Profound vs Peec AI vs Scrunch vs Otterly.AI (2026): Pricing, Limits and ROI

Prices on the vendors’ own pages as of October 12, 2026 tell a useful story: OtterlyAI starts at €29 a month for 15 prompts, Peec AI starts at $95 for 50, Scrunch Core costs $250 for 125, and Profound offers a seven-day trial before custom enterprise pricing. AI search visibility tools are not interchangeable dashboards; the cheapest plan can be the right buy, but only if its sample matches the questions your customers actually ask.

The short answer: pick the measurement you can act on

Choose OtterlyAI if you need an inexpensive baseline across a handful of tracked questions and can work within its prompt cap. Peec AI is the practical middle ground for an SEO or content team that wants daily, multi-model tracking plus source and competitor analysis. Scrunch makes more sense when site audits, bot traffic and page-level optimization matter alongside answer tracking. Profound is a sales-led option for a company that needs a broader marketing workflow, custom coverage, integrations and internal controls—not a low-cost experiment.

That is a starting recommendation, not a ranking. Each vendor samples answers to prompts. The result is evidence about visibility in a defined test set, not a stable share of every answer a person might see. If a dashboard shows a brand rising, that is not proof that the software caused more pipeline. The work begins when someone changes a page, distribution plan or product fact and checks the same sample again.

What these platforms measure—and what they do not

These platforms run a defined set of queries against selected answer engines, then record whether a brand appears, where it appears, which sources are cited and how competitors fare. Some add crawler logs, technical audits, prompt discovery, recommendations, reporting or content workflows. That broader packaging explains why a prompt counter alone is a poor value metric.

A prompt is not a person and a tracked answer is not a search impression. Results can shift with model versions, location, language, personalization, retrieval sources and the exact wording of a question. Two tools may ask nearly identical questions yet receive different answers because their collection times or settings differ. A credible comparison needs stable prompts, a recorded configuration and repeated observations—not one screenshot.

Use the reports to answer narrow operational questions: Which buying questions name us? Which cited pages are ours? Which competitor appears where we do not? Does the page we changed show up more often in a repeat sample? For broader SEO fundamentals, see our AI SEO content optimization comparison and keyword research tools comparison. Those tools address content planning and conventional search data; they do not replace answer monitoring.

Pricing and limits compared

Vendor pages can change. Prices above reflect the public pricing pages checked on October 12, 2026: Profound, Peec AI, Scrunch and OtterlyAI. Confirm currency, billing term, add-ons and taxes before purchase. Limits are not directly equivalent: Peec reports chosen models, Scrunch specifies monthly responses as well as prompts, and Profound’s free trial uses a time-limited allowance. Do not divide price by prompts and call the result a universal cost-per-answer.

Platform-by-platform: where the money goes

Profound: broad workflow, opaque ongoing cost

The public Profound page currently shows a free trial with 50 unique prompts run daily for seven days, three answer engines—ChatGPT, Gemini and Google AI Overviews—and one language and region. Its Enterprise offer is custom. The page lists broader capabilities there, including custom prompt plans, up to nine answer engines, daily tracking, exports, API access, integrations, SSO/SAML and SOC 2 compliance. The exact package and price require a sales conversation.

Its differentiator is not simply another visibility score. Profound combines Answer Engine Insights with an AI Marketer, reusable agents, projects, prompt-volume research and agent analytics. That can matter if a marketing department wants research, content tasks and measurement in one system. It can also mean a buyer pays for workflow breadth before proving that tracking changes decisions.

For a Profound vs Peec AI pricing decision, compare the actual quote against the Peec plan and add-ons that cover the same countries, models, prompt volume, history and integrations. A free trial helps test setup, but seven days is short for separating normal answer variance from a sustained change. Ask for a sample export, retention period, usage overage terms and a written model list before committing.

Peec AI: clear starter tiers and source analysis

Peec’s published monthly plans list Starter at $95 for 50 prompts, three models, daily tracking and one project; Pro at $245 for 150 prompts and two projects; Advanced at $495 for 350 prompts and five projects. The page says users are unlimited on these plans. Enterprise is custom, with broader model choice, customizable tracking, API access and unlimited projects. Extra models are sold as add-ons, with different prices by tier.

