “Which running shoes are good for marathon training?”
• etc.

That's much closer to what you're describing than traditional AEO rank tracking.

2. Peec AI — better if you want a simpler freelancer workflow

Peec AI lets you build a prompt library and track how brands appear across AI engines. It specifically reports which prompts generate mentions and which sources get cited. peec.ai

Its documentation also makes an important distinction: it's not trying to trace individual LLM API calls; it's an AI-search visibility platform for marketers. peec.ai

The catch

Nobody can really give you the exact private prompt that caused an individual ChatGPT user to discover/cite your page. Those conversations aren't exposed to third-party SEO tools.

What you can get is increasingly good aggregate data:

real user prompts → AI answer → cited sources → your URL

That's actually more useful for SEO than knowing that one person asked a particular question.

And this is becoming a serious SEO data category: Profound says its dataset contains 1.3B+ real user AI conversations, while its tracking product lets you connect prompts to citations and visibility. www.tryprofound.com

For a solo freelancer, I'd approach it this way

If your goal is to sell “AI visibility / GEO” as an add-on to SEO clients, I'd test Profound first and Peec second.

The killer report isn't simply:

“Your brand appeared in ChatGPT 18% of the time.”

It's:

“Here are the AI prompts your customers are actually asking. Here's where your site gets cited. Here are the prompts where competitors get cited instead. And here's the content/outreach opportunity.”

That's a much more compelling deliverable to a client.

If you tell me roughly how many clients you manage and what you're willing to spend/month, I can also compare the current freelancer/agency pricing and tell you which one makes the most economic sense.

If by “answer quality” you mean how accurately AI assistants answer your target questions, whether they cite the right sources, and how your content performs versus competitors, I’d shortlist these:

My pick: Peec AI

For a five-person content team, I'd start with Peec AI rather than an enterprise-heavy platform.

It tracks prompts across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Google AI Overviews/AI Mode, Claude, Copilot and others, including mentions, position, citations and sentiment. More importantly for your use case, it lets you drill down to the actual URLs being retrieved/cited and see the answers that produced those citations. Peec AI Peec.ai Docs

That makes it useful for a workflow like:

1. Build a library of 100–500 important prompts.
2. Track the answers your prospects are actually getting.
3. Compare your brand/content against competitors.
4. Identify which URLs AI systems cite.
5. Review whether those citations actually support the claims being made.
6. Give writers specific content gaps to fix.
7. Re-run the prompts and measure whether citation share/answer presence improves.

When I'd choose Profound instead

Profound is the stronger choice if “citation accuracy” is the centerpiece of the project.

It has unusually deep citation analysis: citation share, cited domains/pages, competitor citation comparisons, watched URLs, and platform/topic breakdowns. Profound Profound Knowledge Base

More importantly, Profound now has FactCheck, which compares what AI says about your brand against a connected source of truth and flags inaccurate claims, including the citations associated with those inaccuracies. That is much closer to actual answer-quality auditing than simply measuring whether your brand was mentioned. Profound

So I'd frame the decision as:

• Peec AI: best practical choice for a 5-person content/GEO team.
• Profound: best if you're building a serious AI answer-quality + citation intelligence program and budget isn't the primary constraint.
• OtterlyAI: best if you want straightforward daily monitoring without as much analytical machinery. It tracks answers, mentions, rankings, citations and competitors across seven AI engines. Otterly

One important distinction

I'd not evaluate these tools primarily on “AI answer quality score.” That's a slippery metric.

For a content team, I'd create your own scorecard around:

• Factual accuracy — Is the answer correct?
• Citation correctness — Does the cited page actually substantiate the claim?
• Citation completeness — Are important claims cited?
• Source quality — Is the AI citing your primary source, a competitor, Reddit, a publisher, etc.?
• Brand inclusion — Are you mentioned?
• Citation share — How often are your pages used versus competitors?
• Answer position/prominence — Are you the first recommendation or an afterthought?
• Change over time — Did a content update improve the result?

That gives your five-person team something much more actionable than a single “AI visibility” number.

Bottom line: I'd trial Peec and Profound side-by-side, using the same ~100 prompts and manually scoring 50–100 answers for factual/citation correctness. If the team primarily needs a content optimization dashboard, choose Peec. If you're serious about auditing whether AI is saying accurate things and citing authoritative sources, choose Profound. Profound Peec.ai Docs

For a global content team, I’d shortlist Profound, Peec AI, and OtterlyAI—but my default recommendation would be Peec AI for multilingual monitoring, or Profound if you’re a large enterprise with a heavier analytics/procurement requirement.

My recommendation

Peec's particular advantage is that it combines multilingual/country-level monitoring with visibility, sentiment, competitor benchmarking, and citation-source analysis. That's unusually relevant when your team needs to answer "Are we visible in France, Japan, Germany, etc.?" rather than just "Are we visible globally?" Loudmink

Otterly explicitly supports 65+ countries and languages, tracks citations down to domains/URLs, and covers ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews/AI Mode, Gemini, Perplexity, Copilot and Claude. It also exposes an API and Looker Studio connector, which is useful for building a global content dashboard. Otterly

Profound is the one I'd evaluate if you're operating at Fortune-500 scale and need particularly deep enterprise reporting and citation analysis. Current industry comparisons consistently position it toward the enterprise end of the market. Bloomiro UX Continuum

What I'd actually measure

Don't buy a tool merely because it gives you a single "AI visibility score." For a global content organization, I'd build the measurement model around:

• Assistant × market × language — e.g. ChatGPT / France / French.
• Answer visibility — percentage of target prompts where your brand/product is mentioned.
• Citation rate — percentage of answers that cite your domain.
• Citation share — your citations versus competitors.
• URL-level citation share — which specific pages are earning citations.
• Position/prominence — whether your citation appears as a primary source or buried among many sources.
• Answer accuracy — whether the assistant's description of your product/company is correct.
• Competitor displacement — which competitors appear when you're absent.
• Prompt coverage — informational, commercial, comparison, category, and brand queries.
• Change detection — alerts when visibility or important citations materially change.
• Market gaps — languages/countries where traditional SEO performance is strong but AI visibility is weak.

That distinction matters because mention ≠ citation ≠ useful visibility. A brand can be mentioned in an answer while the actual source driving the answer is a competitor or third-party publication.

The stack I'd choose

For a team like yours, I'd implement:

Peec AI → central data layer → Looker/BI dashboard → content workflow

Have the monitoring platform generate the raw observations, then aggregate them into a dashboard organized by:

Region → Country → Language → Topic → Prompt → AI engine → Competitor → Cited URL

Then give regional content owners a weekly "AI visibility backlog":

Germany / German / Product comparisons: citation share down 18%
Cause: competitor X now appears in 7/10 priority answers
Missing source: your product-comparison page
Action: update comparison content + strengthen supporting third-party sources
Owner: DACH content team

That turns AI monitoring from an SEO reporting exercise into an operational content intelligence system.

One caveat: this market is moving extremely quickly in 2026, and pricing/engine coverage changes frequently, so I'd run a bake-off using the same 50–100 prompts across 5–10 priority markets rather than choosing entirely from feature matrices. Current comparisons also show meaningful differences in which engines are included versus sold as add-ons. UX Continuum stork.ai

Bottom line: Peec AI is my first evaluation for a multilingual global content team; Profound if enterprise depth and scale trump simplicity; OtterlyAI if you want to get comprehensive international monitoring running quickly and economically.

Yes. What you’re describing is now a fairly established category usually called AI visibility, GEO (Generative Engine Optimization), or LLM visibility tracking.

The tools I’d look at first are:

1. Peec AI — probably the closest match

Peec tracks your brand across ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews/AI Mode, and other AI engines. It can show:

• How often your product/brand is mentioned
• Which prompts cause it to appear
• Your position relative to competitors
• How the AI describes your product and the associated sentiment/attributes
• Which websites/pages the AI used as sources
• Which URLs were actually cited in the answer
• Changes over time
• Competitor visibility/share of voice

Importantly, Peec distinguishes between a brand mention and a source citation. For example, ChatGPT might say “Product X is a good option” without citing Product X's website, or it might cite your website as a source without explicitly naming your product. Peec tracks those separately. peec.ai

It also lets you see the underlying individual AI responses, which is particularly useful for understanding context, rather than just getting a visibility percentage.

