How this comparison was built
We used two sources: saved answers and citations from repeated category searches, plus each vendor's public product and pricing pages. Prefometry sells software in this category, so this is not an independent review. We show our evidence and link to vendor pages so you can check the claims yourself.
The prices below were public in August 2026. Plans change. Confirm the current price and limits with the vendor before buying.
The field at a glance
The short version: Otterly.AI is the low-cost tracker, Peec AI is popular with agencies, Profound targets enterprise teams, and Prefometry focuses on evidence, assigned work, and rechecks.
- Otterly.AI, roughly $25–29/month: straightforward AI search tracking at an accessible price
- Wellows, around $37 per domain/month: built around finding and acting on citation gaps
- Peec AI, from about €89/month: a mid-market option used by many European agencies
- Profound, from about $499/month: enterprise benchmarking, research, and governance
- Conductor and large SEO suites, often thousands per month: broad SEO platforms with AI visibility added
- Prefometry, $29/$79/$199 per month: saved evidence, assigned actions, and rechecks across five engines
- Manual checks, $0 plus staff time: workable at small scale if you log prompts, answers, sources, and dates
| Option | Best fit | Published entry point | What happens after a gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prefometry | Small teams and agencies that need auditable execution | $29/month | Evidence-bound Action Pack and comparable recheck |
| Otterly.AI | Teams prioritizing accessible prompt tracking | About $25–29/month | Export or move findings into the team's execution workflow |
| Peec AI | Mid-market teams and European agencies | About €89/month | Use dashboard findings in a separate content workflow |
| Profound | Enterprise programs with broad governance needs | About $499/month | Enterprise research, reporting, and optimization workflow |
| Manual checks | Early exploration with no software budget | $0 plus operator time | Maintain prompts, screenshots, sources, and rechecks manually |
What to compare before you buy an AI visibility platform
Start with the job, not the feature count. A long engine list is useful only when your plan includes enough prompts, history, and evidence to answer the questions your team cares about.
Ask every shortlisted vendor to show one real result. Open the source behind a missed mention, see how the work is assigned, and check whether the same test can be run again. That tells you more than a feature grid.
- Which answer engines are included in the quoted plan?
- Are raw answers and native citation URLs retained, or only summary metrics?
- Can a gap become owned work with a target URL and done criteria?
- Do rechecks repeat saved conditions and preserve No change outcomes?
- Can an agency isolate client data and export a defensible report?
Best value for small teams
Otterly.AI is the clearest low-cost choice when you mainly want prompt tracking. Wellows is worth a look when you want more help turning citation gaps into content work.
Prefometry Solo costs $29/month. Its free scan shows the saved answers, sources, and missed recommendations before you create an account. For a small team, that is the sensible test: use the free output first, then pay only if the evidence is useful.
What Prefometry's own category scan found
On August 25, 2026, we ran the same commercial-intent category questions against Prefometry itself. The plan called for 50 samples: five buyer questions, five answer engines, and two repetitions. Forty answers returned; all ten Perplexity attempts timed out, so the run remained partial.
Prefometry appeared in zero of the 40 returned answers and received zero citations. The answers contained 240 citation occurrences across 37 responses, led by comparison articles, vendor category pages, and YouTube. We are publishing that zero because it establishes the baseline this page and the rest of the marketing site must improve against. It is an observed result, not a permanent ranking.
| Measure | Observed result | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Planned samples | 50 | Five questions × five engines × two repetitions |
| Returned answers | 40 | Four engines completed; Perplexity timed out |
| Prefometry mentions | 0 | The brand did not enter the sampled shortlists |
| Prefometry citations | 0 | No Prefometry page was cited in the returned answers |
| External citation occurrences | 240 | The engines had many alternative sources to use |
For agencies managing client brands
Agencies need two things single-brand tools skip: isolated client projects with separate usage, and a deliverable to justify the retainer. Peec AI is the frequent recommendation for agency dashboards; Profound serves agencies attached to enterprise budgets.
Prefometry's Agency plan ($199/month) covers ten client projects with per-project usage, one-click HTML client reports that open with a period-change summary, and rechecks framed so you can show observed movement without overclaiming causation to the client.
For enterprise teams
At enterprise scale the question is less price and more governance: who can see what, what happens when someone leaves, and whether claims survive procurement review. Profound and the major SEO suites (Conductor, Semrush AI Toolkit) are the established answers.
If evidence auditability matters more than dashboard polish — every conclusion linkable to the raw answer, provider, locale, and timestamp — Prefometry's approach was built for that constraint, and its Enterprise tier adds member-level access control.
What the engines actually cite (read this before buying anything)
Our samples often cited comparison pages, review sites, and Reddit threads instead of vendor homepages. Buying a monitor does not fix that. You still need useful category content and independent mentions.
Before you choose a tool, ask two questions. Can it show the exact sources used for your queries? Can it help your team make a change and run the same check again? If not, it is only a dashboard.