Neutral mentions of Peec AI

Yes. What you’re looking for is usually called AI visibility / GEO tracking: tools that repeatedly run a defined set of prompts and measure whether a client is mentioned, how prominently they appear, and which sources/URLs the AI cites.

For a small content agency managing multiple clients, I’d shortlist these:

My take for your use case

I'd start by evaluating Peec AI and OtterlyAI.

Peec AI is particularly aligned with the question you asked: it explicitly tracks mention frequency and citations, and its agency product supports separate client projects, daily tracking, competitor benchmarking, Looker Studio reporting, CSV/API access, and multiple AI engines. Peec AI Peec AI

One useful distinction is that Peec separates brand visibility from source visibility. So you can answer two different client questions:

• "How often does ChatGPT/Gemini/etc. mention our client?"
• "Which websites and URLs are the AI systems using/citing when answering these questions?"

It also tracks whether your content was used as a source even when the URL wasn't explicitly cited, which could be quite valuable for a content agency. Peec AI

OtterlyAI looks particularly strong if citation reporting is the centerpiece. It says it tracks every cited URL, whether the citation names the brand, and citation changes over time, alongside brand mentions and visibility. It also has an API for accessing prompts, citations, brand reports, and workspace data. Otterly Otterly

Profound is worth considering if you're moving toward a larger agency operation. Its agency offering emphasizes centralized management of client brands and visibility across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini, Copilot, Google AI Overviews and other answer engines. Profound

What I'd want before buying

For an agency, I wouldn't choose based simply on "number of AI engines." I'd test whether the tool can produce a report like:

Client: Acme
Prompt: "Best accounting software for a 20-person business"
ChatGPT: Mentioned — position 2
Perplexity: Mentioned — position 3
Gemini: Not mentioned
Citations: acme.com/pricing, Forbes article, Reddit thread
Competitors mentioned: X, Y, Z
Change vs. last month: +18% visibility

That gives you something you can actually turn into a monthly GEO/content-retainer deliverable, rather than just another analytics dashboard.

If you tell me roughly how many clients you manage (e.g. 5, 20, 50+) and whether you need white-label client reports, I can compare the agency plans/pricing of Peec, Otterly, Profound and a few alternatives.

Yes. For a small content agency, you’re looking for an AI visibility / GEO tracker rather than a traditional SEO rank tracker. The key capabilities are:

• Track how often a client is mentioned in AI answers.
• Track whether the client's site/pages are cited, separately from mere mentions.
• Save the exact AI answer and cited URLs as evidence for client reporting.
• Monitor the same prompts over time, since AI answers can change between runs.
• Compare clients against competitors and identify which sources are being cited instead.

A few tools currently fit that use case particularly well:

• otterly.ai — tracks mentions, citations, sentiment and share of voice across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, Google AI Mode, Gemini, Copilot and Claude. It also stores the cited URLs, making it particularly relevant if your agency needs citation evidence in reports. Otterly
• peec.ai — explicitly designed for agencies, with daily prompt tracking, competitor benchmarking, mention rate, position, citations and sentiment. Peec AI
• mentionscout.com — covers seven AI answer engines and records the sources behind citations, with scheduled buyer prompts and competitor tracking. It also has agency-oriented reporting/features. MentionScout
• citations.io — more focused specifically on citation intelligence: it records which answers mention a brand, which pages/domains AI cites, and who gets cited instead. It advertises plans starting at $39/month. Citations

What I'd look for in an agency

If you're managing, say, 10–50 clients, I'd prioritize multi-client workspaces + scheduled prompts + raw answer/citation evidence + white-label reporting over a fancy single "AI visibility score."

For example, your monthly client report could say:

AI visibility: 37% of tracked answers mentioned the client
Citation rate: 22% linked to the client's site
Top cited page: /services/... — 14 citations
Competitor most frequently cited: Competitor X
Biggest gap: 8 high-intent prompts where competitors were cited but the client wasn't

That is much more useful to a content agency than simply telling a client "your AI visibility score is 64."

If I were narrowing this to a shortlist for an agency, I'd test OtterlyAI and Peec AI first, then compare them against MentionScout specifically for the quality of their client reporting and raw citation data. Their feature sets overlap considerably, so pricing, number of prompts/clients, export/API access, and white-label reporting may ultimately be the deciding factors. Otterly Peec AI MentionScout

If you tell me roughly how many clients you manage (e.g. 10, 30, 100) and whether you need white-label PDF/reporting, I can compare the agency plans and pricing of the leading options.

Yes — what you’re looking for is generally called AI search visibility / GEO (Generative Engine Optimization) monitoring. These platforms run a library of prompts against AI search/assistant products and record whether your brand/site is mentioned, which URLs are cited, which competitors are cited instead, and how that changes over time.