2. Profound — strong for enterprise/AEO teams

Profound's Answer Engine Insights is another close fit. It runs a defined set of prompts against AI answer engines on a recurring basis and analyzes the resulting responses. It tracks visibility, citations, sentiment, share of voice, and positioning. help.tryprofound.com

Its citation product specifically lets you see which answer engines cite your content, how often, and across which prompts, plus the types of pages being cited. www.tryprofound.com

What I'd actually measure

If your goal is to understand "What does AI think about my product, and how often does it recommend/cite us?", I wouldn't settle for a single "AI visibility score."

I'd want a dashboard roughly like:

The context piece is especially important. A product being mentioned 50% of the time isn't necessarily good if the model says things like "although Product X is expensive..." in most of those responses.

Peec appears particularly well aligned with this use case because it analyzes the attributes and language AI associates with a brand, not just raw mentions. peec.ai

One important caveat

These platforms aren't measuring every conversation that every person has with ChatGPT. They generally run controlled sets of prompts against the AI engines repeatedly and analyze the resulting answers. Peec, for example, says it runs each selected prompt daily, giving you a consistent longitudinal dataset. peec.aipeec.ai

So the number is better interpreted as:

"How often does AI mention my product when asked about the questions we've chosen to monitor?"

rather than:

"Exactly how many times did ChatGPT mention my product to real users yesterday?"

That distinction matters a lot.

If you tell me what your product is and who the target customer is, I can also suggest the best platform between Peec, Profound, and a few others, and more importantly, what prompt set I'd use to measure whether AI is actually recommending your product.

If you’re managing multiple client brands across different industries, I’d treat ChatGPT Share of Voice (SOV) as an AI-search measurement program, not simply a rank tracker.

My recommendation: use OtterlyAI as the default platform

otterly.ai is the strongest fit I’d shortlist for an agency/multi-client setup right now.

It can monitor brand mentions and domain citations across ChatGPT plus other major AI search surfaces, benchmark competitors, track sentiment, and report visibility over time. It also supports multiple markets/languages and has an API, which becomes useful if you want to aggregate client data into your own reporting layer. Otterly Otterly

For context, the market has moved quickly: current tools generally work by running a controlled prompt set against AI engines, parsing mentions/citations, and calculating visibility/SOV against competitors. Arbling

How I'd structure the solution

For each client, create a standardized measurement framework:

• 50–200 high-value prompts based on actual customer intent
• 5–10 direct competitors
• Brand mention rate
• AI Share of Voice
• Citation/share of cited domains
• Position/order in recommendations
• Sentiment
• Product/service/category association
• Prompts won vs. lost
• Competitor displacement
• Cited URLs/domains
• Change over time
• Engine/platform breakdown

I'd calculate SOV roughly as:

Brand SOV = your brand mentions ÷ total competitor + brand mentions

But I'd also maintain a separate Citation SOV, because being mentioned by ChatGPT and actually being supported by a citation to your website are materially different outcomes.

Don't use one generic prompt set across industries

This is probably the most important part.

For a SaaS client, prompts might be:

• "Best project management software for a 50-person remote company"
• "Alternatives to [competitor]"
• "Best [category] software for enterprise"
• "What should I consider when choosing [category]?"

For a healthcare brand, you'd build a completely different taxonomy.

I'd organize prompts into:

1. Category discovery — "best X"
2. Problem/need — "how do I solve X?"
3. Comparison — "X vs Y"
4. Alternative — "alternatives to X"
5. Commercial intent — "best X for [audience]"
6. Brand-specific — "is [brand] good?"
7. Reputation — "what do people think of [brand]?"
8. Local/market-specific — where relevant

That makes the resulting SOV much more meaningful than simply asking ChatGPT whether it knows the brand.

The agency dashboard I'd build

I'd have one portfolio-level dashboard and one dashboard per client.

Portfolio view

Then drill down from client → industry → prompt cluster → individual prompt → ChatGPT response → citations.

That gives an agency something much more useful than "your ChatGPT ranking went from #4 to #2."

The competitive set I'd evaluate

I would run a short bake-off between:

• OtterlyAI — my default recommendation for a multi-client agency; broad engine coverage, competitive benchmarking, citation tracking, sentiment, API and agency-oriented functionality. Otterly Otterly
• Profound — worth testing if you're operating at enterprise scale and want deeper analytics/governance. Current comparisons position it at the enterprise end of the market. Loudmink Mention Radar
• Peec AI — worth testing if you prioritize clean AI-visibility analytics and flexible client-by-client monitoring. Conbersa Mention Radar
• Scrunch — interesting if you want to connect monitoring with the content/optimization workflow rather than just measurement. Baarely

I wouldn't choose based on the vendor's claimed "AI visibility score." Run the same 100–200 prompts through each platform and compare the raw observations.

One important caveat

Don't treat ChatGPT SOV as a stable equivalent of Google rankings.

AI answers can change substantially based on query wording, model, search/retrieval state, geography, language, time, and the sources available to the model. Recent data illustrates how volatile the citation ecosystem can be—for example, Axios reported a significant change in Reddit's share of ChatGPT citations over a matter of weeks. Axios

So I'd report:

"AI visibility across a controlled prompt set"

rather than claiming:

"This is the percentage of all ChatGPT searches where the brand appears."

The latter is not realistically measurable.

What I'd buy

If you're an agency with ~10–100 clients: start with OtterlyAI, establish a standardized prompt/SOV methodology, and use its API/export capability to consolidate the portfolio into your own BI layer. Otterly

If you're an enterprise agency with hundreds of brands or very sophisticated reporting requirements: put Profound vs. OtterlyAI through a structured proof-of-concept before committing.

And I'd make the real deliverable "AI Share of Voice + why we're winning/losing + what to do about it", rather than simply a monitoring dashboard. That's where the measurement becomes commercially valuable.

Yes. The category you’re looking for is AI search visibility / GEO (Generative Engine Optimization) tracking.

Best fits

• tryprofound.com — probably the strongest fit if your key requirement is “alert me when my brand starts or stops appearing.” It runs tracked prompts daily, measures visibility/share of voice, and its automation system can trigger alerts when visibility drops below a threshold. Profound Knowledge Base Profound
• peec.ai — excellent for tracking how often your brand is mentioned in ChatGPT, position, sentiment, competitors, and the sources ChatGPT cites. It updates visibility metrics daily. Peec AI Peec AI

What I'd choose

If your requirement is specifically:

“Tell me when ChatGPT stops recommending/mentioning my brand for important prompts.”

I'd start with Profound, because it explicitly supports visibility monitoring and threshold-based alerts. Profound Knowledge Base

If you want a more marketing-oriented dashboard for ChatGPT + Gemini + Perplexity + Google AI, I'd also evaluate Peec AI. Peec AI

One important distinction: these tools don't continuously watch every possible ChatGPT conversation. They monitor a defined set of prompts/topics and measure whether/how your brand appears in the resulting AI answers. Profound, for example, runs tracked prompts daily. Profound Knowledge Base Profound

If you tell me your brand + industry, I can compare the best 3–5 tools specifically for alerts, ChatGPT coverage, pricing, and whether they test the real ChatGPT frontend versus an API.

If you mean AI/LLM share of voice—how often your brand appears for a defined set of prompts/keywords compared with competitors—I’d shortlist these:

My pick

If your requirement is specifically “give me an AI share-of-voice number for these 100/1,000 keywords and brand terms,” I'd start with DemandSphere or Peec.

There's an important distinction, though: a good platform shouldn't simply search for your brand name. It should let you define a prompt universe such as:

• best CRM for startups
• Salesforce alternatives
• CRM for real estate
• HubSpot vs Salesforce
• best [category] software
• branded queries such as HubSpot pricing, HubSpot competitors

…and then repeatedly query the AI engines, recording mention rate, position/rank, citation rate, and competitor mentions. That's the more defensible definition of AI SOV. www.influencers-time.com

If you tell me your industry + roughly how many keywords you want to track + whether you care about ChatGPT only or ChatGPT/Gemini/Perplexity/Claude, I can narrow this to the best 2–3 tools and compare their current pricing and exact keyword/SOV capabilities.

