Otterly.ai vs Peec AI (2026): Which AEO Tracker Should You Buy?

The short answer

Pick Otterly.ai if you are buying your first AEO tracker on a small budget: at $29/mo for 15 prompts it is the cheapest credible way to find out whether AI engines mention you at all, as long as you watch the Google Gemini and Google AI Mode paid add-ons ($9 to $149/mo each) that can quietly inflate the bill. Pick Peec AI the moment you are spending $95/mo or more: at that level Peec gives you six engines included with no add-ons, unlimited seats on every paid plan, and deeper citation-source reporting, and it is already cheaper per tracked prompt than Otterly's entry tier. Agencies should skip the debate and go straight to Peec.

That is the honest split, and the rest of this comparison shows the math behind it. For the wider landscape, see our guide to the best AEO tracking tools.

How we compare these two

A methodology note first, because it shapes how you should read everything below. We use Peec AI hands-on every day: AEO Labs runs its client AI-visibility tracking on Peec across multiple brands in unrelated verticals, so our Peec claims come from daily production use. We do not run Otterly.ai in production. Our read on Otterly is research-based, compiled from its public pricing and documentation, third-party write-ups, and user reviews, and we flag it as such throughout. Our full research-based breakdown lives in the Otterly.ai review; the hands-on counterpart is the Peec AI review.

Pricing in this category moves fast. Treat every number here as a mid-2026 snapshot and confirm with each vendor before you commit.

Otterly.ai vs Peec AI at a glance

The pattern is visible already: Otterly optimizes for the lowest possible starting price, Peec optimizes for what is included once you are spending real money. The next three sections pressure-test each side of that trade.

The pricing reality: sticker price vs total price

Otterly.ai publishes three tiers. As of mid-2026: Lite at $29/mo for 15 tracked prompts, Standard at $189/mo, and Pro at $489/mo. The $29 entry point is the headline, and it deserves to be: nothing else credible in the category starts that low, which is why Otterly anchors the budget end of our best AEO tools rankings and pairs naturally with the free AEO tools you might be graduating from.

The asterisk is the add-ons. Based on our research of Otterly's public pricing, Google Gemini and Google AI Mode tracking are sold separately at $9 to $149/mo each, depending on your plan tier. At the friendly end, a Lite subscriber adding both at $9 each turns a $29 plan into $47/mo. At the top end, two add-ons at $149 each add $298/mo to a plan. If Google's AI surfaces matter in your market, and for most consumer categories they do, the add-ons are not optional extras; they are part of the real price, so quote yourself the loaded number, not the sticker.

Peec AI publishes everything, add-ons included, because there are none. Self-serve plans run Starter at $95/mo for 50 prompts, Pro at $245/mo for 150, and Advanced at $495/mo for 350. Agency plans swap prompt counts for pooled credits: from $245/mo for 10,000 credits, Growth at $495/mo for 25,000, and Scale at $795/mo for 65,000. All six engines are included on every plan, every paid plan has unlimited seats, and annual billing takes 15 percent off. The number on the pricing page is the number on the invoice.

Price per tracked prompt: the math nobody does

Entry price is what gets compared in headlines. Price per tracked prompt is what you actually pay for, and it flips the story.

Divide each plan's price by its included prompts, using the tiers where both vendors publish a prompt count. Otterly Lite works out to about $1.93 per tracked prompt ($29 for 15). Peec Starter is about $1.90 ($95 for 50), Peec Pro drops to roughly $1.63 ($245 for 150), and Peec Advanced reaches about $1.41 ($495 for 350). In other words, the "expensive" tool is cheaper per unit of tracking at every published tier, before you even count Otterly's add-on fees or Peec's included seats and engines.

The right conclusion is not "Otterly is a bad deal." At $29/mo, per-prompt efficiency is beside the point; you are paying for the lowest possible cost of finding out whether this channel matters for you. The right conclusion is that Otterly's advantage is the absolute floor, not the economics. As soon as your prompt set grows past a proof-of-concept, the per-prompt math, the add-ons, and the seat limits all bend the same direction: toward Peec.

Engine coverage: included vs add-on

Peec's engine list is specific and confirmed from our daily use: ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Claude, Perplexity, Google AI Mode, and Microsoft Copilot, all included in every paid plan. Nothing on that list costs extra, which sounds unremarkable until you price the alternative.

Otterly covers the major AI search surfaces, including ChatGPT and Perplexity, and its Google AI Overviews heritage is one of its strengths per our research. But Gemini and Google AI Mode sit behind those paid add-ons. That creates an awkward incentive: the cheaper your plan, the more tempting it is to skip the add-ons, which means the buyers most likely to be on Otterly are also the most likely to have a blind spot on two Google surfaces at exactly the moment Google is pushing AI-generated answers in front of more queries.

