Otterly alternatives with better reporting: it is the only vendor in this set that publishes a rate limit on its own API, which is the number a reporting pipeline actually breaks on

If you are leaving Otterly because the reporting is thin, read its own numbers first, because on one measure it is the strongest in this category and you may be replacing the wrong thing. Read on 21 October 2026, Otterly's second of four tiers publishes 2,000 API requests a month, 2,000 MCP requests a month, 200,000 Agent Analytics events a month and a Data Studio connector. No other vendor in this set publishes a request cap at all. They publish whether an API exists, which answers a procurement checkbox and tells an engineer nothing.

A rate limit is the number a reporting pipeline breaks on. A nightly job pulling one hundred brands times five surfaces is three thousand calls a month before anybody adds a retry, so knowing the ceiling in advance is the difference between a pipeline that was sized and one that gets discovered. That is a real reason to stay with Otterly, and this page says so before it names a replacement.

The criterion: the published numbers behind an integration

One criterion: what quantity does each vendor publish about its own reporting route, and on which tier does that route begin. Read 21 October 2026, two agents each, bodies saved. We sell a tracker, so our own row is here.

read 21 Oct 2026	quantity published about the route	tier the route begins on	named connector
Otterly.AI	2,000 API requests, 2,000 MCP requests and 200k Agent Analytics events a month	the second of four	Data Studio connector
Rankscale	none for the API itself, but credits are published and priced at a fraction each	the second of four, as REST API	Looker Studio
Peec AI	none	the fourth, annual tier, for the API	Looker Studio, from the third tier
Scrunch	none	Enterprise, for query API, MCP and CLI alike	Looker Studio, Enterprise only
Depra AI	none for the server, but monthly checks are published per plan	every plan, as a read only MCP server	CSV download, every plan
AI Knows Us, ours	credits, published per plan, with the per check cost stated	two plans, as a Visibility API	an exportable tracking log, every plan

On that criterion Otterly is first and it is not close, because it is the only row with a figure in the quantity column that describes the route rather than the data behind it. Depra AI is first on availability: a read only MCP server on every plan, including the cheapest, means the data is reachable from a terminal or an assistant without changing tier at all.

Where we are behind is the connector. Four vendors above publish a named reporting connector, Looker Studio or Data Studio, that drops the numbers into a tool a board already reads. We publish an export and an API and no connector, which means somebody on your side builds the last mile. That is a fair reason to pick one of them.

What the assistants did with a reporting question

Our standing dataset is 1,260 readings from ChatGPT and Gemini across the United States, the United Kingdom and India. Seven of them name Otterly in a question that also names a report, a dashboard, an export, a stakeholder or a board. Inside those seven, Semrush was co named 5 times, Peec 4, Profound 3 and Ahrefs once. None of the seven produced a numbered shortlist at all.

That absence is the finding. On most framings these engines answer with a ranked list, and 1,067 readings in the set carry a numbered list of some kind. On the reporting framing, for the vendor the engines otherwise place first more often than anybody, they produced prose and no ranking. A reporting question gets explained rather than answered with a purchase, which is worth knowing if you were planning to settle this by asking an assistant. Our own name appeared in none of the 1,260.

The three things a reporting buyer is actually buying

Reporting gets sold as one feature and arrives as three, and separating them makes every vendor above easy to rank for your case.

• Egress. Can the numbers leave as a file or a call. Otterly publishes export on every tier and the API on its second. Peec puts the API on the annual tier. Scrunch puts every route on Enterprise.
• Shape. Can the report be cut the way the audience thinks. Peec publishes a source classification taxonomy on its own pricing page, naming competitor, editorial, reference and UGC, plus intent classification into informational, commercial and transactional. Nobody else prints the category names, and those categories are what makes a report arguable.
• Cadence. How often the numbers refresh. Rankscale publishes hourly to monthly scheduling, Otterly daily on every tier, and our own plans publish a weekly check with extra checks available any time. On cadence Rankscale and Otterly are both ahead of us.

Most disappointment with reporting in this category is a shape problem wearing an egress complaint. A bigger CSV of the same column does not help; a column naming which competitor took the slot does. What belongs in a week two report sets out the columns worth insisting on, and that page is one of the 1,068 of ours, 53.7% of the 1,987 in our inventory, that no stored body on this site links to.

Which alternative fixes which reporting complaint

• The API ceiling is too low. Rankscale publishes REST API on its second plan with credits as the only meter, and credits roll over up to twice or three times the monthly allocation depending on plan, which is the only rollover policy published in this set.
• We need it in Looker Studio, not in a tool. Rankscale publishes it on its lowest monthly plan, Peec on its third tier, Scrunch on Enterprise.
• Finance wants the data in a terminal. Depra AI publishes a read only MCP server on every plan, so the stored answers are reachable from Claude, Cursor or any MCP client without an export step.
• The board wants one page, monthly. That is a shape problem rather than a tooling one. Ask every vendor on this list to show one real answer with its sources attached before you sign, and buy the one whose answer you could put in front of a board unedited.

Questions about reporting out of Otterly and its rivals

Which Otterly tier has the API?

The second of four. Its entry tier publishes detailed reports and export but no API and no MCP access. The second tier adds API access, MCP access, Agent Analytics and a Data Studio connector, with the monthly caps printed beside them.

Is 2,000 API requests a month enough?

Work it out rather than guessing: brands, times surfaces, times pulls a month, plus a margin for retries. Ten brands on five surfaces pulled daily is about 1,500 calls, which fits. Fifty brands on the same pattern does not, and the next tier up publishes 5,000.

Does anybody publish how far back the data goes?

Profound does, as all time on its Enterprise tier and None on its trial. Otterly, Peec, Rankscale, Scrunch, Depra and we ourselves do not state history as a tiered limit, so it is a question for the call on all six.

Why does the reporting cut have only seven readings?

Because reporting is rarely the phrasing a buyer uses when asking which tool to buy; it becomes the question after they own one. Publishing seven as seven, and publishing that none of the seven ranked anything, is more useful than stretching the definition until the sample looks solid.

What is the cheapest route to a scheduled report in this set?

Depra AI's read only MCP server and CSV download, both on its lowest plan, or Rankscale's Looker Studio connection on its lowest monthly plan. Both sit below the tier where Otterly's API begins and below the tier where Peec's does.