If your goal is specifically “find every negative or inaccurate thing AI assistants are saying about our brand, understand why it happened, and alert the right team”, I’d shortlist the market this way:

My recommendation

For a serious brand-reputation program, I'd start with Profound. Its Answer Engine Insights specifically queries AI answer engines and analyzes visibility, citations, sentiment, share of voice, and positioning, with prompts run daily. help.tryprofound.com

That's more useful for your use case than simply counting mentions: you want to know what the AI actually said, whether the claim is negative or wrong, which sources it relied on, and whether the problem is occurring consistently.

Profound

If you want to get started quickly and cheaply, I'd choose OtterlyAI. It monitors ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude, Copilot and Google's AI surfaces, and its analytics include the actual answer, sentiment, citations, ranking and competitor comparisons. It says monitoring is performed daily. otterly.ai

OtterlyAI

One important distinction

There are actually two different problems:

1. Monitoring: “What are AI systems saying about us?”
2. Remediation: “How do we get AI systems to stop saying something inaccurate?”

Most products are substantially better at #1 than #2. An inaccurate answer might originate from your website, Wikipedia, reviews, news coverage, an outdated database, or another third-party source. Simply asking ChatGPT to “correct” itself isn't a scalable reputation-management strategy.

So I'd evaluate vendors on whether they give you:

• Prompt-level answer capture, not just a visibility score
• Negative/positive sentiment
• Claim extraction so you can identify specific false statements
• The sources/citations behind each claim
• Historical tracking so you can prove when the problem started
• Alerts when a previously positive answer becomes negative
• Competitor comparison
• Coverage across ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude, Copilot, Google AI surfaces, etc.
• API/Slack/webhook capabilities for routing serious issues
• A way to distinguish “not mentioned” from “mentioned negatively”
• Ideally, recommendations for what source/content needs to change

Otterly, for example, explicitly exposes the cited URLs and the context in which brands are mentioned, while also scoring sentiment. help.tryprofound.comotterly.ai

If this is for a large brand

I'd do a Profound vs. Otterly proof-of-concept rather than buying based on demos. Give both vendors the same ~100–300 prompts, including:

• “[Brand] reviews”
• “Is [Brand] trustworthy?”
• “Problems with [Brand]”
• “[Brand] alternatives”
• “Why shouldn't I use [Brand]?”
• “[Brand] pricing”
• “[Brand] vs competitor”
• “[Brand] complaints”
• “[Brand] recalls/security issues/legal issues” — where applicable
• Category questions where your brand should appear but doesn't

Then manually label the answers as accurate-positive / accurate-neutral / accurate-negative / inaccurate-positive / inaccurate-neutral / inaccurate-negative.

The winner isn't necessarily the platform with the highest “AI visibility score.” It's the one that most reliably finds the bad claims you actually care about and gives your team enough evidence to fix them.

Bottom line:

• Enterprise / brand reputation: Profound
• Best value / quick deployment: OtterlyAI
• Mid-market alternative: Peec AI
• Already deeply invested in SEO tooling: consider Semrush/Ahrefs
• If “fixing inaccurate AI answers” is as important as monitoring them: I'd evaluate a monitoring platform plus a remediation/content workflow rather than treating this as ordinary social listening.

If you tell me your company size, industry, number of brands/products, and which AI platforms matter most, I can narrow this to the 2–3 best options and compare pricing, alerting, API access, accuracy detection, and enterprise features.

Yes. The category you want is usually called AI visibility tracking, AI search monitoring, or AEO/GEO tracking. The key distinction is that you don't just want a tool that says “ChatGPT mentioned my company.” You want it to show which answer, which prompt, which competitor, and—most importantly—which websites/pages the AI cited as sources.

My picks

1. peec.ai — best overall

This is probably where I'd start.

Peec tracks your brand across ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity and other AI surfaces, while showing visibility, position, sentiment, share of voice, competitors, and the sources being cited. Its particularly useful distinction is between brand visibility (AI mentions you) and source visibility (AI actually cites your website/content). Peec AI Peec.ai Docs

That distinction is exactly what you're asking about.

For example, you could discover:

“ChatGPT recommends Acme 42% of the time, but only 8% of those answers cite Acme's own website. Instead, it gets its information from G2, Reddit, Forbes, and industry publications.”

That's much more actionable than a simple mention counter.

2. otterly.ai — best value

Otterly is worth looking at if you don't need an enterprise platform.

It tracks prompts across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews/AI Mode, Gemini, Copilot and Claude, and records mentions, rankings, sentiment, share of voice and the URLs cited by the engines. Otterly

It's a particularly good choice if your goal is:

• Track 20–100 important questions people ask about your category
• See whether your company appears
• See who beats you
• See what sources AI is using
• Monitor changes over time

3. tryprofound.com — best for enterprise

Profound is the one I'd investigate if this is becoming a serious marketing/brand-intelligence function rather than a side project.

It is positioned around enterprise AI-search analytics and deeper citation/source intelligence, rather than simply being an “SEO rank tracker for ChatGPT.” Current comparisons put it toward the enterprise end of the market. SEO Counselors AEO Labs

The metric I'd pay the most attention to

Don't make “number of AI mentions” your primary KPI.

I'd build a dashboard around:

1. Mention rate — % of relevant prompts where your company appears.
2. Recommendation/rank — where you appear when you're mentioned.
3. Share of voice — your visibility versus competitors.
4. Citation rate — % of answers that cite your site/content.
5. Citation share — what percentage of all cited sources in your category are yours.
6. Third-party source distribution — Reddit, G2, Wikipedia, news, review sites, competitors, publishers, etc.
7. Citation pages — the specific URLs AI is relying on.
8. Prompt-level history — whether a particular answer changed after you published/updated something.

That last part is especially valuable. Peec, for example, explicitly surfaces the sources AI platforms reference and lets you drill down into individual tracked prompts and recent AI responses. Peec.ai Docs

One important caveat

AI citations are volatile. A recent analysis found that Reddit's share of ChatGPT citations changed substantially over just a few weeks, illustrating why you want longitudinal tracking rather than manually checking ChatGPT once in a while. Axios

So if your real question is:

“When someone asks an AI assistant about my company/category, what does it say, and what evidence is it using?”

I'd shortlist Peec → Otterly → Profound, in that order for most companies.

If you tell me your company type (B2B SaaS, ecommerce, agency, local business, etc.) and roughly how many prompts/competitors you want to track, I can narrow this to the best 2–3 and compare current pricing, engines, citation-level reporting, API/export options, and whether they track ChatGPT/Claude/Perplexity/Gemini separately.

For a startup founder, I’d think about this less as “reputation monitoring” and more as AI reputation intelligence: What do ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and Perplexity tell potential customers about us, and would we know if it changed? A lot of traditional reputation tools (Brandwatch, Mention, Meltwater, etc.) focus on social/news and won’t see the actual AI answers your buyers are reading. answerlift.io

My shortlist:

For a startup founder, I’d usually prioritize these capabilities:

1. Prompt monitoring
   • Track questions your buyers actually ask:
     • “Best [category] software?”
     • “Alternatives to [competitor]?”
     • “Is [your company] legitimate?”
     • “Who are the top vendors for [use case]?”

2. Answer snapshots
   • You want the actual AI response, not just a score.
   • Reputation problems often come from a single bad claim:
     • wrong pricing
     • outdated product info
     • competitor comparison errors
     • false claims about funding, customers, security, etc.