The product goes beyond whether a brand is mentioned. Its pricing page lists visibility, position, sentiment and share-of-voice views, source and URL analysis, citation share, prompt discovery, competitor suggestions and gap analysis. For teams responsible for SEO, the connection between a missing brand mention and the page or domain cited instead is often more useful than a single blended visibility score. The caveat is familiar: an opportunity report is a lead for investigation, not an instruction to publish a page blindly.

Peec fits AI visibility tracking for agencies when a team needs projects for several client brands and a consistent reporting cadence. Check which plan permits the required project count, locations, model mix and exports; Starter has one project, while the broader allowances rise by tier. Agencies should also test whether client-facing reports can be branded and whether access controls match their process, rather than assuming “unlimited users” means every agency workflow is covered.

Scrunch: monitoring plus technical and page work

Scrunch Core is listed at $250 per month. The public allowance is 125 unique prompts, 5,000 responses a month, five site audits, one brand workspace and five licenses. Core lists ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews and Copilot. Enterprise pricing is custom and adds expanded model coverage, AXP, full site audits, API access, integrations and enterprise identity options.

The product’s strongest case is for teams that want to connect answer presence with the site itself. The plan grid includes crawler or agent traffic, sentiment, citations, recommendations, limited query fan-out, a site map and one page optimization per month. Enterprise adds broader audit and optimization capacity. That is more relevant to a technical SEO lead or a content operations team than to a founder who only wants to see whether ChatGPT mentions the company.

Scrunch AI vs Profound is therefore not a contest over which chart looks better. Scrunch’s public Core price and limits make it easier to budget for a small pilot; Profound’s public page leaves the continuing Enterprise price custom but describes a wider marketing-agent package. Request a quote only after writing down the exact jobs needed: answer tracking, crawl diagnostics, content recommendations, API delivery or workflow execution. Otherwise a demo can blur those separate purchases into one vague promise.

OtterlyAI: lowest-cost baseline, tightest prompt budget

OtterlyAI lists Lite at €29 per month on its monthly view, or €25 per month when billed annually. Lite covers 15 prompts and four engines—ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity and Microsoft Copilot—with daily tracking and unlimited team members. Claude, Google AI Mode and Gemini appear as add-ons. Standard is listed at €189 monthly or €160 on the annual view for 100 prompts; Premium is €489 or €422 for 400 prompts. API, MCP and agent analytics are listed on paid higher tiers.

The economics favor a focused test: a small business can monitor a few branded and non-branded buying questions without starting at a multi-hundred-dollar monthly bill. But “15 prompts” forces a real choice. A store with several product lines, locales and customer types can burn through that allowance before it has a useful sample. For AI search monitoring for ecommerce brands, also check whether product-level questions, country coverage and cited product URLs fit your actual catalog; do not assume a brand-level plan answers SKU-level questions.

Searches for Otterly AI alternatives usually come from a team that has hit the prompt ceiling, wants more models, or needs source-level and technical analysis. Compare the add-on bill and the Standard or Premium tier with Peec Starter or Scrunch Core, then ask whether the extra capacity will be reviewed and acted on every month. More tracked prompts create more observations, not more commercial value by themselves.

How to judge AI search visibility tools without buying a chart

Start with a question set, not a vendor demo. Write 20–40 prompts that represent real stages of a purchase: category research, comparisons, alternatives, use cases, objections and branded questions. Keep separate sets for countries or languages. Mark each as branded or non-branded, commercial or informational, and assign a business owner. If your customers never ask a prompt, tracking it because it sounds clever adds noise.

Next, decide what counts as a useful observation. Track brand presence, position, sentiment, cited domain and URL, and competitor mentions where the vendor supports them. Preserve the prompt wording and collection settings. For each platform, ask whether a “response” is one model answer, a regenerated answer or a unit that can include multiple queries. Ask how often collection runs, what history is retained, and how model or engine changes are recorded.

Then check the evidence path. Can an analyst open the answer, inspect the citation and export the record? Can they separate first-party citations from editorial or community sources? Can a crawler audit distinguish blocked bots from bots that simply have not visited? A useful dashboard should let an operator move from a metric to a specific answer and page. For an SEO manager comparing AI search visibility tools, the key is whether the report connects a cited URL to an editable page and a person accountable for changing it. If it gives a percentage without the denominator, definition and raw sample, treat it as an unexplained score.

