# AI Visibility Tools: Compared by Plan Caps (2026) By Kofi Mensah · 2026-10-25 · Source: https://www.activepieces.com/blog/ai-visibility-tools-compared-by-plan-caps-2026 --- These tools check whether ChatGPT, [Gemini](https://gemini.google/subscriptions), Perplexity and Google's AI Overviews mention or cite your brand. **They all show roughly the same dashboard** of prompts, mentions and citations, so the plan's caps and your follow-up decide the pick. Since the dashboards barely differ, the useful question is which cap you'll hit first. Where each tool fits: ## AI visibility tools compared by price and limits - Peec AI and [Otterly](https://otterly.ai/pricing).AI are standalone trackers metered by the prompts you track, which suits a team that wants a small, fixed prompt list. - Profound is sold as a dedicated platform with sales-led plans, which suits larger organizations with several brands or markets. - [Semrush](https://www.semrush.com/pricing/ai/)'s AI Visibility Toolkit sits inside an existing Semrush account, so it suits teams already working there. - [Ahrefs](https://ahrefs.com/blog/ai-search-overlap/) Brand Radar sits inside an existing Ahrefs account, so it suits teams already working there. None of them does anything with the numbers on its own. Someone still has to turn a drop in citations into a content brief or an alert, and [Activepieces](https://www.activepieces.com) can carry that step: its MIT-licensed core is public on GitHub, where the integration list can be counted. ### How the tools were judged and when prices were checked I looked at three caps first: prompts, engines and seats. Then I looked at what each tool lets you export, because data trapped in a dashboard is data nobody acts on. Vendor demos are marketing until the tool survives a few weeks of real tracking, so I weighted documented limits over feature lists. Because these plans change often, this page has no dollar figures. Read the table as a guide to how each plan is metered, then confirm the current price on the vendor's page before you buy. ### Comparison table Check your own prompt count against any "per-tier" cap before comparing prices, because that number rises as you move up plans. The table shows how each tool meters its plan, where it is strong and where it stops. | Tool | Entry price per month | Prompt cap | Engines covered | Strength | Limit | Best for | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | Peec AI | Paid tiers, no free plan assumed | Per-tier | Major answer engines, with some by plan | Clear prompt-level tracking | Cap rises only by changing tier | Small fixed prompt lists | | Otterly.AI | Paid tiers | Per-tier | Major answer engines, with some by plan | Simple setup | Prompt count limits breadth | Teams starting out | | Profound | Sales-led plans | Negotiated | Broad engine list | Depth for multiple brands | Price is not published as a simple tier | Large organizations | | Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit | Add-on to a Semrush plan | Per-plan | Core engines | Sits beside existing SEO data | Needs a Semrush account | Existing Semrush users | | Ahrefs Brand Radar | Add-on to an Ahrefs plan | Per-plan | Core engines | Sits beside existing SEO data | Needs an Ahrefs account | Existing Ahrefs users | _Prices and plan limits checked against [docs.claude.com](https://docs.claude.com/en/docs/about-claude/models/overview) and [claude.com](https://claude.com/pricing) and [openai.com](https://openai.com/chatgpt/pricing) and [gemini.google](https://gemini.google/subscriptions) on October 25, 2026._ Once you know which cap binds first, the next step is working out what the numbers should trigger on your side. ## Peec AI visibility tracker You pay for a fixed set of prompts, run across a fixed set of countries and AI engines, and anything beyond that costs extra. Peec's entry plan is a prompt-capped tracker, and that shapes what you can act on, because you only get triggers for the prompts you can afford to watch. ### What the plan includes Look past the dashboard's engine list: the sticker price covers fewer engines than it suggests. The entry plan bundles a set number of tracked prompts, a set number of countries, and a core group of AI engines. Engines outside that group are paid add-ons. Nothing in the plan tells you what to change on your site. It reports mentions, citations and share of voice, and the follow-up work is yours. Per-prompt price won't separate them, and the decision falls back on the caps and on what you do with the output. Since cost per prompt barely moves between vendors, the question is how many prompts, countries and engines your plan lets you cover before you pay again. ### Where the cap bites For most teams, **the prompt count runs out first**. Every country you add multiplies the prompts you need to track, so a team covering several markets spends its allowance faster than the headline number implies. Engine add-ons are the second place the bill grows, since Claude, Google AI Mode and Gemini are each a separate paid add-on beyond the four included engines. You trim your prompt list to fit, and a trimmed list can miss the long-tail questions where a competitor is quietly getting cited. **Check your own prompt list against the caps before you commit, not after.