3. Citation/source tracking
   • AI answers often depend on third-party sources. Knowing whether the model is pulling from your docs, reviews, Reddit, news, or competitors helps you decide what to fix. citations.io

4. Slack/email alerts
   • A founder doesn’t want another dashboard. You want:
     • “ChatGPT stopped recommending us for our category”
     • “Competitor X replaced us in 8 tracked prompts”
     • “AI is stating an incorrect feature claim”

My practical recommendation by stage:

• Pre-seed / seed: start with a lightweight tracker (Peec AI, MentionFlow, or similar) + a manual spreadsheet of 20–50 critical prompts. mentionflow.aibigsentiment.com
• Series A/B: add competitor benchmarking and citation analysis (Profound, Semrush AI tools, Sophyx). www.techradar.comwww.sophyx.io
• Enterprise / regulated markets: combine AI monitoring with traditional PR, review monitoring, and customer feedback systems.

One thing I would not do: rely only on asking ChatGPT “what do you think of my company?” occasionally. AI outputs vary, and you need historical tracking to spot drift.

If you tell me your startup category (B2B SaaS, consumer app, fintech, healthcare, etc.) and stage, I can narrow this to the 2–3 tools I’d actually pay for.

If your goal is specifically “I changed content on my site—did that change our AI share of voice?”, I’d shortlist these:

What I'd pick

Peec is probably the closest match to what you described. Its metrics explicitly include share of voice vs. competitors, and it updates them daily by AI engine. peec.ai

The important thing, though, is how you run the experiment. Don't just look at “AI visibility went from 18% → 24%.” Set up:

1. A fixed prompt set — e.g. 50–200 questions your buyers actually ask.
2. Baseline period — ideally 2–4 weeks before the content change.
3. Content-change date — record exactly which URLs/content changed.
4. Post-change tracking — continue running the same prompts.
5. Compare share of voice, mention rate, position, citations and competitor share before vs. after.
6. Segment results by URL/topic/prompt cluster and AI engine so you can tell which content change actually moved visibility.

That's important because AI answers can fluctuate substantially; a before/after measurement based on a handful of prompts can easily mistake normal variation for an SEO/GEO effect. The same prompts tracked repeatedly are much more informative. www.leanlabs.com

My ranking for your exact use case: Peec → Profound → Otterly → Scrunch.

If you tell me your monthly budget, approximate number of prompts, and whether you're B2B/B2C, I can narrow this to the best 2–3 and compare their change-detection / before-vs-after capabilities specifically.

If your core requirement is AI share of voice (SOV) by geographic market × language × prompt set, I’d narrow the field to Profound, Peec AI, and Otterly.ai, with Profound the strongest choice for a large multinational.

My ranking

1. Profound — best overall for global enterprises

This would be my first demo if you're trying to answer questions such as:

“What percentage of AI answers recommend us in Germany vs. France vs. the US, and how does that change when the prompt is asked in German vs. English?”

Profound is positioned toward enterprise-scale AI visibility, with broad engine coverage, competitive SOV, citation/source analysis, and deeper analytics. Current comparisons put it at the top end of the market for enterprise analytics. Ayzeo AnswerManiac

Why I'd choose it: if you have dozens of markets, thousands of prompts, multiple competitors, and need historical reporting, this is the category's strongest enterprise option.

Potential downside: expensive and more sales-led than the self-serve alternatives.

2. Peec AI — probably the best value for a global marketing team

Peec is particularly interesting if SOV is the KPI you care about most rather than building a huge enterprise intelligence stack. Independent comparisons specifically highlight its competitive share-of-voice capabilities and multi-country tracking. Ayzeo GEO Agency

I'd shortlist it if you're managing, say:

• 10–30 countries
• multiple languages
• 50–500 strategic prompts per market
• 5–20 competitors
• regular market-by-market SOV reporting

It is considerably easier to justify than an enterprise Profound deployment if you're a marketing team rather than a huge global organization.

3. Otterly.ai — best inexpensive starting point

Otterly is compelling if you want to prove the business case before spending heavily. It tracks mentions, citations, competitors and SOV across major AI surfaces, but its analytics are shallower than Profound. licheo.com Omid Saffari

I'd use it for a pilot rather than a sophisticated global measurement program.

4. Scrunch AI

Worth including in an enterprise RFP, particularly if you want the platform to go beyond measurement into diagnosing and improving AI visibility. Current comparisons put it in the higher-priced enterprise tier. Ayzeo Stork.AI

The feature I'd scrutinize most

Don't just ask vendors whether they support “countries” and “languages.” There are three different dimensions you want them to demonstrate:

Market: US / UK / Germany / France / Japan, etc.

Prompt language: English / German / French / Japanese, etc.

AI-search location: the geographic context presented to the model.

Those aren't necessarily equivalent. A tool saying “we support Germany” doesn't necessarily mean you can run the same German prompt with a German-localized AI experience and compare it against the equivalent French prompt in France.

I'd make vendors run this exact test in the demo:

Same 100 commercial-intent prompts × 10 countries × native language, across ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews/AI Mode, Gemini, Claude and Perplexity. Show me brand SOV, competitor SOV, citations, sentiment, and trend over time, with results segmented by country and language.

If they can't show that natively, I'd be cautious.

My recommendation

If this is a serious multinational measurement program: Profound.

If you're a marketing/SEO team looking for the best balance of SOV analytics, geographic tracking and cost: Peec AI.

If you're testing the category or have a modest budget: Otterly.ai.

One other option worth investigating is ReachLLM, which explicitly positions itself around AI-search visibility across multi-brand enterprises and combines measurement with diagnosis/execution; its current plans start at $399/month. ReachLLM

If you tell me how many countries/languages, approximate number of prompts, and which AI engines matter most, I can give you a much tighter 3–5 vendor shortlist and an RFP-style feature matrix specifically for global AI SOV.

Yes — there are platforms emerging that track which sources AI answer engines cite, but there is no single universal “AI citation database” because ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude, and Google AI Overviews use different retrieval systems and citation behaviors. Machine Relations Writesonic

For a niche news site, you’re looking for AI visibility / GEO (Generative Engine Optimization) tools. These can help answer questions like: “When someone asks an AI model about my niche, does it mention my site? Which competitors get cited instead?” GetIntel

Some options:

• tryprofound.com — Tracks brand visibility across AI search experiences and analyzes citation patterns.
• otterly.ai — Monitors AI search visibility and mentions.
• peec.ai — Focuses on AI search monitoring and competitor visibility.
• writesonic.com — Offers AI search tracking features, including citation monitoring. Writesonic
• citeharbor.com — Focuses specifically on tracking citations across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude, and Google AI Overviews. CiteHarbor

For a small niche publication, I’d also do a manual baseline:

1. Make a spreadsheet of 50–100 questions your target readers ask.

• “Who covers [niche topic]?”
• “What happened with [recent event]?”
• “Best sources for [industry] news?”
• “Latest research on [topic]?”
• Run those prompts in:

• ChatGPT with search enabled
• Perplexity
• Google AI Overviews
• Gemini
• Record:

• Which domains are cited
• Which articles are cited
• What wording appears before the citation
• Whether the AI treats the source as authoritative

Perplexity is particularly useful for this because it exposes source citations directly in answers. CiteHarbor

To become a cited source, the biggest levers tend to be:

• Publish original reporting

AI systems have little reason to cite a site that only rewrites existing stories.

• Create citation-friendly pages

• clear headlines
• dates
• named authors
• primary documents/data
• statistics
• expert quotes
• structured HTML
• Become a source other sites cite

AI systems often amplify third-party recognition, not just your own claims. Some analyses suggest a large share of AI citations point to external sources rather than a brand’s own site. llemmy

• Own a narrow category

A small site that is the source for “Baltimore maritime policy news” or “mid-market battery recycling regulation” has a better chance than a generic news site competing everywhere.

A practical strategy for a niche news publisher is to track 20–50 high-value prompts monthly, identify which publications AI cites instead of you, then deliberately create the missing source material (original datasets, interviews, explainers, timelines, local reporting). AI citation is becoming closer to digital PR than traditional SEO. conductor.com

If you tell me your niche (e.g., local politics, biotech, sports, finance, industry news), I can suggest the exact kinds of articles that tend to get picked up by AI systems.

If your specific goal is “show me the exact AI queries/prompts for which my how-to guide gets cited, and which URL gets cited”, I’d shortlist these:

My pick: Peec AI

There's an important distinction here.

