AI search analytics for marketing teams, tracking brand visibility, position and sentiment across answer engines.
TL;DR verdict
The cheapest daily tracker we assessed that we would actually recommend, and the only one letting you pull data out from the bottom tier. Price it on the models you genuinely need though, and check which markets your plan covers before committing.
Peec AI tracks how answer engines talk about your brand: whether you appear, where you sit in the answer, and how you are characterised when you do. It refreshes daily on every plan and reports competitors alongside you. It is built for in-house marketing teams and agencies watching one or two markets closely, and it takes an unusual position on seats, putting an unlimited number of people on every tier including the cheapest.
The capabilities it ships, and which of them stand out.
Standout features
What the product does not do, kept separate from what we could not establish.
Product limitations
Could not verify
Teams who want the numbers visible to everyone
Uncapped seats mean a whole department can log in without changing the bill, which is unusual enough here to be a deciding factor for a larger team on a small budget.
Anyone tracking one market intensively
Refreshing every day on a single country is the shape of this product, and at $80 nothing else we found does it as cheaply.
Teams with their own tooling
Pulling data into an internal dashboard does not require an upgrade or a sales call, which is unusual at this end of the market.
Businesses selling into several countries
The $80 plan can configure a single prompt location, so a business selling into two markets starts at Pro rather than Starter.
Anyone who needs all six models
The extras needed to complete the set cost about as much again, so the figure on the card describes a configuration you may not want.
Teams building a reporting pipeline
Both a documented interface and federated login sit on the unpriced tier, so the work cannot be scoped against a published number.
From $80/mo billed annually ($95 monthly). Pro $205 ($245), Advanced $420 ($495), Enterprise quoted. Three of six models included at every self-serve tier; extra models $30–$140/mo each. Checked 14 August 2026.
| Plan | Published price | What the tier includes |
|---|---|---|
| Starter | $80/mo annual · $95 monthly |
|
| Pro | $205/mo annual · $245 monthly |
|
| Advanced | $420/mo annual · $495 monthly |
|
| Enterprise | Custom |
|
Pricing watchouts
What Peec AI connects to, and what it commits to in writing.
Integrations
Support
Chat on every tier, email from Pro, a Slack community on all tiers and custom onboarding from Advanced. Enterprise adds dedicated support. No response-time commitment is published at any tier. Checked 14 August 2026.
Rajat Kapoor
Co-founder, SaaSInsight
We pay for Peec AI and use it on live accounts. Peec pays us nothing and has no involvement in this review or in the ranking it sits under, so this is disclosed as the basis of the evidence rather than as a warning. It is also why this section can say things the rest of the category cannot, and why the figures below are read off our own account rather than off a pricing page.
The first thing worth knowing is that the engine list is longer than the marketing suggests, and most of it is switched off. Our account lists fourteen tracked channels across nine vendors and three are active: ChatGPT, Perplexity and Google AI Overview. Claude Sonnet, Claude Haiku, Gemini, Google AI Mode, Microsoft Copilot, the OpenAI Search API, DeepSeek, two Mistral tiers, Qwen and Meta Spark are all present and inactive. Nothing is concealed, but the upgrade lever is much more visible from inside the product than from outside it, and it is the figure to settle before comparing this against anything.
Second, a limit nobody publishes: some engines cannot be tracked from your market at all. Each channel carries its own list of unsupported countries, and for DeepSeek and Qwen that list covers essentially all of Western Europe, the United States, Canada and Australia. Every scraped channel excludes mainland China. So engine coverage has a geographic floor underneath the plan tiers, and a buyer who needs a specific engine in a specific market should confirm that pairing exists before signing rather than after.
Third, the channels distinguish the consumer surface from the developer one, and the distinction matters more than the naming implies. ChatGPT UI is scraped from the product a buyer would actually use; the OpenAI Search API is a separate channel reading a different surface. Tracking one is not tracking the other, and a report that says "ChatGPT" without saying which is answering a vaguer question than it appears to.
Fourth, the agent interface is broader than the entry-plan framing suggests. It is not a read-only export. It reads prompts, topics, brands, source URLs and the full reporting layer, and it writes as well: creating and updating prompts, topics, tags and brands. The recommendations engine is reachable through it too, returning opportunity scores by page type and by community domain rather than a flat list. For a team that wants this data inside its own reporting, that is the strongest argument on the page.
The one place we lost time is the numbers themselves. Visibility and share of voice come back as ratios between zero and one, sentiment on a nought to a hundred scale, position as a rank where lower wins, and retrieval and citation rates as averages that can legitimately exceed one. Four different conventions in one response, and every one of them looks like a percentage if you are not paying attention. We got a reading wrong on the first pass. Anyone building a dashboard on top of this should write the units down before writing the queries.
A limit on what this section can tell you. Our evidence is the reporting layer and the agent interface, which is where we work. We have not run the web dashboard as a daily user would, so the ease of use score reflects how cleanly the product is structured underneath rather than how the application feels to a marketer clicking through it.
Answer engines are unstable in a way search results are not. The same question asked twice in a week can produce materially different responses, because models are updated, retrieval changes and the sources being drawn on move. A weekly reading in that environment is close to noise: you cannot tell a real shift from the variance you happened to sample.
Refreshing every day on every plan is therefore a more substantial decision than it looks on a feature list. It is the difference between a number you can plot and a number you can only quote. Several rivals treat daily sampling as an upgrade, which quietly makes their cheaper tiers much weaker than the comparison suggests.