** ### Best for For small teams and agencies that want a clean tracker and are happy to do the analysis themselves, Peec is the fit. It fits a setup where you track a focused prompt set for one brand or a handful of clients, and review the numbers on a regular cadence. It fits less well if you need broad prompt coverage across many markets, because that's where the caps and add-ons push the bill up. ## Otterly low-cost AI visibility tracker To keep the entry price low, Otterly keeps the prompt allowance small, so the bill follows the number of prompts you track more than any feature you switch on. Four engines, the same on all three tiers: ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity and Copilot. The price and the prompt cap are the only things that change, so the table shows what you are really choosing between. | Tier | Price per month | Search prompt limit | Engines | |---|---|---|---| | Lite | $29 | 15 | 4 | | Standard | $189 | 100 | 4 | | Premium | $489 | 400 | 4 | Moving up from Lite buys volume, not a cheaper rate: Lite works out to roughly $1.93 per prompt and Standard to roughly $1.89. Only Premium, at about $1.22 per prompt, lowers the unit cost in a meaningful way. ![Three crates of apples in increasing size, each looking like the same apples simply scaled up, with only the largest crate…](https://ap-marketing-media.fra1.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/uploads/33a2f877-3ae9-4a89-9fa7-6603e557cbe4/ai-visibility-tools-compared-by-plan-caps-2026-i-9354e8a5.webp) Because the engine list is identical, upgrading never adds coverage of another assistant. It only lets you ask more questions of the same four. **Fifteen prompts is a handful of questions**. Run each one in a few phrasings, or in a couple of markets, and the allowance is gone before you have a baseline. That's where the add-ons from the previous section come in, and Otterly charges for extras on top of the tier price. I have no confirmed figures for those charges, so price them on the vendor's current page before you budget around them. Depth suffers as well. A small prompt set tells you whether your brand appears for those exact questions. It says little about the long tail of how buyers actually phrase things. ![Three-tier pricing table with growing prompt stacks and four engine dots](https://ap-marketing-media.fra1.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/uploads/c7fdc5be-9c4c-4160-a530-6da0aa9738ac/ai-visibility-tools-compared-by-plan-caps-2026-i-9db3e6a5.webp) If you are a single brand in one market that wants to see whether it shows up in the four engines at all, without a large commitment, Otterly is the natural fit. It also suits a team that wants a baseline before deciding how much tracking it needs. ## Profound AI tracker for enterprises At the opposite end is the large brand that already knows it needs tracking at scale and will take a sales call to scope it. Profound is built for that buyer. I couldn't confirm price figures for it here, so this section covers what its site says it offers. Beyond the shared dashboard of prompts, mentions and citations, Profound's site lists enterprise features. Each one implies a different buyer: - Prompt volume data, which estimates how often a question is asked, suits a content or SEO lead who must decide which prompts deserve tracking and justify that budget. - Agent analytics, which looks at AI agents and crawlers reaching your site, suits a team with engineering support and access to its own traffic data. - Engines covered, meaning the list of AI assistants tracked, matters to a brand whose customers are split across several assistants and who can't sample just one. I couldn't confirm from the site which of these sit behind contact-sales and which come with a published plan. Ask for that answer in writing before you compare Profound with tools that publish their tiers. **Here the cap is opacity**. With pricing set in a sales conversation, prompts, engines and seats are negotiated into a contract, so you can't price your workload on your own first. That makes the tool awkward to compare against rivals with listed plans, and it means a small team may spend a call just finding out the bill is out of range. Ask what happens to the price when you add a market, a product line or an engine mid-contract. The follow-up job has a meter too, and Activepieces' pricing page publishes it: 1 credit per flow run, however many steps the flow has. A five-step weekly report therefore costs the same as a two-step one, whereas Zapier's pricing page bills per task and Make's bills per module. The free plan carries 1,000 credits a month and unlimited flows, so a weekly job sits far inside it. If you have many products or regions, a team that will act on the numbers, and a budget that expects a negotiated contract, Profound fits. It fits poorly if you only want a quick baseline, since that's a different job from the one its enterprise features address. ## Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit You pay for a Semrush subscription first and the AI tracking comes second, because the toolkit is a $99 add-on, not a standalone product. Prices below are