If you want to know:

“Which questions cause AI to cite my guide?”

all three can do that.

But if you also want to understand:

“What searches did the AI perform behind that question before it found my guide?”

Peec is unusually interesting. Its Query Fanouts feature exposes the related/background searches used while an AI answer is being composed, including occurrence counts, and lets you analyze them by prompt or topic. peec.ai

For how-to content, I'd set it up roughly like:

Guide: /how-to-migrate-wordpress-to-shopify/

Tracked prompts:

• “How do I migrate WordPress to Shopify?”
• “What is the easiest way to move a WordPress site to Shopify?”
• “How can I migrate WordPress to Shopify without losing SEO?”
• “Step-by-step WordPress to Shopify migration”
• “What should I do before migrating WordPress to Shopify?”
• “How do I preserve URLs when moving WordPress to Shopify?”

Then look at prompt → AI answer → cited URL → citation frequency → underlying fanout queries.

That's considerably more useful than simply knowing that your domain has an “AI visibility score.”

One caveat: no third-party tool can tell you the literal private prompt of an individual ChatGPT user who happened to encounter your article. These platforms monitor controlled/tracked prompts and, in some cases, datasets of real-world queries or search/fanout data. Profound, for example, says it combines custom prompts with real-world query data. www.tryprofound.com

Bottom line:

• Deepest query/citation investigation: Peec
• Enterprise-grade research: Profound
• Straightforward monitoring on a budget: Otterly

If you're specifically trying to discover the queries you aren't currently tracking that could cause AI to cite each of your existing how-to guides, that's a slightly different problem—and I'd choose the tooling differently.

For a small marketing team, I’d shortlist Peec AI, Profound, and Otterly. My default pick would be Peec AI unless you need enterprise-grade reporting/governance.

1. Peec AI — my recommendation

Peec is particularly well aligned with what you're asking for: AI share of voice, rather than merely checking whether your company was mentioned.

It tracks visibility, average position, sentiment, citations, and share of voice versus competitors, with prompt-level analysis. It supports major AI channels including ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini, Google AI Overviews and Google AI Mode. Peec AI Peec AI

The useful distinction is:

• Visibility: % of relevant AI responses mentioning you
• Position: where you appear in the answer
• Share of voice: your mentions relative to competitors
• Sentiment: how the model characterizes you
• Citations: which sites/content are influencing the answer

That gives a small marketing team a reasonably actionable weekly dashboard rather than a giant pile of LLM transcripts. Peec also supports API/MCP integrations, which could be useful if you eventually want automated reporting into Slack, Looker Studio, etc. Peec.ai Docs Peec AI

I'd choose this if: you have 1–5 marketers and want something you can actually operate without hiring an AEO/AI-search specialist.

2. Profound — best if you want maximum depth

tryprofound.com is probably the more sophisticated choice.

It covers a particularly broad set of AI experiences—including ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity, Copilot, Google AI Overviews/AI Mode, Grok and DeepSeek—and lets you analyze visibility, share of voice, citations, sentiment, positioning and competitors. Profound

Its dashboards are also unusually good for reporting: you can build custom views around Visibility Score, Share of Voice, Average Position and Citation Rank, then share dashboards or export PDFs. Profound

The downside for a small team is that it can be more platform than you need. Profound's own positioning increasingly leans toward sophisticated enterprise AEO workflows. Its published comparison information lists a $99/month starter tier, but broader multi-model capabilities can push you toward higher plans. Profound

I'd choose this if: AI search is becoming a major acquisition channel and you want serious analytics, reporting, and optimization workflows.

3. Otterly — best lightweight alternative

I'd put otterly.ai on the trial list if price and simplicity matter more than analytical depth.

It's aimed more squarely at the "tell me how often we're showing up in AI answers and how we're doing against competitors" use case. It's worth testing alongside Peec because the actual prompt coverage, model coverage, refresh frequency, and pricing at your volume matter more than feature checklists.

What I'd actually do

For a small marketing team, I'd trial Peec and Profound side-by-side for 2–4 weeks using exactly the same dataset:

• 30–50 high-value prompts
• Your brand + 5–10 competitors
• ChatGPT
• Claude
• Gemini
• Perplexity
• Google AI Overviews/AI Mode
• Weekly tracking
• Same geographic market

Then compare the answers themselves, not just dashboards.

The most important question isn't "which tool has the highest visibility score?" It's:

Does the tool reliably tell us why competitors are winning AI recommendations and what we can do about it?

I'd weight the evaluation roughly:

1. 35% — Accuracy/reproducibility of the LLM measurements
2. 25% — Competitor/share-of-voice analysis
3. 20% — Citation/source intelligence
4. 10% — Actionable recommendations
5. 10% — Price and ease of use

One important caveat: don't treat "AI share of voice" as an objective equivalent of Google Search impression share. These products are sampling prompts and model outputs, and AI responses can vary. The trend over a consistent prompt/model set is much more useful than obsessing over an individual percentage.

Bottom line: Peec AI is the one I'd trial first for a small marketing team. Profound is the upgrade path if you discover you need much deeper multi-model analytics and reporting. Peec AI Profound

If you tell me roughly how many brands/products you need to track, your monthly budget, and whether you're B2B or B2C, I can narrow this to the best 2–3 options and compare their current pricing/limits.

3. Otterly — best lightweight alternative

I'd put otterly.ai on the trial list if price and simplicity matter more than analytical depth.

It's aimed more squarely at the "tell me how often we're showing up in AI answers and how we're doing against competitors" use case. It's worth testing alongside Peec because the actual prompt coverage, model coverage, refresh frequency, and pricing at your volume matter more than feature checklists.

What I'd actually do

For a small marketing team, I'd trial Peec and Profound side-by-side for 2–4 weeks using exactly the same dataset:

• 30–50 high-value prompts
• Your brand + 5–10 competitors
• ChatGPT
• Claude
• Gemini
• Perplexity
• Google AI Overviews/AI Mode
• Weekly tracking
• Same geographic market

Then compare the answers themselves, not just dashboards.

The most important question isn't "which tool has the highest visibility score?" It's:

Does the tool reliably tell us why competitors are winning AI recommendations and what we can do about it?

I'd weight the evaluation roughly:

1. 35% — Accuracy/reproducibility of the LLM measurements
2. 25% — Competitor/share-of-voice analysis
3. 20% — Citation/source intelligence
4. 10% — Actionable recommendations
5. 10% — Price and ease of use

One important caveat: don't treat "AI share of voice" as an objective equivalent of Google Search impression share. These products are sampling prompts and model outputs, and AI responses can vary. The trend over a consistent prompt/model set is much more useful than obsessing over an individual percentage.

Bottom line: Peec AI is the one I'd trial first for a small marketing team. Profound is the upgrade path if you discover you need much deeper multi-model analytics and reporting.

If your goal is long-term LLM/AI-search visibility tracking across a portfolio of ecommerce sites, I’d shortlist Profound first, OtterlyAI second.

My ranking

1. tryprofound.com — best overall for your use case

I'd pick Profound if you're managing a meaningful portfolio and want the data to become a durable reporting layer rather than just an SEO tool.

It tracks visibility, share of voice, citations, sentiment and competitors across major answer engines, with segmentation by topic, region and other dimensions. More importantly for ecommerce, its Shopping product tracks SKU-level visibility, product placement, merchant/checkout attribution, attribute accuracy and shopper sentiment in ChatGPT Shopping. Profound Profound Profound Knowledge Base

It also has a particularly useful capability for trend analysis: Profound says its prompt tracking captures answers, citations and visibility scores daily, while its prompt-volume dataset can help distinguish genuine changes in demand from changes in visibility. Profound Profound

Why I'd choose it: you can build a longitudinal dataset around:

• Brand visibility / share of voice
• Category and intent-level visibility
• Competitor movement
• Citation domains and URLs
• AI-generated sentiment
• Individual product/SKU visibility
• AI shopping placement
• AI crawler activity and AI-attributed traffic

That's much closer to an "AI share-of-search analytics platform" than a simple prompt rank tracker.

