A practical comparison of Peec AI and Otterly, covering their tracking models, published pricing evidence, and measured visibility in AI search answers.
The false premise in peec ai vs otterly is that these are two versions of the same product. They measure related work through different units and buying models.
Otterly sells search prompt capacity across a stated set of engines. Peec AI puts more weight on model choice, prompt customisation and tracking frequency. The leaderboard result is close enough to make the comparison useful, but it does not remove that difference.
Otterly treats the search prompt as the main unit. Its pricing page lists 15 search prompts on Lite, 100 on Standard and the Premium plan's published capacity. The same page says the plans track four AI search engines: ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity and Microsoft Copilot. Claude, Google AI Mode and Gemini are available as extra add-ons. Otterly's pricing page also lists 100 extra search prompts for $99, and says Standard can add up to 300 extra prompts before you move to Premium.
Peec AI describes the unit more flexibly. Its pricing page offers “Fully customizable prompt tracking”, “Daily tracking frequency” and the choice to “Choose 3 models”. Higher access is described as “Choose from all models” and “Up to 13 LLM models tracked”. The page also defines prompt volume as the relative demand for the topic behind each tracked prompt, scored from 1 to 5. That gives you a different lens: how many questions you track, which systems answer them and how much demand sits behind each question.
Both vendors now publish prices, checked on 2 Oct 2026. Otterly's pricing page lists Lite at $29 a month, Standard at $189 and Premium at $489 on its Monthly tab, and $25, $160 and $422 a month on its "Annually 15% off" tab. Enterprise is custom, starting from 1,000 search prompts. Peec AI's pricing page lists Starter at €85, Pro at €205 and Advanced at €425 a month billed monthly, or €70, €180 and €360 a month billed annually, for 50, 150 and 350 prompts on 3 models of your choice; Enterprise is custom. Peec says annual billing receives a 15% discount.
A short glossary helps. A tracked prompt is the question you repeatedly send to an engine. A mention is the product appearing in an answer, while a citation is a source page the answer points to. Those can move apart: the leaderboard records Otterly in 60% of answers but its own site in 26%, while Peec AI appears in 53% and its own site in 18%.
Don't turn a partial comparison into a precise number. Check the live Peec AI page before quoting a price per prompt, and treat Otterly's published capacity as a starting point rather than a complete workload estimate.
Our AI search visibility and AEO tools leaderboard measures named products, not product quality in the abstract. The week of 2026-08-24 sample contains 80 answers to 10 buyer questions across four engines. In that sample, Otterly is named in 60% of answers, with an interval of 49 to 70. Peec AI is named in 53%, with an interval of 42 to 63. The intervals overlap, so the sample shows a lead without settling the wider comparison.
The same leaderboard records a difference in owned citations. Otterly's own site is cited in 26% of answers, and Peec AI's own site is cited in 18%. The page cited most for Otterly is its pricing page. For Peec AI, it is the AI instructions page. That is a useful clue about what the answer engines found relevant, although it is not proof that either page caused the mention.
Here is the worked example, line by line. Start with the sample size: 80 answers. Read Otterly's result next: it is named in 60% of those answers, with a reported interval from 49 to 70. Read Peec AI's result after that: it is named in 53%, with an interval from 42 to 63. Compare the central shares, where Otterly is higher, then compare the intervals, which overlap. The practical reading is a measured lead for Otterly in this sample, with enough uncertainty that you should test your own prompts.
That result is useful as a market signal, not as a buying verdict. Otterly has the higher measured share here, while Peec AI has substantial visibility and a different citation pattern. Neither result tells you which tool will win every question you care about.
The case against our own position is straightforward. A leaderboard may reward brand familiarity, page availability or the wording of the buyer questions. It cannot distinguish genuine product fit from a product being familiar to the systems answering those questions.
That objection matters. The leaderboard is still useful as an external check against product pages and sales claims, because it shows how often each product appeared in this measured set and which owned pages were cited. Use it to choose what to test, not to skip the test.
The pricing pages point to different buying questions. Otterly gives you a clear prompt capacity ladder, named engine coverage and add-ons. That is easier to map to a team that already knows how many searches it wants to track. Peec AI's language points towards a team that cares about selecting models, changing prompt logic and tracking demand as well as volume.
This leaderboard measures one week of answers, with margins printed for a reason. We measure samples; we print margins; we do not know what we have not measured. The sample cannot tell you about categories, prompts, conversion rates or recommendation quality outside those tested answers.
For the Peec AI versus Otterly decision, start with the questions your team will actually maintain. Compare those questions with Otterly's published prompt limits and engine coverage. Then decide whether your work needs a fixed bank of search prompts across named engines, or more freedom to change models and prompt logic.
Otterly is easier to assess when your workload has a known prompt volume and a clear engine set. Peec AI is worth investigating when model selection, custom tracking and demand scoring matter more than a simple prompt allowance. The missing Peec AI price means you need to check the live page before making a budget decision.
The right alternative may be neither tool. If your immediate need is to see whether your site has basic material for AI answers, start with the free AI readiness check. If you need to inspect the wider field, use the weekly research on who owns AI answers alongside the leaderboard rather than relying on one product comparison.
This week, write down the buyer questions and engines you need to track. Check Peec AI's current pricing page and compare its published options with Otterly's limits. Then run your own prompts and record mentions and citations separately, because one number will not do both jobs.
The tools measure related work through different units and buying models. Otterly sells search prompt capacity across named engines, while Peec AI emphasizes model choice, prompt customisation, tracking frequency and demand scoring.
Otterly lists 15 search prompts on Lite, 100 on Standard and a published capacity for Premium. Its plans track ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity and Microsoft Copilot, while Claude, Google AI Mode and Gemini are add ons.
Peec AI offers fully customisable prompt tracking, daily tracking frequency and a choice of three models, with higher access covering all models and up to 13 LLM models. It scores the relative demand behind each tracked prompt from 1 to 5.
In the 80 answer sample, Otterly was named in 60% of answers and Peec AI in 53%. Their reported intervals overlap, so the sample shows a measured lead for Otterly rather than a general buying verdict.
Write down the buyer questions and engines your team needs to track, then compare them with Otterly's limits and Peec AI's published options. Peec AI's pricing page lists Starter at €85 a month billed monthly (€70 billed annually) for 50 prompts, so price the tier that covers your list, then decide whether you need fixed search prompts or more freedom to change models and prompt logic.
Cite this: CiteGraph, “Peec AI vs Otterly”, 12 Sept 2026, https://www.citegraph.app/blog/peec-ai-vs-otterly