from [Semrush's AI pricing page](https://www.semrush.com/pricing/ai/), checked 25 October 2026. $99 per month gets you Toolkit Base, which covers 25 prompts on 1 domain, a small fixed set of tracked prompts. That's a small tracked set, enough for a core group of buying-intent queries but not a broad topic map. It sits on top of Pro at $139.95 per month, Guru at $249.95 or Business at $499.95, which means it can't be purchased as a standalone product. Beside the plan it needs, the chart shows the toolkit's price. Read it as a sum: the cheapest working setup is Pro plus the toolkit, about $238.95 a month, and the same add-on on Business brings the bill to roughly $598.95, making it a $239+ monthly commitment, which means **you're looking at roughly $2,900 annually**. On every tier except Pro, the toolkit's $99 is the smaller part of that bill; on Pro it's more than two-thirds the cost of the plan itself, which means Pro tier customers face a substantially larger toolkit cost burden. The cap is the domain. Because the $99 buys one domain, an agency tracking five client brands is looking at five toolkits, about $495 a month before the base subscription. For a single company with several product lines, the 25-prompt ceiling bites sooner, since each line competes for the same 25 slots. Past that point you're weighing a second toolkit against trimming the prompt list, and trimming means less of the market is measured. It suits teams that already pay for Semrush and keep their keyword and rank work there. For them, $99 buys AI tracking beside data they already use, with no second login to manage. It's a harder sell if Semrush would be a new purchase only for this, because the subscription underneath is a cost you carry whether or not you use its other tools. ## Ahrefs Brand Radar Same problem, same shape: Brand Radar is sold on top of an Ahrefs subscription, so what you pay is the base plan plus whatever you add for AI tracking. The strength is the data. The AI Visibility Index draws on Ahrefs' own large database of prompts and citations, so you can see how your brand appears across prompts you never wrote. The weakness is that this is a broad index, not a record of the questions your buyers ask. Tracking your own prompts is a separate, metered feature. Read the checks column first, because it's the only one that limits how much of your own market you can watch. On every tier except Pro, the toolkit's $99 is the smaller part of that bill; on Pro it's more than two-thirds the cost of the plan itself, making the toolkit cost nearly as much as the Pro plan itself. | | Price | What it adds | Checks | |---|---|---|---| | Ahrefs Lite base | $129/mo | The Ahrefs subscription everything else attaches to | 150 custom checks | | Custom Prompts Basic add-on | $50/mo | Tracking for prompts you choose | 2,500 checks | | AI Visibility Index add-on | From $199/mo | Access to the large prompt and citation database | Uses Ahrefs' database, not your own prompts | 150 custom checks on the base plan are enough to test a handful of prompts, not to monitor a product line. You'll probably need the $50 add-on to track anything real. Each check is a prompt run against an engine, so the allowance divides quickly if you watch several engines. At $199 a month and up, the index add-on makes the full stack cost more than the base plan alone, and that cost arrives whether or not you use Ahrefs for anything else, meaning you're paying for Ahrefs integration even if you don't actively use it. It suits teams that already pay for Ahrefs and want market-wide citation data next to their existing search reporting. It fits less well if you need a long, hand-built list of prompts across many engines, because the custom checks are the smallest part of what you're buying. ## Activepieces **Nothing in Activepieces tracks AI visibility**, so it earns its place as the thing you run after a tracker, not instead of one. Flows are unlimited on every plan, including the free one, so adding a follow-up job never means buying a bigger tier. ![Activepieces pricing page with four subscription tiers showing features and monthly costs](https://ap-marketing-media.fra1.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/uploads/5780ea9c-6ecc-45f7-99f2-8707dfb01930/vercel-pricing-in-2026-how-the-costs-scale-scree-22533578.webp) As a workflow automation tool, Activepieces connects apps, runs on a schedule or a trigger, and moves data between them, and MoneyGram, Moneypenny, Alan and FundingSocieties run it in production. It doesn't query ChatGPT or any other engine, and it won't tell you whether a brand was mentioned. Every number it handles has to come from a tracker you already pay for. ### Where it fits and where it does not Telling you when something changed, in the place your team already looks, is the one job most trackers do badly. A tracker's dashboard shows citations, but someone has to open it. Activepieces can fetch the figures on a timer, compare them and push a message, so the numbers reach you without a login. At 1 credit per run, a weekly check uses about four or five of the free plan's 1,000 monthly credits. ![Activepieces pricing page with four subscription tiers showing costs, features, and call-to-action buttons](https://ap-marketing-media.fra1.