Otterly alternatives for agencies: the entry tier carries one workspace, and Gemini is a paid add-on on all four

An agency does not buy prompts. It buys a container per client, with a report that leaves the tool carrying the client's name on it and not yours. That changes which number on a pricing page matters. Read on 20 October 2026, the Otterly.AI pricing page publishes one workspace on its entry tier and unlimited workspaces from the second tier up, and it publishes unlimited team members on every tier including the cheapest. So the line an agency hits first is not the prompt count, it is the workspace count, and it is crossed by moving up one plan rather than by buying an add-on. The second line is quieter and costs more over a year: four engines are included on every Otterly tier and Claude, Gemini and Google AI Mode are paid add-ons on all four of them, which for an agency is an add on repeated per client.

We sell a tracker in this category and we run an agency plan, so our own published terms are in the table below on the same criterion, including the row where every one of these vendors beats us.

The number an agency compares, and what each vendor publishes for it

One criterion, stated so it can be checked in twenty minutes: how many client containers a plan holds, how many people can log in, and whether the report can carry the agency's own branding. All three read from vendor pricing pages on 20 October 2026, two agents each, bodies saved.

read 20 Oct 2026	client containers per plan	people who can log in	agency branding on reports
Otterly.AI	1 workspace on the entry tier, unlimited from the second tier up	unlimited team members on every tier	not stated on the pricing page
Peec AI	1, 2 and 5 projects on the three monthly tiers, unlimited on the top one, with a separate agency bundle holding several client projects under one billing account	unlimited users on every plan	not stated on the pricing page
Rankscale	brand dashboard slots of 10, 25, 50 and 100 across the four published plans, with extra slots bought in the app	team workspaces with unlimited seats and no per seat charge	yes, branding removal from shared dashboards, and white label options on the agency plan
Scrunch	1 brand workspace on the entry plan, custom above it	5 user licences on the entry plan, custom above it	not stated on the pricing page
AI Knows Us, ours	an agency plan, with the buyer questions and answer allowance published per plan	one login with full access on every plan, and an exportable tracking log for the rest of the team	not published

That last row is the honest one and it is the row where we lose. Otterly, Peec and Rankscale all publish unlimited users or unlimited seats, and we publish one login. Our reasoning is on our own pricing page, that the cost of this work is asking the assistants rather than headcount, and the log exports for everybody else. For an agency with five people inside one client account it is still one login against unlimited, and Rankscale goes further than any of us by publishing both unlimited seats and white label branding removal. If a client facing dashboard under your own name is the thing you are selling, that is where to look first.

What changes in the engines' own answer when the question says agency

Of 1,260 readings taken from ChatGPT and Gemini across the United States, the United Kingdom and India, 126 asked a question that named an agency, agencies or clients. Counting a vendor once per reading, here is what moves.

vendor	named across all 1,260	rank overall	named in the 126 agency readings	rank on agency questions
Semrush	443	1	44	1
Profound	219	4	38	2
Otterly	265	2	37	3
Peec	198	5	31	4
Ahrefs	253	3	19	5

Two movements, both worth knowing before a client call. Profound rises from fourth to second when the question mentions an agency, and Ahrefs falls from third to fifth. The membership of the shortlist barely moves at all, and the order does. We measured that across five reason groups in the same set: the five names an engine reaches for stay almost identical whatever reason you give it, with a similarity of 0.98 between the agency framing and a budget framing on who gets named, while the similarity on who is placed first drops to 0.74. Changing the reason in your question does not change the candidate list. It changes who goes on top of it.

Inside those 126 readings, 36 produced a numbered shortlist, and first place went to Otterly four times, Peec four times, Semrush three, Ahrefs twice, and Profound and Brandlight once each. Our own name appeared in none of the 126, which is the reason this material is published rather than kept.

The add on arithmetic an agency should do before switching

Otterly's four included engines are ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity and Microsoft Copilot. Claude, Gemini and Google AI Mode are the add ons. Now put that next to a second measurement from the same readings: taking the six least named vendors in this category together, 43 of their 46 namings came from Gemini and three from ChatGPT. Gemini is where a large part of this market's naming behaviour actually happens, so an agency buying coverage without it is reporting on the engine that moves least for the clients whose competitors sit in that long tail.

Work it out per client rather than per account. Count your clients, decide how many buyer questions each one needs watched, multiply by the engines each client genuinely cares about, and multiply again by the readings a month you promised in the retainer. That product is the thing to price, and it is the number that decides whether the second tier of a cheaper vendor beats the entry tier of a dearer one.

Which alternative fits which agency complaint

• Too few client containers. Rankscale publishes dashboard slots by number across four plans and sells extra slots individually, which is the most granular container pricing in the set. Peec sells an agency bundle that holds several client projects under one billing account with prompt allocation moved between them.
• The report has somebody else's name on it. Rankscale is the only vendor in this set that publishes branding removal and white label options on its own pricing page.
• Gemini and Claude cost extra per client. Peec publishes a choice of three models on its monthly tiers and the full model list on its top plan, and Rankscale publishes its engine list as included on every plan. Count the surfaces your clients actually ask about and buy against that list.
• The team cannot all get in. Three of the four vendors above publish unlimited users or seats. We publish one login and an export, and on this line they are ahead of us.

The operational half of this, running the same question set across twenty client accounts without the quality drifting, is a separate problem from choosing the vendor, and it is written up in how to run AI visibility across multiple clients. The client facing comparison deck that comes out of the other end is easier to build from a fixed template, and a competitor analysis template, the four tabs and the twenty columns is the one we use.

Questions an agency asks before it moves

Can one Otterly plan hold several clients? Its entry tier publishes one workspace and the three tiers above publish unlimited workspaces, so the answer is yes from the second tier up. It also publishes unlimited team members on every tier, including the cheapest.

Does Otterly include Gemini? Its pricing page lists four engines as included on all four tiers and names Claude, Google AI Mode and Gemini as add ons on each of them. Ask for the add on cost per workspace, since an agency pays it per client rather than once.

Why did the Otterly page refuse our first request? It answered HTTP 403 to a Chrome on Windows agent and HTTP 200 with the full pricing table to a Safari on macOS agent, on the same minute from the same network. A 403 from one agent is a reason to try another, not a finding about the vendor, and the figures above come from the 200.

Who does an engine recommend to an agency? On the 126 agency framed readings, Semrush was named 44 times, Profound 38, Otterly 37, Peec 31 and Ahrefs 19, and first place in the 36 numbered shortlists went to Otterly and Peec four times each. Our own name appeared in none of them.