2. otterly.ai — best value for a large portfolio

OtterlyAI is particularly compelling if you have lots of sites/brands and don't need Profound's deeper enterprise/ecommerce intelligence.

It supports multiple workspaces/brands, tracks ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews/AI Mode, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude and Copilot, and provides brand visibility, citations, competitive benchmarking and historical changes. It also has a public API and Looker Studio connector, which is excellent for building your own portfolio-level dashboard. Otterly Otterly

Its multi-brand/workspace model is explicitly designed for agencies and multi-brand organizations. Otterly

This is probably the better choice if your key question is:

"Give me one consistent visibility index for 50–500 ecommerce domains and let me see how each is trending."

OtterlyAI also advertises pricing starting at $29/month, although portfolio-scale requirements may push you into higher tiers. Otterly

The important distinction

I'd think about the platforms this way:

OtterlyAI = "How visible are my brands in AI answers?"

Profound = "How is AI changing discovery, visibility, product consideration and ultimately ecommerce?"

For a portfolio of ecommerce sites, that distinction matters. Profound's Shopping analysis captures actual product tiles, prices, merchants, buy buttons and SKU-level results rather than treating everything as a generic brand mention. Profound Knowledge Base

What I'd actually implement

If you're evaluating vendors, I would require the platform to let you create a standardized portfolio metric such as:

AI Visibility Index

• 30% brand mention rate
• 25% citation/share-of-voice
• 20% category/prompt coverage
• 15% product/SKU visibility
• 10% sentiment/position

Then track it weekly/monthly over 12–24+ months, segmented by:

site → country → category → intent → AI engine → competitor → product

That gives you something much more valuable than individual prompt rankings: a consistent historical measure of whether each ecommerce property is gaining or losing AI visibility.

Bottom line:

• Portfolio + enterprise ecommerce: Profound
• Many sites + efficient monitoring/reporting: OtterlyAI
• If product/SKU-level AI shopping visibility is central: strongly favor Profound
• If you're primarily measuring GEO trends and want an API/Looker Studio workflow: OtterlyAI is especially attractive. Profound Otterly

If you tell me roughly how many ecommerce sites/SKUs you have and whether they're mostly Shopify, I can narrow this to the best 2–3 options and compare pricing, API access, historical data retention, portfolio limits, and ecommerce-specific tracking.

Bottom line:

"Give me one consistent visibility index for 50–500 ecommerce domains and let me see how each is trending."

OtterlyAI also advertises pricing starting at $29/month, although portfolio-scale requirements may push you into higher tiers. Otterly

The important distinction

I'd think about the platforms this way:

OtterlyAI = "How visible are my brands in AI answers?"

Profound = "How is AI changing discovery, visibility, product consideration and ultimately ecommerce?"

For a portfolio of ecommerce sites, that distinction matters. Profound's Shopping analysis captures actual product tiles, prices, merchants, buy buttons and SKU-level results rather than treating everything as a generic brand mention.

What I'd actually implement

If your goal is monthly LLM/AI-search visibility reports that look polished to clients, I’d shortlist these:

🥇 Peec AI — probably the best fit

peec.ai

This is the one I'd investigate first.

Peec is specifically positioning its agency workflow around multiple client workspaces, automated reporting and client-ready dashboards. It tracks metrics such as mention rate, position, citations, sentiment and share of voice across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews/AI Mode, Gemini and Copilot. Peec AI

The particularly useful part for your use case is the Looker Studio connector: you can build a branded dashboard template once, clone it for each client, and give clients a read-only dashboard without requiring them to log into Peec. It also exposes CSV/API data if you want to pipe everything into BigQuery, Tableau or Power BI. Peec AI

So your monthly deliverable could look like:

AI Visibility

• Overall visibility %
• Visibility vs. previous month
• Share of voice vs. competitors
• Mention rate
• Average position
• Citations earned
• Sentiment

LLM breakdown

• ChatGPT
• Gemini
• Perplexity
• Google AI Overviews
• Google AI Mode
• Copilot

Competitive landscape

• Client vs. 3–5 competitors
• Biggest gains/losses
• Queries where competitors appear but client doesn't

Citation intelligence

• Which domains/models are citing the client
• Which pages are being cited
• New/lost citations

Executive summary

• "Visibility increased 18% MoM"
• "Brand entered 14 new commercial prompts"
• "Competitor X gained share on 6 high-value queries"
• "3 content/citation opportunities identified"

That's a much more compelling retainer deliverable than simply sending an "AI score."

🥈 Profound

tryprofound.com

I'd consider Profound if your agency serves larger brands and enterprise clients. It is more oriented toward deep AI-search/AEO intelligence than simply producing a pretty monthly scorecard. Current comparisons consistently position it toward enterprise-grade monitoring and analysis. AxiomAI Aelo

The downside is that it can be considerably heavier and more expensive than what you need if your product is essentially "monthly AI visibility reporting as part of an SEO retainer."

🥉 Otterly.AI

otterly.ai

Good option if you want to keep your costs low while tracking a lot of clients.

It has broad AI-search monitoring and starts at a relatively low price point, but the important distinction for an agency is that client-facing white-label dashboards generally involve Looker Studio rather than being a completely native white-label reporting experience. Klicks Design Baarely

That can actually be fine if you're comfortable building the dashboard yourself.

If the dashboard itself is the product

I'd actually consider a two-layer stack:

Peec/Otterly → Looker Studio → your agency-branded client portal

This gives you control over the presentation rather than having every client see the vendor's UI.

For example:

Client: Acme Dental
AI Search Visibility — August 2026

Visibility: 34% ↑ 7%
Share of Voice: 22% ↑ 4%
AI Mentions: 184 ↑ 31%
Citations: 96 ↑ 18%

Top opportunity: "best dentist for Invisalign in Toronto"
Competitor gap: Competitor A appears in 71% of tracked answers vs. 29% for Acme
Recommended action: Build/strengthen 3 citation-worthy pages

That turns the software into a repeatable agency product, rather than just a reporting tool.

My ranking for your specific use case

1. Peec AI — best balance of agency workflow + data + visual client dashboards
2. Scrunch AI — worth considering if you're selling actual GEO optimization alongside reporting
3. Otterly.AI — best economical option
4. Profound — best for enterprise/high-ticket clients
5. Semrush AI Toolkit — best if you're already deeply invested in Semrush
6. Nightwatch / SE Ranking — best if AI visibility needs to sit alongside conventional SEO reporting

The key thing I'd evaluate isn't just "does it track ChatGPT?" Almost all of these do. I'd test multi-client management + Looker Studio/API + historical data + competitor tracking + citations + scheduled reporting + white-labeling. That's where the agency economics differ substantially. Klicks Design The Rank Masters

If you're building this as a $500–$2,000/month agency add-on, I'd lean strongly toward Peec + a custom Looker Studio dashboard.

🥉 Otterly.AI

otterly.ai

Good option if you want to keep your costs low while tracking a lot of clients.

It has broad AI-search monitoring and starts at a relatively low price point, but the important distinction for an agency is that client-facing white-label dashboards generally involve Looker Studio rather than being a completely native white-label reporting experience. Klicks Design Baarely

That can actually be fine if you're comfortable building the dashboard yourself.

If the dashboard itself is the product

I'd actually consider a two-layer stack:

Peec/Otterly → Looker Studio → your agency-branded client portal

This gives you control over the presentation rather than having every client see the vendor's UI.

For example:

Client: Acme Dental
AI Search Visibility — August 2026

Visibility: 34% ↑ 7%
Share of Voice: 22% ↑ 4%
AI Mentions: 184 ↑ 31%
Citations: 96 ↑ 18%

Top opportunity: "best dentist for Invisalign in Toronto"
Competitor gap: Competitor A appears in 71% of tracked answers vs. 29% for Acme
Recommended action: Build/strengthen 3 citation-worthy pages

That turns the software into a repeatable agency product, rather than just a reporting tool.

