Key takeaways
- Most AI visibility platforms are monitoring dashboards -- they show you citation data but don't help you act on it. This is the "monitoring-only trap."
- Otterly.AI and Peec.ai are solid, affordable trackers but stop at data collection. No content generation, no crawler logs, no gap-to-fix workflow.
- Qwairy is a newer GEO platform with decent tracking capabilities, but it's still building out its optimization layer.
- Promptwatch is the only platform in this comparison that closes the loop: find gaps, generate content, track results -- all in one place.
- If you're a small team or just starting out, Otterly.AI's $29/month entry point is hard to argue with. But if you want to actually improve your AI visibility, you'll outgrow it fast.
There's a pattern playing out across marketing teams right now. Someone discovers that ChatGPT or Perplexity isn't mentioning their brand. They sign up for an AI visibility tool. They get a dashboard full of citation scores and competitor comparisons. Then... nothing changes. They have data. They don't have a plan.
This is the monitoring-only trap, and it's where most platforms leave you.
The question worth asking before you buy any of these tools isn't "does it track AI citations?" -- they all do that to varying degrees. The real question is: what happens after you see the data?
This guide compares four platforms -- Qwairy, Promptwatch, Otterly.AI, and Peec.ai -- specifically through that lens.
Why "monitoring-only" isn't enough anymore
A year ago, just knowing your AI visibility score felt like a competitive advantage. That window has closed. According to Similarweb's 2025 Generative AI Report, AI platforms generated over 1.1 billion referral visits in June 2025 -- up 357% year-over-year. Gartner predicted search engine volume would decline 25% by 2026 as users shift to AI chatbots. This isn't a niche trend anymore.
The brands winning in AI search right now aren't just tracking their citations. They're actively creating content engineered to answer the specific questions AI models are already responding to. They're fixing crawl errors that prevent AI agents from reading their pages. They're publishing on the exact topics where competitors are getting cited and they're not.
Monitoring tells you the score. Optimization changes it.
So when you're evaluating Qwairy, Promptwatch, Otterly.AI, and Peec.ai, the feature that matters most isn't the prettiest dashboard -- it's whether the platform helps you move from "I see the problem" to "I fixed the problem."
The four platforms at a glance
Otterly.AI
Otterly.AI is the budget-friendly entry point to AI visibility monitoring. Starting at $29/month for 15 prompts, it covers six AI engines and gives you unlimited seats -- which is genuinely useful for agencies or teams where multiple people need to see the data.
The platform is clean and simple. You set up prompts, it tracks how often your brand appears in AI responses, and you get a visibility score over time. There's also a GEO Audit feature that gives you a snapshot of your current standing.
Where it stops: there's no content generation, no crawler logs, no answer gap analysis that tells you which specific prompts competitors are winning that you're not. You see the score. You don't get a roadmap to improve it.
Peec.ai
Peec.ai sits in the mid-market tier, starting at €89/month. It supports up to nine AI engines, which is broader coverage than Otterly, and its multi-language support is genuinely strong -- one of the best in the category if you're operating across European markets or need localized monitoring.
The reporting is polished. Data is structured well. If you need to show AI visibility metrics to a client or executive team, Peec.ai produces clean outputs.
But the same limitation applies: it's a monitoring platform. It tracks citations, shows you competitor comparisons, and gives you data. What it doesn't do is help you create the content that would change those numbers.
Qwairy
Qwairy is a newer player in the GEO space. It positions itself as an AI search visibility and optimization platform, which suggests ambitions beyond pure monitoring. The platform tracks brand mentions across major AI models and provides visibility scoring.
Qwairy is still building out its feature set. As of mid-2026, it covers the core tracking use cases reasonably well, but its optimization capabilities -- content generation, gap analysis, crawler intelligence -- are less developed compared to what Promptwatch offers. It's worth watching, particularly if you're looking for a platform that might grow into a fuller solution.
Promptwatch
Promptwatch is the most complete platform in this comparison. It's built around a three-step loop: find gaps, create content, track results. That sounds simple, but the execution is what separates it.
The Answer Gap Analysis shows you exactly which prompts your competitors are appearing in that you're not -- not just "you're invisible" but "here are the specific questions AI models are answering without citing you." That's actionable in a way that a citation score isn't.
From there, Content Agents generate articles, listicles, and briefs grounded in real prompt data, citation patterns, and competitor analysis. This isn't generic AI writing -- it's content built to close specific visibility gaps. And then page-level tracking shows you when AI crawlers start reading those new pages and when citations follow.
The crawler logs are worth calling out specifically because most competitors don't have them. Promptwatch shows you in real time which AI agents are hitting your site, which pages they're reading, and where they're hitting errors. That's the kind of technical visibility that actually explains why you're not being cited.