Platforms worth looking at

• otterly.ai — probably the most straightforward starting point. It tracks citations and mentions across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews/AI Mode, Gemini, Copilot and Claude, and has content/crawlability audits plus recommendations for improving citation potential. Otterly
• getprofound.com — more enterprise-oriented, with deeper citation/source and competitive intelligence capabilities. SEO Counselors Austin Heaton
• peec.ai — focused specifically on AI-search visibility, prompt tracking, competitors and optimization recommendations. Refine AI Kitbase
• ahrefs.com — worth considering if you're already using Ahrefs for traditional SEO; its newer AI visibility functionality can connect AI citations with your existing SEO/competitor data. OpenAIToolsHub
• semrush.com — similarly useful if you're already in the Semrush ecosystem and want AI-search visibility alongside conventional SEO. Austin Heaton

What I'd look for specifically

Don't just buy a tool that gives you an "AI visibility score." The really useful workflow is:

Prompt → AI answer → cited URLs → competitor URLs → why they were selected → recommended content changes

For example, you want to be able to discover:

"For 47 prompts about [your category], ChatGPT cited competitors 83 times but your site only 11 times."

Then drill into:

• Which questions competitors are winning
• Which competitor pages are being cited
• Which of your pages are already getting cited
• What sources AI systems are using to establish authority
• Whether you're missing from third-party sources such as industry publications, Reddit, directories, reviews, etc.
• Which pages need better structure, facts, comparisons, FAQs, schema, internal linking, or topical coverage
• Whether changes to your site actually increase citation frequency

Otterly, for example, explicitly supports prompt libraries, citation tracking, competitor comparisons, crawlability/content audits, and GEO recommendations. Otterly

If you tell me your website/domain and what industry you're in, I can also recommend which of these platforms fits your use case and show you exactly what I'd measure to increase citations in ChatGPT/Perplexity/Gemini.

• Which questions competitors are winning
• Which competitor pages are being cited
• Which of your pages are already getting cited
• What sources AI systems are using to establish authority
• Whether you're missing from third-party sources such as industry publications, Reddit, directories, reviews, etc.
• Which pages need better structure, facts, comparisons, FAQs, schema, internal linking, or topical coverage
• Whether changes to your site actually increase citation frequency

Otterly, for example, explicitly supports prompt libraries, citation tracking, competitor comparisons, crawlability/content audits, and GEO recommendations.

Yes — but there’s an important distinction.

If by “exact prompts” you mean the actual user prompts that caused an AI system to surface/cite your content, there still isn’t a Google-Search-Console equivalent that gives you the complete underlying user query stream. ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, etc. generally don't expose their users’ private prompt data. Otterly explicitly notes this limitation. Otterly AI Otterly

What does exist now is AI-visibility/GEO software that lets you track specific prompts and the resulting AI answers, including whether your site was mentioned or cited.

The tools I'd look at as a solo SEO

• Writesonic AI Visibility Tracker — particularly interesting because it shows the exact tracked prompt, full AI answer, citations, competitors, and query fan-outs. It also claims to crawl the actual AI interfaces rather than relying solely on APIs. Writesonic
• Otterly.AI — tracks prompts across AI search engines and shows citations/sources. It also has prompt-research functionality for generating a realistic set of prompts to monitor. Otterly AI Otterly
• Profound — more of a serious AI-search monitoring platform, with prompt-level visibility and citation tracking. It tends to make more sense as client work scales.
• Peec AI — another dedicated AI visibility platform focused heavily on prompt/answer/citation and competitive analysis.
• Promptwatch — worth investigating if you want not merely monitoring but a workflow from prompt → AI answer → citation gap → content action. Promptwatch

The key thing I'd change in your mental model

Think of it as:

Prompt → AI response → sources/citations → your page

rather than:

User prompt → your page

For example, you might configure:

“best SEO tools for small ecommerce businesses”

The platform repeatedly asks that prompt to ChatGPT/Perplexity/Gemini/etc., records the response, and tells you something like:

ChatGPT mentioned Ahrefs and Semrush
Sources: ahrefs.com/..., reddit.com/..., yourcompetitor.com/...
Your site: not cited

Then you can track another prompt:

“how do I do SEO for a small ecommerce store without an agency?”

and discover:

Your article is cited as source #2

That's much closer to GSC for AI search, although it's not actual first-party user-query data.