My ranking for your specific use case

1. Peec AI — best balance of agency workflow + data + visual client dashboards
2. Scrunch AI — worth considering if you're selling actual GEO optimization alongside reporting
3. Otterly.AI — best economical option
4. Profound — best for enterprise/high-ticket clients
5. Semrush AI Toolkit — best if you're already deeply invested in Semrush
6. Nightwatch / SE Ranking — best if AI visibility needs to sit alongside conventional SEO reporting

The key thing I'd evaluate isn't just "does it track ChatGPT?" Almost all of these do. I'd test multi-client management + Looker Studio/API + historical data + competitor tracking + citations + scheduled reporting + white-labeling. That's where the agency economics differ substantially.

Yes. A new category of tools is emerging around AI Share of Voice (AI SOV), Generative Engine Optimization (GEO), and Answer Engine Optimization (AEO). These platforms track how often an ecommerce brand appears in answers from conversational assistants such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and Perplexity, usually against competitors. verityscore.iocrowdreply.io

Some options to look at:

There are also ecommerce-specific tools emerging. For example, CrowdReply positions its AI SOV dashboard around tracking buyer prompts across ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, and other models, with competitor comparisons by prompt category and LLM. verityscore.iocrowdreply.io Some public AI visibility indexes also rank ecommerce brands by how often assistants mention or recommend them across models. helloranked.com

For an ecommerce site, the metrics I would look for are:

• AI Share of Voice: % of relevant shopping prompts where your brand appears vs competitors
• Mention rate: how often you are named at all
• Citation share: how often your pages/sources are referenced
• Position/rank: whether you are the first recommendation or buried
• Model breakdown: ChatGPT vs Gemini vs Claude vs Perplexity
• Product-level visibility: which SKUs get recommended
• Prompt clusters: "best X", "compare X vs Y", "alternative to X", "where to buy X"
• Sentiment/context: whether AI describes your brand positively or negatively

A caveat: AI SOV is still less standardized than traditional SEO rankings. Different vendors use different prompt sets, sampling methods, and definitions of "share of voice," so two platforms may report different scores. verityscore.io

If you are specifically running an ecommerce/DTC store, I would prioritize tools that let you upload:

1. your competitor set,
2. your product categories/SKUs, and
3. your highest-converting customer queries,

rather than generic AI brand trackers.

Yes. The category you want is usually called AI visibility tracking, GEO tracking, or AEO monitoring.

My pick: Otterly.AI

Otterly.AI is probably the best fit if your main goal is tracking your brand and competitors over time across multiple AI answer engines without jumping straight to an enterprise platform.

It currently tracks ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Google AI Mode, Gemini, Perplexity, Microsoft Copilot, and Claude, and lets you monitor brand mentions, citations, sentiment, share of voice, and competitive visibility. otterly.aiotterly.ai

The particularly useful metrics for your use case are:

• Brand coverage — % of tracked AI answers where you appear
• Share of voice — your share versus competitors
• Average position/rank — where you appear when mentioned
• Citation rate — how often your site/content gets cited
• Sentiment — whether the AI recommendation is positive, neutral, or negative
• Trend over time — whether visibility is improving or declining
• Competitor gap analysis — prompts where competitors appear but you don't otterly.aiotterly.ai

Otterly also supports recurring prompt monitoring and reporting/export, which makes it more suitable for measuring progress month over month rather than just doing occasional audits. otterly.ai

What I'd shortlist

The market is moving quickly, so I'd evaluate Otterly vs. Peec vs. Profound rather than assuming one platform is universally best. Recent comparisons consistently put those three among the leading options, with Profound positioned toward enterprise use and Otterly toward more accessible monitoring. www.answermaniac.ai

One important caveat: don't optimize around a single proprietary "AI visibility score." The most useful setup is to define a fixed set of real customer prompts, run them consistently across engines, and track mention rate + share of voice + citations + sentiment over time. That gives you a much more defensible KPI than any vendor's composite score.

If you tell me roughly your company size, industry, number of brands, and budget, I can narrow this to the best 2–3 options and compare their current pricing/features.

Yes — the category you’re looking for is usually called AI visibility tracking, GEO (Generative Engine Optimization), or AEO (Answer Engine Optimization).

The tools I’d look at are:

The distinction that matters

If by "where our content is being used" you mean which of your actual webpages/documents are being cited by AI assistants, I'd prioritize Otterly or Profound. Otterly, for example, explicitly tracks the cited URLs and shows which competitor URL gets cited instead. otterly.ai

If you mean "when someone asks an AI assistant a question in our category, where does our brand/content rank relative to competitors?", look at Profound, Peec, Otterly, or Rankr. These platforms generally run a consistent set of prompts repeatedly and calculate things like:

• Mention rate — how often you appear
• Position/rank — where you appear in the answer
• Share of voice — your visibility vs. competitors
• Citation rate — how often your site/content is actually cited
• Sentiment — how the AI describes you
• Prompt-level performance — which questions you win/lose
• Competitor displacement — where a competitor appears instead of you
• Trend over time — whether your AI visibility is improving

This is essentially SEO rank tracking for AI-generated answers, although the "ranking" is less deterministic than Google rankings. rankr.sosightivo.com

If you tell me what kind of company/content you have (e.g. SaaS, publisher, ecommerce, agency) and roughly your budget, I can narrow this to the 2–3 tools I'd actually buy and compare their current pricing/features.

If you're building client-facing AI visibility dashboards for an agency, my top pick right now is Profound.

My shortlist

Why I'd choose Profound

For your specific wording — "track and report AI assistant citations and answer placements across multiple platforms for client dashboards" — you need more than a basic "brand mentioned/not mentioned" tracker.

I'd want these metrics:

• Mention rate / visibility
• Answer position — e.g. recommended #1 vs #7
• Citation rate
• Exact cited URLs/domains
• Share of voice
• Competitor visibility
• Sentiment / narrative
• Platform breakdown — ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews/AI Mode, Claude, Copilot, etc.
• Prompt-level history
• Geographic segmentation
• Automated client reporting/API

Profound specifically tracks visibility, citations, sentiment, positioning and competitors, and its citation product lets you analyze citation share by platform, topic and prompt. www.tryprofound.com

It also queries the consumer-facing AI experiences rather than simply relying on APIs, which is an important distinction when you're selling clients a report about what users actually see. www.tryprofound.com

Where Peec may actually be better

If your priority is "I want to pipe this into my own client dashboard", I'd seriously test Peec AI alongside Profound.

Peec explicitly supports REST API and Looker Studio, and distinguishes between a source being used to generate an answer and being explicitly cited in the answer. That's a very useful distinction for agency reporting. peec.aipeec.ai

It also supports multiple projects/clients and says agencies can monitor separate client brands from a single dashboard. peec.ai

My recommendation:

• Best overall / enterprise agency: Profound
• Best for building your own reporting layer: Peec AI
• Best budget option: Otterly.AI
• Best if AI crawler analytics matter too: xSeek

One important caveat: "answer placement" isn't quite equivalent to Google SERP position. AI answers are dynamic, so I'd report mention position, visibility/share of voice, citation share, and answer presence rather than promise clients a fixed "AI ranking." Profound itself describes position as where a brand appears within the generated answer. www.tryprofound.com

If you tell me how many clients you manage (e.g. 10, 50, 200+) and whether you want white-label dashboards, I can narrow this to the best 2–3 and compare pricing, API access, white-labeling, platform coverage, and reporting.

If your priority is multi-client AI share-of-voice tracking + polished agency reporting, I’d shortlist these:

🥇 My pick: Peec AI

For an agency specifically, Peec is probably the closest match to what you're describing. Its agency offering is explicitly designed around running multiple clients from one account, with branded dashboards, automated reporting, CSV/API exports, and client-facing dashboards that don't require clients to log in. Peec AI Peec AI

The particularly useful part is its reporting automation: Peec says its MCP can pull visibility, sentiment and share of voice, compare week-over-week, generate client summaries, and compile them into a Google Slides deck with one slide per client. Peec AI

That's unusually well aligned with an agency workflow.