Feature comparison
| Feature | Qwairy | Promptwatch | Otterly.AI | Peec.ai |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AI models tracked | Multiple | 10 (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini, Grok, DeepSeek, Copilot, Meta AI, Google AI Overviews, Google AI Mode) | 6 | Up to 9 |
| Starting price | Not publicly listed | $99/mo | $29/mo | €89/mo |
| Answer gap analysis | Limited | Yes | No | No |
| Content generation | Limited | Yes (Content Agents) | No | No |
| AI crawler logs | No | Yes | No | No |
| Prompt volume & difficulty | No | Yes | No | No |
| Multi-language support | Limited | Yes | Limited | Yes (best-in-class) |
| Reddit & YouTube tracking | No | Yes | No | No |
| ChatGPT Shopping tracking | No | Yes | No | No |
| Competitor heatmaps | Basic | Yes | Basic | Yes |
| Page-level citation tracking | No | Yes | No | No |
| Traffic attribution | No | Yes | No | No |
| Free trial | Unknown | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Best for | Teams exploring GEO | Teams that want to improve AI visibility | Budget monitoring | Multi-language monitoring |
Where each platform actually fits
If you're just starting out and need a budget option
Otterly.AI at $29/month is the obvious starting point. You'll get enough data to understand your current AI visibility, and the unlimited seats mean your whole team can see the dashboard without paying per user. The GEO Audit gives you a baseline. Just go in knowing that you'll need to do the optimization work yourself -- the platform won't guide you through it.
If you need strong multi-language coverage
Peec.ai's multi-language support is genuinely the best in this group. If you're a European brand monitoring AI responses across German, French, Spanish, and English markets simultaneously, Peec.ai handles that better than the others. The €89/month starting price is reasonable for what you get.
If you want to actually improve your AI visibility
This is where Promptwatch separates itself. The monitoring-only tools tell you where you're invisible. Promptwatch tells you why, then helps you fix it.
The Content Agents alone are worth the price difference for teams that are serious about GEO. Instead of getting a gap analysis and then spending weeks figuring out what content to create, you get briefs and drafts built from the actual prompt data -- the specific questions AI models are asking that your site doesn't answer.
The crawler logs are the other differentiator that's hard to overstate. When your AI visibility score isn't improving, you need to know whether it's a content problem or a crawling problem. Promptwatch tells you. The others don't.
Promptwatch's Professional plan at $249/month covers two sites, 150 prompts, 15 articles per month, and includes crawler logs and state/city-level tracking. For a marketing team that's serious about AI search, that's a reasonable budget for a platform that actually moves the needle.
The gap analysis problem
Here's the thing that gets glossed over in most platform comparisons: knowing your citation score doesn't tell you what to do next.
Say Peec.ai tells you that you appear in 23% of AI responses for your target prompts. Your competitor appears in 61%. That's useful information. But it doesn't tell you which specific prompts they're winning, what content they have that you don't, or what you'd need to publish to close that gap.
Promptwatch's Answer Gap Analysis does exactly that. It maps the specific prompts where competitors are visible and you're not, then surfaces the content topics your site is missing. You're not guessing at what to write -- you're filling documented gaps.
This is the difference between a monitoring tool and an optimization platform. One shows you the score. The other shows you the plays.
A note on Qwairy
Qwairy deserves a fair assessment rather than being dismissed as "too new." The platform is genuinely trying to build something beyond basic monitoring, and its positioning in the GEO space is reasonable.
The honest limitation right now is that its optimization layer isn't mature enough to compete with what Promptwatch has built. If you're evaluating in mid-2026, Qwairy is a platform to check back on in six months -- it may close the gap. But for teams that need to improve AI visibility now, it's not the right choice.
Pricing reality check
One thing that comes up in community discussions (there's a Reddit thread in r/b2bmarketing where someone tested 15 AI visibility tools) is the prompt cap problem. Most platforms limit how many prompts you can track per tier, and running out of prompts mid-month is genuinely frustrating.
Here's how the four platforms stack up on pricing:
| Platform | Entry price | Prompts at entry | Sites | Content generation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Otterly.AI | $29/mo | 15 | 1 | No |
| Peec.ai | €89/mo | Varies | 1-2 | No |
| Qwairy | Not listed | Not listed | Not listed | Limited |
| Promptwatch | $99/mo | 50 | 1 | 5 articles/mo |
Promptwatch's Essential plan at $99/month includes 50 prompts and 5 articles per month. That's more expensive than Otterly's entry point, but you're getting content generation included -- which, if you're paying a writer or agency to create GEO content separately, likely costs more than the price difference.
Which one should you pick?
There's no single right answer, but the decision tree is pretty clear:
If your only goal is to see your current AI visibility score and you have a tight budget, Otterly.AI gets you there cheaply. It's honest about what it is.
If you need multi-language monitoring across European markets, Peec.ai's language support and polished reporting make it the right call.
If you want to understand your AI visibility AND actually improve it -- close the gaps, generate the content, track what happens when AI crawlers find your new pages -- Promptwatch is the only platform in this comparison that does all of that in one place.
Qwairy is worth revisiting as it matures, but it's not ready to be the primary tool for teams with serious GEO goals.
The monitoring-only trap is real, and most platforms in this space are still stuck in it. The question is whether you want a dashboard that shows you the problem or a platform that helps you solve it.