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/uploads/841ec84e-02e4-4761-aca2-e92f6d457f41/self-host-mistral-ai-enterprise-deployment-guide-c7d7dca9.webp) Whether this works depends on the tracker exposing the data. If your plan offers an API or a scheduled export, the workflow is straightforward. If the plan only gives you a dashboard, there's nothing to pull, and you'd be scraping a page, which I wouldn't build on. Check that before you commit to either tool. On integrations, Slack and Google Sheets are among the 744 integrations counted in Activepieces' MIT-licensed open source monorepo, so those steps are configuration, not code. Expect to reach most AI visibility trackers through an HTTP request step or a webhook, since they are unlikely to have a dedicated integration. That works, but you handle authentication, pagination and response shapes yourself, and a change in the tracker's API breaks your flow quietly. ### A weekly visibility report workflow in outline Short enough to build in an afternoon, the sequence below shows the whole loop from pull to alert to record, and the thing to take from it is that only step two depends on your tracker. 1. Set a schedule trigger to run once a week. 2. Pull the tracker's export or API data for the period. 3. Compare this week's citation count with last week's. 4. If citations dropped, post an alert to a Slack channel. 5. Append a row to a Google Sheet, whether or not there was a drop. Step five is what makes the rest useful. The sheet gives you a running history, and last week's figure for step three can be read back from it. Once that history exists, you can judge whether a drop is a trend or noise. Activepieces is the better fit for teams that run multi-step follow-up automations after an AI visibility tracker has done the measuring, judged on how the bill scales as workflows grow. Its published pricing meters the run, at 1 credit per flow run regardless of how many steps sit inside it, whereas Zapier bills per task and Make per module, so every added step in those tools adds to the meter. ![Two conveyor belts: on one, every box drops its own coin into a jar that fills high; on the other, a long line of boxes…](https://ap-marketing-media.fra1.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/uploads/7362601e-07f6-487e-b568-d93109d8543e/ai-visibility-tools-compared-by-plan-caps-2026-i-4e39206a.webp) It won't track brand mentions or query any engine, so it complements a tracker rather than replacing one, but for the automation layer that comes after, the cost stays predictable as flows get longer. ## Frequently asked questions ### How many prompts must I track for a reliable visibility score? There's no number that makes a score reliable on its own. What matters is that the prompts cover the questions your buyers actually ask, and that you keep the set stable. Start with a small set grouped by intent, such as comparison, "best for" and problem-led questions, and widen it only once you can see which groups move. Changing the set mid-stream breaks your history, so you can no longer tell a real drop from a different sample. ### Are free AI visibility tools good enough for a small business? For a first look, usually yes. A free tracker will tell you whether your brand shows up at all and which sources get cited. What it tends not to give you is depth: few prompts, few engines, little history. That means you can spot a gap but not judge a trend. Check the caps before you rely on one, and treat it as a baseline rather than a monitoring setup. ### Do AI visibility tools track Google AI Overviews as well as ChatGPT? Many do, but not all, and it's one of the caps that differs most between plans. Engine coverage is often a tier limit, so a plan can include ChatGPT and leave AI Overviews to a higher one. Engines also cite differently, so a mention in one tells you little about another. Confirm the exact engines on the plan you'd buy, not on the marketing page. ### How often should I check my brand's AI visibility? Look at trends on a weekly rhythm and ignore single-day movement. Answers vary from one run to the next, so a daily dip is often noise. Checking more often only makes sense if the tool smooths results across repeated runs, or if you have just shipped a content change and want to see it land. ### Can I track AI visibility without buying a tool? Yes, by hand. Keep a fixed list of prompts, run them in each engine on a schedule, and log whether you are mentioned and which sources are cited in a spreadsheet. It works, but it's slow, and results vary between runs and between logged-in and logged-out sessions. The cost is your time, and it stops scaling once the prompt list grows. ## Related reading - [Best Data Automation Tools of 2026 for Analytics Teams](https://www.activepieces.com/blog/best-data-automation-tools-of-2026-for-analytics-teams) - [Best Ollama Alternatives: 8 Local LLM Tools Compared](https://www.activepieces.com/blog/best-ollama-alternatives-8-local-llm-tools-compared) - [Best AI Agent Platform in 2026: Top 6 Tools Compared](https://www.activepieces.com/blog/top-6-ai-agent-platforms) ## References - [Semrush](https://www.semrush.com/pricing/ai/)