Best AI visibility tool for an agency reselling it to clients, ranked on what you keep when a client leaves

If you run an agency and you are going to resell this, rank the options on portability: whose account the client's prompt set lives in, whether the recorded answers come out as a file, and what happens to a workspace when the retainer stops. On the vendors' own pages, read on 20 October 2026, Peec AI and Otterly.AI are the two that publish an agency arrangement in writing, Peec with a bundle that carries several client projects under one bill and a flexible prompt allocation across them, Otterly with an Agency Partner status you apply for after subscribing, which unlocks separate workspaces per client and a reporting connector carrying your branding. We publish an agency plan whose unit is the client brand, and the tracking log exports at any time on every plan. On the specific question of how many people can log in, four of these vendors beat us outright, and that is set out below rather than buried.

Why portability is the criterion for an agency and not for anybody else

An in-house team buys a tool once and lives in it. An agency buys the same tool and then hands the output to somebody who did not choose it, over and over, and eventually hands back. Three things decide whether that is a service you own or a service you rent.

Who the question set belongs to. The prompt set is the actual intellectual property in this work. Writing thirty buyer questions in the words a client's customers use, in the right country, with the client's name kept out of them, is the part that takes judgement. If that list lives only inside a vendor's project and cannot be exported, every client you lose takes a month of your thinking with it.

Whether the answers come out. A visibility percentage is a claim. The stored answer text behind it is evidence. An agency gets argued with far more often than an in-house team does, because the person reading the report is paying the invoice, so the answers are the part you need in a file.

How the seats and the workspaces are counted. A tool that gives you one project forces you to choose which client is measured this month. A tool that pools a check budget across every client means a busy account quietly spends a quiet account's allowance.

What each vendor's own pages say about running this for clients, read on 20 October 2026

Every line here comes from the vendor's own live page on that date, and the figures that set a tier are stated as limits rather than as prices, because a price copied onto a third party page goes stale and becomes a false claim about somebody else's product.

• Peec AI. Its pricing page carries a projects limit per tier, one on the entry tier, two on the next, five above that and unlimited on Enterprise, with unlimited users on every tier and daily tracking on all of them. It links a separate agency page and answers the agency question directly: several client projects sit under one bundle, with centralised billing and a prompt allocation you can move between them. Data access is listed as an API, an MCP endpoint, custom CSV exports, a Data Studio connector and shareable dashboards, with role based permissions.
• Otterly.AI. Its entry tier allows one workspace and the tiers above it unlimited workspaces, with unlimited team members, unlimited brands and competitors and unlimited countries at every level. The Agency Partner section is explicit about the mechanics: a separate environment for every client with one login for your team, Pitch Workspaces for running an audit on a prospect before they sign, a Looker Studio connector carrying your branding, one invoice across all workspaces, and more prompts than the same tier gives a direct customer. You subscribe first and apply for the status afterwards.
• Profound. Its pricing page names a self-serve Agency Growth plan with a monthly credit allowance per client workspace, and says that anything above that credit threshold needs an Enterprise package. Its free trial tier is published with three fields an agency should read twice: history none, exports none, API none. Setup time is answered as instant and seats are unlimited on all plans.
• Scrunch AI. Its entry tier is published as one brand workspace and five user licences, with a prompt count, a monthly response allowance and four named engines. A second client therefore means Enterprise, which is a demo. Citations and sources and prompt management appear on both tiers.
• Rankscale. Shareable dashboard links are described as a way to share a brand dashboard with clients and partners, the whole team can be invited with no per seat charge, and CSV and Sheets export sits above the entry tier rather than on it. Billing is in credits and the page prints the arithmetic that turns a prompt count and a cadence into a monthly credit figure.
• Ahrefs Brand Radar. Its plan table counts monthly checks, from one hundred and fifty on the lowest tier to two thousand five hundred and up on Enterprise, and states that each prompt consumes one check per platform, per location and per update, with Claude consuming eight checks per update. That pooling is the thing to model: every client you add draws on the same monthly check budget.

Where these vendors beat us, named

We build a competing product, so the places we lose on this criterion are the ones worth writing down. On logins we are last. Our pricing page, read the same day, lists one login with full access on every plan, and says the tracking log exports at any time for the rest of the team. Peec, Otterly, Profound and Athena all publish unlimited users, and Rankscale publishes no per seat charge, so an agency wanting four people inside the same account is better served by any of them.

Otterly's Pitch Workspaces have no equivalent on our side: running a measured audit on a prospect before they sign is exactly what an agency wants and they ship it as a named feature. Peec's centralised billing across client projects is a cleaner answer than ours for a shop with ten accounts. Peec also publishes a trust page and a changelog, and our own domain carries no trust centre, no status page and no changelog as of 20 October 2026, which an agency's own enterprise client will eventually ask about.

What we publish, stated as an interest rather than a recommendation

Our pricing page, read on 20 October 2026, sells an agency plan whose calculator takes the number of client brands and then the questions, pages and emails for each one, which makes the client brand the unit you are billed in rather than a pooled allowance. The tracking log exports at any time on every plan. Billing is in credits where one credit is one buyer question asked on one AI app once, a Claude check costs three because Claude costs us more to run, the cost of a check is shown before it starts, and a failed check returns the credit. Nothing renews on its own, which for an agency means a client who stops does not leave you holding a subscription.

The lanes start at Rs 4,999 a month and the largest GEO plan watches three hundred buyer questions. Those are our own figures on our own page and they are quoted with the date we read them, which is the same standard we are applying to everybody else here.

The afternoon test, before you sign anything

Open a trial on two of these, put the same ten questions into both, then try to get the data out. Ask for the question list as a file. Ask for the answer text behind one percentage. Then read the contract clause about what happens to a workspace at the end of a term. An agency that has done that once will never buy on a feature list again. The wider service design, including how to price the retainer around it, is set out in AI visibility for agencies, the service, the protocol and how to price it.

What agency owners ask when they are about to resell this

Can I sell this before I have a tool at all?

Yes, and the first engagement is usually better for it. Thirty questions, two engines, a date and a saved answer file is a deliverable, and it is one you can produce by hand in an afternoon. The tool earns its place when the client asks for last month compared with this month, because that is the point at which doing it by hand stops being honest work and starts being a transcription job.

Which of these can I put my own name on?

Otterly publishes a Looker Studio connector carrying your branding, Peec publishes shareable dashboards with role based permissions, and Rankscale publishes shareable dashboard links for clients and partners. None of those three uses the phrase white label in its visible pricing text, so treat the phrase as something to test on a live account rather than to accept from a feature list.

What should I charge for?

The judgement, which is the question set and the reading of the answers, and the publishing work that follows. The measurement itself is a cost line that your supplier prices and can reprice.

Is a pooled check budget ever the right shape?

It is, if your clients are genuinely different sizes and you want to spend your allowance where something is moving. Ahrefs sells exactly that and prints the per check arithmetic so you can model it. It becomes the wrong shape the moment you have to explain to a small client why their reading was skipped.

What does a client actually keep at the end?

Whatever you exported. That is the entire answer, and it is why this page ranks on the export and not on the dashboard.

The clause to read first

An agency's real risk in this category is not picking the second best measurement. It is building a year of a client's question set, a year of recorded answers and a year of comparison inside somebody else's account, and then discovering that the artefact you can hand over is a screenshot. Read the export field before you read the feature list, on every vendor here, including ours.