For ROI, use a deliberately modest chain: a tracked gap leads to a page or distribution change; the change is indexed or cited in a later sample; qualified visits or assisted conversions move; sales quality remains acceptable. Record each link separately. An analytics referral from an AI assistant is evidence of a visit, not proof that monitoring software generated it. A deal mentioning ChatGPT is useful qualitative data, but it cannot validate a claimed lift on its own.

A basic monthly decision sheet can include: prompts with a usable sample; brand and competitor presence by intent; share of answers citing owned pages; pages changed; changes observed after a fixed interval; AI referral sessions; and pipeline notes from sales. Set a stop rule before buying. For example, if no one reviews the report for two consecutive cycles, downgrade or cancel. If the team cannot name a page, product fact or distribution action tied to a finding, the subscription is probably reporting theater.

A 30-day pilot that can survive a skeptical finance review

During week one, select a narrow product line and one market. Agree on 25–40 prompts and identify the pages that should answer them. Run the same questions manually in the target engines as a cross-check, recording date, region, account state and exact wording. Manual checks are not a scalable measurement program, but they expose mismatches between the vendor’s setup and the buying questions your team cares about.

In week two, use a trial or the lowest suitable plan. Import the prompt set, verify the engines and geography, and export a sample. Ask a second person to inspect ten records without being told the dashboard’s summary. If the person cannot reconstruct why a result counted as a mention or cite, the metric is not ready for a board slide.

In weeks three and four, make one or two changes with a clear rationale: update a comparison page with accurate product facts, improve a source page, or fix a crawler access issue. Avoid changing every page at once. Re-run the fixed prompt set, note answer changes, and check ordinary analytics for referrals or conversions. A month is enough to judge workflow quality and operational usefulness; it is usually too short to claim durable causal impact.

At the review, calculate a simple net value: attributable gross margin or qualified pipeline supported by evidence, minus subscription and analyst time. Keep “observed alongside” separate from “caused by.” A tool earns renewal if it helps the team find and verify useful work faster than its cost, even before a perfect attribution model exists. If the only win is a rising score, the case is not ready.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which AI search visibility platform has the lowest price?

OtterlyAI Lite has the lowest listed starting price among these four at €29 per month on monthly billing, or €25 per month on its annual view. It includes 15 prompts, so price alone is misleading. A buyer who needs more models or questions may reach the next plan quickly; compare the full required setup, not just the entry tier.

Is Profound better than Peec AI for an SEO team?

Peec is easier to evaluate from its published monthly tiers and puts source, citation and competitor analysis close to its tracking workflow. Profound is a better candidate when the team also needs a broader marketing-agent environment, integrations, custom coverage or enterprise controls. Get a written quote and compare the same models, regions, history and exports before choosing.

How many prompts should a brand track?

There is no useful universal quota. Start with a small set that covers the products, markets and buying intents the team can act on. A focused 30-prompt test with clear ownership is better than hundreds of loosely related prompts no one reviews. Expand only when the first set exposes a real coverage gap or workload limit.

Can these platforms prove that AI search monitoring increased revenue?

Not on their own. They can document sampled answers, citations, changes and, on some plans, visits from AI assistants. Revenue attribution still needs analytics, CRM records, sales context and a defensible comparison. Treat a visibility change as a signal to investigate, then report downstream visits and pipeline separately instead of turning correlation into a causal claim.

What should an agency check before buying an AI visibility tracker?

Confirm project or brand limits, prompt allocation per client, model and country coverage, report branding, exports, retention, access permissions and add-on costs. Run a sample client report and inspect raw answers. Unlimited seats do not guarantee unlimited client workspaces, and a dashboard that cannot be audited will create more client questions than it resolves.

The decision

Buy the smallest plan that can test a representative question set. OtterlyAI is a sensible low-cost baseline; Peec is the clearest fit for daily analytics and citation work; Scrunch suits teams tying answer monitoring to site audits; Profound belongs on a shortlist when enterprise workflows justify a custom quote. AI search visibility tools earn their keep only when a named person can trace a finding to an action and then check what changed. If that loop is missing, keep the budget and run a smaller manual sample first.