Our advice regardless of tool: list the engines your actual buyers use before you subscribe, then confirm each one is covered on the tier you are buying, not just somewhere in the product.

Citation-source depth: the report that earns the fee

Whichever tool you pick, the feature to pressure-test hardest is citation-source reporting: which domains the engines actually cited when they built the answer. Here is why that report matters more than the mention count.

That number comes from our own Peec tracking data, and it means a dashboard that only counts brand mentions is measuring the scoreboard while ignoring the field. The actionable output of an AEO tracker is the ranked list of third-party domains your category's answers are built from, because those are the pages where visibility is actually won.

This is where our hands-on and research-based knowledge diverge, so we will label it plainly. In Peec, the source-domain reports are the screen we use most: cited domains ranked by frequency, filterable by engine, alongside position and sentiment for every mention. It is the report our client work runs on. Otterly does surface mentions, links, and sources per its documentation, but we have not stress-tested that reporting depth in production, and third-party reviews suggest it is lighter than Peec's. If you trial Otterly, make this the first thing you verify: can you see exactly which third-party domains each engine leans on for your category, and can you export the list?

Which one for which buyer

First-time buyers proving the channel: Otterly.ai

If you have never tracked AI visibility and the budget conversation starts with "can we try this for less than $50," Otterly is the right answer. Fifteen prompts at $29/mo is enough to cover your brand name, your top competitors, and a handful of high-intent category questions, which is enough to learn whether AI engines mention you at all. Keep the add-ons off during the proof phase unless Google surfaces are your market, keep the prompt set focused on buying questions, and set a calendar reminder to reassess in 90 days.

Single brands with a real budget: Peec AI

Once you can spend $95/mo, the calculus flips. Peec Starter gives you 50 prompts across six engines with nothing sold separately, unlimited seats so SEO, content, and leadership all see the same dashboard, and the citation-source depth that turns tracking into a work queue. By Pro at $245/mo for 150 prompts, you are paying less per tracked prompt than Otterly's entry tier while getting materially more per prompt. This is the tier where most serious in-house programs should land.

Agencies and multi-brand teams: Peec AI, no contest

This is the clearest call in the comparison, and it is the one we have direct skin in: we run our client tracking on Peec daily. The agency credit plans from $245/mo pool usage across client brands, unlimited seats mean every account manager and every client stakeholder gets a login at no marginal cost, and per-brand projects keep reporting clean. Reproducing that on per-plan pricing with per-tier add-on fees multiplied across five or ten clients does not pencil out. If you searched "aeo tools for agencies" and landed here, Peec is the answer.

Enterprises: neither, look up-market

If you need procurement-grade support, security review, and a vendor in your QBRs, both of these tools are below your weight class. That segment belongs to the enterprise tiers of platforms like Profound, where API access, SSO and SOC2 actually live; our Peec AI vs Profound comparison covers exactly where that line sits.

Watch: see the more expensive option before you pay for it

Since Peec is the tool we are telling most readers to graduate to, it is worth seeing its dashboard before you commit. This walkthrough covers the core workflow, from prompt setup to visibility and source reports, which is also a useful benchmark for what to demand from any tracker, Otterly included.

Key takeaways

• Otterly.ai wins on entry price: $29/mo for 15 prompts is the cheapest credible way to start AEO tracking, but Google Gemini and Google AI Mode are paid add-ons at $9 to $149/mo each, so quote yourself the loaded price.
• Peec AI wins from $95/mo up: six engines included with no add-ons, unlimited seats on every paid plan, and the citation-source depth we rely on in daily client work.
• Per tracked prompt, Peec is already cheaper at entry: roughly $1.90 versus Otterly's $1.93, falling to $1.41 on Advanced. Otterly's advantage is the absolute price floor, not the economics.
• Agencies should go straight to Peec: credit-based multi-brand plans from $245/mo and unlimited seats are built for client work, and it is what we run ourselves.
• Our Peec knowledge is hands-on daily use; our Otterly assessment is research-based. Verify Otterly's citation reporting depth and current add-on pricing in your own trial.
• Whichever you pick, test citation-source reporting hardest: only 2 to 6 percent of AI-cited sources are a brand's own site, so the third-party source list is the real deliverable.

The tracker keeps score; the work moves it

Otterly.ai and Peec AI will both tell you where you stand in AI search, at very different price points and depths. Neither will change where you stand. Moving the numbers takes answer-first content, structured data, and citations on the third-party pages the engines already trust, which is precisely what the source reports in either tool point you toward.

That second half is what we do. An AI visibility audit from AEO Labs gives you the baseline either tracker would show you, plus the prioritized plan to move it, and we will tell you honestly whether your program needs a $29 tool, a $95 tool, or no tool yet. For the full field beyond these two, our best AEO tools guide ranks every credible option by budget and use case.