For a solo freelancer, I'd probably start here

Writesonic or Otterly are the two I'd investigate first. Writesonic is particularly interesting if your goal is “show me the prompts, answers and pages being cited so I can turn that into SEO recommendations for clients.” Its current documentation explicitly exposes the tracked prompt and corresponding answer, including the cited sources and query fan-outs. Writesonic Help Center Writesonic

One other important distinction: “being mentioned” ≠ “being cited.” A model can recommend a company/content brand without linking to its site. For SEO purposes, I'd track both, but pay particular attention to which URLs are actually being used as sources. Austin Heaton

If you tell me roughly how many clients you manage and your monthly tool budget (e.g. <$50, $100, $200), I can narrow this down to the 2–3 tools that make the most sense for a solo SEO freelancer.

If you mean tracking which sources AI assistants cite, how often they appear, and how influential those sources are, the category is usually called AI citation tracking / AI visibility / answer engine optimization (AEO) analytics. A few tools worth looking at:

My shortlist by use case:

• You want the deepest “why did the AI pick this source?” analysis: Profound — it focuses heavily on citation ownership, source categorization, and competitor citation analysis. Profound
• You want a practical SEO workflow: Semrush or Ahrefs if your team already uses those ecosystems. Nick Lafferty Beamtrace
• You want a lighter-weight monitoring setup: Otterly.AI or Peec AI. Elfsight The Rank Masters

For evaluating citation quality, I’d look for these metrics rather than just “number of citations”:

• Source prominence: how often a domain/page appears across relevant prompts
• Citation share: your sources vs competitors’ sources
• Source authority/context: publisher type, reputation, topical relevance
• Citation persistence: whether a source keeps appearing over weeks/months
• Citation position: whether the source is a primary reference or a minor supporting link
• Citation gaps: important sources AI cites for competitors but not for you

One caveat: AI citation data is still noisy because different assistants expose citations differently, and results can vary by prompt wording, geography, model version, and retrieval timing. Nick Lafferty

If you’re building an internal analytics stack rather than buying a SaaS tool, the core dataset you’d want is: (model, prompt, answer, cited URL, domain, citation position, timestamp, topic, competitor relationship). That enables your own source prominence scoring.

If by “exact snippets” you mean which pages AI assistants actually cite, what passage/fact they appear to be extracting, and what you should change to increase citation likelihood, you’re looking for the newer AI search visibility / GEO tools—not traditional SEO platforms.

Tools worth looking at

The important distinction

No tool can reliably show a single, permanent “exact snippet ChatGPT uses” in the same way that Google Search Console can show a search query. AI answers are generated dynamically, and repeated queries can produce different citations and wording. Recent research specifically finds substantial citation variability between runs. arXiv

The more useful workflow is:

Prompt → AI answer → cited URL → extracted/supporting content → competitor source → content gap → optimization

For example:

Prompt: “What are the best project management tools for remote teams?”

A useful GEO platform should tell you:

• Your brand appeared: No
• Competitor mentioned: Asana
• Sources cited: Asana, Forbes, G2, etc.
• Which URLs those sources came from
• Which prompts consistently produce/lose your mention
• What topics/entities/facts are present in cited pages but missing from yours
• Whether your content is actually being cited versus merely ranking well in Google

That's much more actionable than simply measuring “AI visibility.”

For a content strategist specifically

I'd prioritize a tool that gives you citation-source analysis + content recommendations, rather than one that only gives you a visibility score.

The underlying research supports this approach: pages with greater AI citation influence tend to be structured, semantically aligned, and rich in extractable evidence such as definitions, numbers, comparisons, and procedures. arXiv

So your optimization brief can become:

“Here are the 25 buyer questions → here are the sources AI currently cites → here are the passages/facts those sources provide → here's what's missing from our content → here's the page/section we should create.”

If you tell me your budget (e.g. <$100/mo, $500/mo, enterprise) and whether you're optimizing for ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini/AI Overviews, or all of them, I can narrow this to the 2–3 tools that fit a content-strategy workflow.

The category of solutions you’re looking for is usually called AI citation tracking, AI visibility tracking, Answer Engine Optimization (AEO) analytics, or Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) platforms. These tools track the prompts/questions that cause AI assistants to answer with your content as a cited source. Linkeddit Profound

Common solutions include:

The workflow typically looks like:

1. Seed the tool with your site, products, topics, or competitors.
2. The platform generates or lets you upload likely AI prompts, such as:

• “What are the best tools for X?”
• “How do I solve Y problem?”
• “Compare A vs B”
• “Who offers Z service?”
• It runs those questions through AI assistants.
• It reports:

• Which questions produced citations to your content
• Which pages were cited
• Which competitors were cited instead
• Which topics have citation gaps
• Which new content could improve your chances of being cited CitePrism Profound

If your goal is specifically “find the exact keywords/questions where AI assistants cite us today”, prioritize tools with prompt-level citation tracking rather than general AI brand monitoring. Linkeddit Profound

For an SEO/content team, I’d usually evaluate:

• Enterprise monitoring: Profound
• Prompt + citation intelligence: CitePrism or Peec AI
• Lower-cost experimentation: Frase or CiteRank

The important distinction: these tools generally measure test prompts they run, not the private questions real users type into ChatGPT or Gemini (those conversations are not available to third parties). CitePrism

Ahrefs Brand Radar is the solution most directly aligned with that need. It lets you identify the exact keywords/prompts that trigger AI answers, see whether your content is cited, and identify the specific pages being cited across ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Copilot, and Google AI Overviews/AI Mode. Ahrefs Help Center Ahrefs

For a focused set of important questions, its Custom Prompts feature lets you track your own questions and monitor citation changes over time. Ahrefs Help Center

ahrefs.com

If you're evaluating alternatives, I can also compare Ahrefs, Profound, Otterly.AI, Peec AI, and similar AI-visibility platforms specifically on “which prompts caused my content to be cited.”

If the core job is “tell me which specific pages lost AI visibility after an underlying model/search update, and help me diagnose why,” I’d evaluate software very differently from a generic GEO/AI rank tracker.

Most current AI-visibility platforms can track prompts, mentions, citations, competitors, and share of voice. The harder problem is tying a visibility decline to a specific URL + specific engine/model + specific point in time. Recent comparisons note that page-level tracking and attribution are still weak spots in many tools. AI Search Tools CitedIndex

What I’d require

Crawler data is particularly useful because otherwise you're observing outputs without seeing whether discovery changed. Some newer products explicitly combine citation monitoring with crawler logs, while many tools remain primarily monitoring dashboards. AI Search Tools Tool Solved

The killer dashboard I'd look for is essentially:

Pages impacted by AI update — Aug 28
37 URLs negatively affected
/best-crm −62% citation rate
Lost across 18 prompts
ChatGPT −71% / Gemini −8% / Perplexity −4%
HubSpot replaced you in 11/18 prompts
No meaningful page changes during period
High confidence: external/model-driven decline

That last part—causal confidence—is much more valuable than another “AI Visibility Score.”

I would also insist on repeat sampling. AI answers are stochastic, so comparing one response before an update with one response afterward can generate a lot of false alarms. Ideally the software reruns important prompts multiple times and reports citation probability/rate rather than treating presence as binary.

Current products worth benchmarking include tryprofound.com, peec.ai, scrunchai.com, and otterly.ai. The market broadly has the prompt/mention/source-tracking layer already; recent industry comparisons differentiate products increasingly on page-level analysis, crawler diagnostics, attribution, APIs, and the ability to turn monitoring into action. Bloomiro PickMySoft

If you're considering building this rather than buying it, I think there's an interesting product wedge here: “Sentry for AI visibility” rather than another GEO rank tracker—automatically detect an AI/search change, identify the URLs it hurt, explain what changed, and prioritize what to fix.

If the core job is “tell me which specific pages lost AI visibility after an underlying model/search update, and help me diagnose why,” I’d evaluate software very differently from a generic GEO/AI rank tracker.

Most current AI-visibility platforms can track prompts, mentions, citations, competitors, and share of voice. The harder problem is tying a visibility decline to a specific URL + specific engine/model + specific point in time. Recent comparisons note that page-level tracking and attribution are still weak spots in many tools. AI Search Tools CitedIndex

What I’d require

Crawler data is particularly useful because otherwise you're observing outputs without seeing whether discovery changed. Some newer products explicitly combine citation monitoring with crawler logs, while many tools remain primarily monitoring dashboards. AI Search Tools Tool Solved

The killer dashboard I'd look for is essentially:

Pages impacted by AI update — Aug 28
37 URLs negatively affected
/best-crm −62% citation rate
Lost across 18 prompts
ChatGPT −71% / Gemini −8% / Perplexity −4%
HubSpot replaced you in 11/18 prompts
No meaningful page changes during period
High confidence: external/model-driven decline

That last part—causal confidence—is much more valuable than another “AI Visibility Score.”

I would also insist on repeat sampling. AI answers are stochastic, so comparing one response before an update with one response afterward can generate a lot of false alarms. Ideally the software reruns important prompts multiple times and reports citation probability/rate rather than treating presence as binary.

Current products worth benchmarking include tryprofound.com, peec.ai, scrunchai.com, and otterly.ai. The market broadly has the prompt/mention/source-tracking layer already; recent industry comparisons differentiate products increasingly on page-level analysis, crawler diagnostics, attribution, APIs, and the ability to turn monitoring into action. Bloomiro PickMySoft

If you're considering building this rather than buying it, I think there's an interesting product wedge here: “Sentry for AI visibility” rather than another GEO rank tracker—automatically detect an AI/search change, identify the URLs it hurt, explain what changed, and prioritize what to fix.