The headline figure buys a fraction of the engine list, and the fraction is smaller than the marketing implies. Our own account lists fourteen channels and runs three. That is not hidden and the arithmetic is published, but it is the single most important thing to work out before comparing this against anything else, because completing the set roughly doubles the bill at every level. A shortlist built on advertised entry prices will place this far higher than a shortlist built on the configuration you would actually run.
Which three you need is a real question, not a formality. If your buyers use ChatGPT and Perplexity and nothing else matters, the included set is probably fine and this is very good value. If you need broad coverage, price the full configuration and compare that. We run this on live accounts, so the capability reading here is first-hand rather than taken from published specification.
A detail the category tends to gloss: tracking an engine is tracking one surface of it. The channel reading ChatGPT is scraped from the product a buyer would open, and the OpenAI Search API is a separate channel reading somewhere else entirely. Both are legitimate and they answer different questions, so a visibility number is only as meaningful as your knowledge of which surface produced it.
That matters when you compare vendors, because engine counts are the headline specification in this category and they are not counted the same way twice. One vendor listing six engines and another listing fourteen may be tracking the same four places. Ask which surface each engine name refers to, and whether the engine you care about is even available in the market you sell into, since several are geographically restricted in ways no pricing page mentions.
Where another tool in the category fits a reader better.
Choose this if you sell into more than one market. Country limits disappear above its entry plan, and analytics and programmatic access both arrive at a published price.
Read reviewChoose this if you want a lower floor with every add-on priced, and can accept a smaller prompt allowance to get there.
Read reviewChoose this if procurement is involved: broader coverage, edge connections and the only published response commitment on our ranking.
Read reviewAimed at what the public site cannot settle.
Three self-serve tiers at $80, $205 and $420 a month billed annually, or $95, $245 and $495 monthly, plus a quoted Enterprise plan. Add-on model pricing is published on the same page. Checked 14 August 2026.
Three of the six on every self-serve tier, with the rest available as add-ons at $30 to $140 a month each depending on plan. Enterprise reaches up to eleven. Budget for what you need rather than what is bundled.
Only on Enterprise, which carries no published price, and the same applies to single sign-on. An MCP server is available throughout the self-serve range, so there is a route to your own tooling below Enterprise, just not a documented API.
One country on the entry plan, three on the two tiers above, unlimited on Enterprise. The limit caps how many distinct prompt locations a project can configure and carries no separate charge, so a second market costs prompts from your allowance rather than a country fee.
Unlimited, on every tier including the cheapest. Seats are not metered at all, which materially changes the comparison against rivals that charge per person or cap the entry plan at three.
First-hand. We pay for Peec AI and use it on live accounts, and the engine counts, country limits and agent-interface detail in this review are read off our own project rather than off the pricing page. Peec pays us nothing and has no involvement in the review or the ranking. Our evidence is the reporting layer and the agent interface rather than the web dashboard, so ease of use is scored on how the product is structured underneath rather than on how the application feels to click through. Pricing was read at source on 14 August 2026.
Buy this if daily tracking on your three most important models covers the market you sell into, and you can work without a published interface spec. At $80 with uncapped seats it is the cheapest credible daily tracker we found, and an agent interface at the bottom of the range is something no rival offers. Two things to settle first. Price the configuration you would genuinely run, not the one included. And get the country entitlement written into the contract, because the public pages give two different answers.
Visit Peec AIUpdated September 2026
Hands-on tested. The account above is what we did with it, and the scores reflect that as well as the published evidence. How we rank
| Criterion | Weight | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Core capabilityHow well it does the job it exists for. | 30% | 8/10 |
| Value and real costWhat you actually pay, and whether you can find that out before you buy. | 25% | 9/10 |
| Ease of useSetup, day-to-day use and how long it takes to get something useful. Only scored when we have used it. | 20% | 7/10 |
| Integrations and extensibilityWhat it connects to, and whether your data can come back out. | 15% | 6/10 |
| Support and documentationWhat is committed to in writing, and what you can read without a sales call. | 10% | 6/10 |
Reclassified from research-based to hands-on. We are a paying Peec AI customer and had been reviewing the product from its published pages, which understated it. Using the account surfaced capability the pricing page does not describe: an agent interface that writes as well as reads, and a recommendations engine returning opportunity scores by page type and community domain. Core capability moves from 7 to 8 and ease of use is scored for the first time at 7, which the research-based version correctly left blank. The derived rating moves from 3.5 to 4. We also corrected the engine count: the body said the headline price buys three of six models, and our account lists fourteen channels across nine vendors with three active. Peec pays us nothing and has no involvement in this ranking.
Rewritten to the rebuilt review format and rescored against the five review criteria rather than inheriting the AEO ranking score. The rating is unchanged at 3.5 and the scores behind it now publish on the page.
We got this wrong and corrected it. The version published on 12 August stated that Peec AI publishes no price at any tier, rating it 2.0. That was false: all three self-serve tiers were published on both billing cycles, with add-on pricing, and had been at the time we checked. The figures render client-side and our check read the raw markup. Rescored: real cost 1 to 9, support 4 to 6, and integrations 6 after crediting the MCP server on every tier while correcting a tier-blind reading of the API. Rating moved from 2.0 to 3.5.
By Rajat Kapoor. SaaSInsight is funded by labelled placements and affiliate links. Some links may be paid — always labelled. Read our disclosure policy.