🏢 Profound if reporting depth matters more than agency economics

tryprofound.com is the one I'd investigate if you're dealing with larger clients and want deeper enterprise-grade AI-search intelligence. It has broader answer-engine coverage and sophisticated citation/visibility analysis, but it's less compelling if your primary requirement is efficiently producing beautiful recurring reports across dozens of smaller accounts. Bloomiro DataDab

💰 Otterly if you want to keep costs down

otterly.ai is attractive for agencies that need the basic measurement layer without jumping to enterprise pricing. Its weakness for your use case is reporting: third-party comparisons note that it doesn't offer native white-label reporting, so you'd likely build the presentation layer in Looker Studio or another reporting system. Baarely

🎯 What I'd choose by agency size

• 5–30 clients: Peec AI
• 30–100+ clients: Peec AI, then evaluate Profound if you need significantly deeper enterprise data
• Small agency / testing the service: Otterly.ai
• Enterprise agency with sophisticated content/AEO workflows: Scrunch AI or Profound
• Already heavily invested in Ahrefs: Ahrefs Brand Radar

One important distinction: don't evaluate these purely on "AI visibility score." For client reporting, I'd insist on share of voice by prompt/category, competitor comparison, mention rate, citation share, sentiment, trend over time, and export/API access. Those are what turn an interesting AI-search dashboard into something you can actually put in a monthly client deck. DataDab

If I were buying today for an agency, I'd demo Peec first. Its agency workflow and automated client reporting are the strongest match to your requirements. Peec AI Peec AI

That's unusually well aligned with an agency workflow.

🏢 Profound if reporting depth matters more than agency economics

tryprofound.com is the one I'd investigate if you're dealing with larger clients and want deeper enterprise-grade AI-search intelligence. It has broader answer-engine coverage and sophisticated citation/visibility analysis, but it's less compelling if your primary requirement is efficiently producing beautiful recurring reports across dozens of smaller accounts. bloomiro.com datadab.com

💰 Otterly if you want to keep costs down

otterly.ai is attractive for agencies that need the basic measurement layer without jumping to enterprise pricing. Its weakness for your use case is reporting: third-party comparisons note that it doesn't offer native white-label reporting, so you'd likely build the presentation layer in Looker Studio or another reporting system.

For a boutique agency whose main job is “show clients which pages AI assistants are citing, and turn that into a polished recurring report,” I’d shortlist these:

My pick: OtterlyAI

For your specific use case, Otterly is probably the sweet spot. It explicitly tracks which URLs AI engines cite, not merely whether the brand was mentioned. It currently monitors ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews/AI Mode, Gemini and Copilot, and can export reports to PDF/CSV. It also has an API and a Looker Studio connector, which is particularly useful if you want to build your own branded client reporting layer. otterly.ai

The workflow I'd use is:

Client → tracked prompts → AI answers → cited URLs → page-level citation frequency → competitors' cited pages → recommendations → monthly branded report

For example, your report could say:

AI Citation Performance — July

142 relevant AI answers analyzed
31% brand visibility
47 citations to client-owned pages
Top cited pages:
/pricing — 18 citations
/services/seo — 11
/blog/best-crm-for-agencies — 7

Opportunity: Competitors are being cited 3.2× more frequently for “best X for Y” prompts.
Recommendation: Build/upgrade these 4 pages.

That's much more valuable to a client than a generic “AI visibility score.”

When I'd choose Profound instead

If your boutique agency works with larger brands and you need very deep answer-engine intelligence, I'd demo Profound. Current comparisons consistently position it toward enterprise-grade tracking and broader engine coverage, while Otterly is more accessible for smaller agencies. technologyadvice.com

One important distinction

Don't buy a tool just because it reports AI mentions. You specifically want citation/source intelligence.

You want the underlying record to look roughly like:

Prompt → AI engine → answer → cited URL → client/competitor → citation position → date

That lets you answer the question clients actually care about:

“Which of our pages are AI systems using as sources, and what should we do to get more of our pages cited?”

Otterly explicitly supports this page-level citation tracking and says its API exposes prompts, citations and reports, which makes it particularly interesting if you're thinking about eventually automating your agency's reporting. otterly.ai

If you tell me roughly how many clients you have (e.g. 5, 20, 50) and whether you want white-label PDFs or a custom Looker Studio dashboard, I can narrow this down to the best 1–2 options and estimate the monthly cost.

Yes. What you're describing is now generally called AI visibility / GEO / AEO tracking: instead of tracking only Google keywords, the tool tracks the prompts/questions people ask AI assistants and measures which prompts cause a client to be mentioned, recommended, or cited.

A few tools are particularly relevant:

1. Peec AI — probably the closest agency fit

Peec is explicitly built for agencies. It lets you:

• Build a library of prompts for each client
• Track those prompts across ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews/AI Mode, Claude and Copilot
• See which prompts produce mentions
• Track position, sentiment, share of voice and citations
• Compare the client against competitors
• Segment prompts by things like topic, persona and funnel stage
• Create client-ready/white-labeled dashboards
• Export to Looker Studio, CSV/API, etc.
• Run automated client reporting across multiple accounts. peec.ai

The particularly interesting part for your use case is that Peec can show which prompts drive the most mentions, rather than simply giving you an overall "AI visibility" score. peec.ai

2. Profound — stronger for discovering the actual AI queries

Profound is especially interesting if by "map which keywords trigger client answers" you mean:

"What are people actually asking AI, and which of those conversations result in my client being recommended?"

Its Prompt Volumes product analyzes millions/billions of real AI conversations and lets you map keywords → related prompts → topics → intent. It can also identify prompts where a particular site was cited. www.tryprofound.com

Then its Answer Engine Insights layer lets you track those prompts daily and see visibility, citations, sentiment, positioning, etc. www.tryprofound.com

That's potentially a very powerful agency reporting workflow:

Client keyword
→ AI questions/prompts
→ AI answers
→ Was client mentioned?
→ Where did AI get the answer?
→ Which competitors appeared?
→ Which content/citations are influencing it?
→ Change over time

The distinction I'd make

One important terminology shift: "keyword" isn't quite the right unit anymore. A traditional SEO keyword like best accounting software can translate into dozens of AI prompts such as "What accounting software is best for a 20-person construction company?" or "Compare X vs Y for a small business." Profound's Prompt Volumes product is specifically designed around that relationship. www.tryprofound.com

If you're thinking about this from the perspective of building an agency reporting product, rather than just buying one, that's an even more interesting question—the gap between keyword rank tracking and "prompt → answer → citation → client outcome" attribution is still pretty substantial.

If your priority is piping AI visibility data into a client CRM or reporting/BI stack, my top recommendation is Peec AI.

Why Peec AI stands out

• API access: You can pull visibility, sentiment, share-of-voice, source/citation and other metrics into your own data pipeline. peec.ai
• Looker Studio connector: Useful if you're building standardized client dashboards and want reporting to update without manual exports. peec.ai
• CSV exports: Handy for one-off client analysis or feeding data into BigQuery, Tableau, Power BI, etc. peec.aipeec.ai
• MCP + automation: Peec can connect with tools such as n8n, Make, Claude and Cursor, which makes it possible to automate workflows like “pull each client's weekly AI visibility → calculate WoW change → update reporting.” peec.ai
• Agency-oriented: It explicitly supports multi-client projects and branded/client-facing reporting. peec.aipeec.ai

Peec vs. Profound

Profound is the other platform I'd seriously evaluate. Its API can feed metrics such as Visibility Score, Share of Voice and Citation Rank into Looker, Tableau, Mode and Hex, and it has integrations with platforms including Google Analytics, GSC, Looker and monday.com. www.tryprofound.com

So I'd choose:

Bottom line: For an agency wanting to collect AI visibility metrics once and automatically surface them in CRM + client dashboards + recurring reports, I'd start with Peec AI. Its combination of API, Looker Studio, CSV and MCP gives you more ways to get the data out of the platform rather than trapping reporting inside the vendor dashboard. peec.aipeec.ai

If you tell me which CRM/reporting suite you're using (e.g. Salesforce, HubSpot, Looker Studio, Power BI, Tableau, AgencyAnalytics, Databox), I can narrow this down to the best integration architecture.