Otterly’s tiers cover four core search engines, with Claude, Google AI Mode and Gemini available as separately billed add-ons. So the useful comparison is not the sticker price, it is the total at the engine coverage you actually need.
Six alternatives below, every figure read from the vendor’s own pricing page on 9 August 2026 and linked. One of them is ours, so discount our framing accordingly.
What does Otterly.AI actually publish?
| Otterly tier | Price | Engines | Prompts |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lite | $29/mo | 4 core search engines | 15 |
| Standard | $189/mo | Same 4 core, extras as add-ons | 100 |
| Premium | $489/mo | Same 4 core, extras as add-ons | 400 |
Annual billing is 15% cheaper, at $25, $160 and $422 a month. Extra prompts are sold at $99 per 100. Individual engines are billed separately, in a range Otterly publishes as $9 to $439 a month depending on tier. All read on 9 August 2026.
The structure is the finding. Four engines are included at every tier, and the ones outside that four are priced per engine on top. A team wanting Claude and Gemini alongside the core four is doing arithmetic rather than reading a price.
What is the axis worth comparing on?
Otterly has the cheapest entry point in this category at $29 a month, and that is a genuine advantage nobody else matches. It is a reasonable place to start and this page is not arguing otherwise.
What changes the calculation is coverage. If your buyers use an engine outside the core four, you are adding a per-engine charge to every tier, and the total stops resembling the headline. That is a packaging difference rather than a quality problem, and it only matters if you need the engines it puts behind add-ons.
Compare on engine coverage and what it costs to get there, not on the number at the top of the pricing page. In this category the headline is a floor rather than a price.
What are the six alternatives?
| Tool | Entry price | Engines at entry | Volume at entry | Free plan |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rivarise | $69/mo | 4 | 50 per day | Yes, permanent, no card |
| Mentions.so | $49/mo | 3 LLMs | 25 | No permanent free plan |
| Knowatoa | $59/mo | ChatGPT, AI Overviews, AI Mode | Not published | Free trial, no permanent free plan |
| Trakkr | $100/mo | All 8, included | 50 per brand | 14-day free trial |
| Peec AI | Not published | Six named models | Credit-metered | No permanent free plan listed |
| Rankscale | $99/mo | Your choice, credit-metered | 1,200 credits | 7-day free trial on Pro |
All figures read from each vendor’s own pricing page on 9 August 2026. “Not published” means the vendor does not state it, which is a finding rather than an omission here.
Teams that want all nine engines on one plan without add-ons, and the full answer text behind every number.
- Where it is weaker
- No longer the cheapest way in, and it does not do content generation or optimisation actions.
- Requery frequency
- 5 runs per prompt per engine per day, published
- Top self-serve tier
- $349/mo Business for all 9 engines and 80 prompts a day; $1,299 Agency for 5 client brands
Agencies wanting many sites on one bill, with unlimited seats at every tier.
- Where it is weaker
- Prompt allowances are low at the bottom two tiers relative to the price.
- Requery frequency
- Not published
- Top self-serve tier
- $399/mo Agency, 300 prompts, unlimited sites
Reporting-stack teams: the API, MCP and Looker Studio integrations arrive at $199 rather than at enterprise.
- Where it is weaker
- Question allowances are not on the pricing page, so you cannot size it before talking to them.
- Requery frequency
- Daily updates stated, runs per day not published
- Top self-serve tier
- $199/mo Growth, all 7 services, plus API, MCP and Looker Studio
Anyone tired of per-model add-on pricing. Every model is in every tier.
- Where it is weaker
- One brand at the entry tier, so multi-brand work moves you up quickly.
- Requery frequency
- Daily per brand, runs per day not published
- Top self-serve tier
- Agency tiers above, with client portals and brand comparison
European teams wanting country-level segmentation and unlimited users on every tier.
- Where it is weaker
- No tier carries a public price as of 30 August 2026, so you cannot size or compare it without a sales conversation.
- Requery frequency
- Daily tracking stated, and its documentation puts 1 prompt against 1 model for 1 day at 1 credit
- Top self-serve tier
- Advanced, up to 5 projects. No price published on any public page
Teams that would rather buy a budget than a plan, and audit pages as well as track prompts.
- Where it is weaker
- Credit maths makes cross-vendor comparison genuinely hard, which may or may not be deliberate.
- Requery frequency
- Credit-metered rather than fixed; you decide the run count
- Top self-serve tier
- $780/mo Enterprise, 12,000 credits
Why does the entry price mislead so reliably?
Because almost every vendor in this category prices along two axes and puts only one of them on the pricing card.
The visible axis is volume: how many prompts you track. The quieter one is coverage: how many engines those prompts run against. Bundle them and you get one number that is easy to compare and hard to size. Separate them and you get a low headline with a variable total, which is what most of this market does.
One number covers a stated engine count. Harder to make look cheap, and you know what you will pay in month three.
A low entry price that grows with coverage. Not dishonest, and it means the headline is a floor rather than a price.
There is a third axis worth checking before you sign anything, because it is the one nobody markets on. Ask how many times each prompt is actually run per engine per day. Answers vary between identical runs, so a tool sampling once and a tool sampling five times will report different numbers from the same reality, and only one of them is measuring a rate.
What does switching actually cost?
More than the difference in subscription, and the expensive part is not money.
What you have built with any of these tools is a prompt set held constant, run at a known frequency, for long enough that the numbers mean something relative to each other. Move vendors and you usually change one of those, at which point your history stops being comparable to your future.
What should you ask every one of them?
What is worth keeping about Otterly.AI?
Worth stating plainly, because a list of alternatives that treats the incumbent as a mistake is a sales page rather than a comparison.
The cheapest way to start tracking anything at all. That is a real strength and none of the six below neutralise it. If it describes your situation, the honest answer is that you are already using the right tool and this page is not for you.
The case for looking elsewhere is narrower than most alternatives pages imply. It is about engine coverage and what it costs to get there, and if those are not the constraints biting you, switching costs you a broken time series in exchange for a solved problem you did not have.
Should you switch at all?
Not mid-quarter, and the reason is measurement rather than loyalty. Changing tools usually changes the prompt set, the run frequency, or both, and either one breaks comparability with everything you have already collected.
If you do move, carry the prompts across verbatim, note the switch date prominently, and expect the numbers to step rather than trend. And export the old answer text before the subscription lapses, because that record cannot be reconstructed afterwards.
The full category, including the tools not on this shortlist and the three shapes they fall into, is in the twelve-tool comparison. If you would rather establish a baseline before buying anything at all, the no-budget audit produces a defensible one in an afternoon.