Peec prices models separately from prompts and limits projects at every tier, so teams comparing it against alternatives should compare the total at their own model count rather than the entry price. As of 30 August 2026 it no longer publishes those prices at all, which makes that comparison something you have to request.
Six alternatives below, each with figures read from the vendor’s own pricing page and dated. One of them is ours, so discount our framing accordingly.
What does Peec AI actually publish?
Four self-serve tiers, and as of 30 August 2026 not one of them carries a price on the public page. Checked again on that date: the tier names, the model list, the project counts and the tracking frequency are all published, and the figures are not.
| Peec AI tier | Price | Projects | Tracking |
|---|---|---|---|
| Starter | Not published | 1 | Daily |
| Pro | Not published | Up to 2 | Daily |
| Advanced | Not published | Up to 5 | Daily |
| Enterprise | Custom | Custom | Custom |
All tiers list the same model coverage: ChatGPT, AI Mode, AI Overviews, Microsoft Copilot, Perplexity and Gemini. Read 30 August 2026.
This is a change. In early August the same page published Starter, Pro and Advanced prices along with per-model add-on costs, and Peec has since posted a pricing update saying customers get “significantly more tracking capacity at the same price or less” without stating what the new prices are. We are not going to reprint the old figures as though they were current, because a month-old price for a vendor that has just repriced is worse than no price.
What can you still work out about the cost?
The unit, which is more useful than it sounds. Peec’s credits documentation states the formula outright: “1 prompt x 1 model x 1 day = 1 credit,” and “1 prompt x 1 model x 1 month (30 days) = 30 credits.” Tracking one prompt across three models for a month is 90 credits.
That tells you exactly what drives your bill even without a price attached: prompts multiplied by models multiplied by days. It also means the model count is not a feature toggle, it is a multiplier on everything, which is the substance behind the claim that you should compare at your own model count rather than at the entry tier.
The agency tiers publish credit allowances without prices too: Essential at 10,000 credits and up to 25 projects, Growth at 25,000 and up to 50, Scale at 65,000 for agencies managing eleven or more clients. Scale and Comprehensive can switch to weekly tracking, which the documentation says costs a third of the daily rate. So an agency can size the plan precisely and still cannot price it.
Two rows decide most evaluations. Three models are included at every tier, so full coverage is an add-on question rather than an upgrade question. And the project limit starts at one, which matters immediately for anyone tracking more than a single brand or market.
What is the axis worth comparing on?
Peec includes unlimited users at every tier, which is unusual in this category and genuinely valuable for a team that wants everyone looking at the same data without a per-seat conversation.
The axis worth comparing on is total cost at your model count. Three models are included and the rest are billed per model, so a team wanting six models is paying the tier price plus three add-ons. Whether that lands cheaper or dearer than a flat-rate competitor depends entirely on how many engines you actually need, which is a calculation this page cannot do for you but can tell you to do.
One note on a premise worth retiring. Peec is often described as European-priced, and its pricing page displayed euros previously. As of 9 August 2026 it shows US dollars, so currency is no longer a differentiator worth screening on.
Compare on model count, project count, and the total once both are set, 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 |
| Otterly.AI | $29/mo | 4 core | 15 | No permanent free plan |
| 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
The cheapest way to start tracking anything at all.
- Where it is weaker
- Engine add-ons and extra prompt packs mean the sticker price is rarely the real one.
- Requery frequency
- Daily tracking stated, runs per day not published
- Top self-serve tier
- $489/mo for 400 prompts, engines beyond the core four billed as add-ons
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 Peec AI?
Worth stating plainly, because a list of alternatives that treats the incumbent as a mistake is a sales page rather than a comparison.
European teams and anyone who wants unlimited users on every tier. 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 model count, project count, and the total once both are set, 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.