Otterly.AI and Peec AI compared on what each one publishes: nine documents fetched on 20 October 2026

Otterly.AI and Peec AI are the two names an assistant reaches for most often when somebody asks who tracks brand mentions in AI answers, and the fastest honest way to separate them is to read what each company publishes about itself. On 20 October 2026 we requested nine documents belonging to the two companies, ran no JavaScript, and counted only the visible text in the first response. All nine answered HTTP 200. Both name all five of ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude and Google AI Overviews. After that the two publishing habits pull apart: Otterly serves a money figure and a count of engines in its own words, and Peec serves the unit its allowance is measured in, the models included per tier and how often each prompt is re-run.

We build a product in the same category, so this page names no winner between them.

The criterion this page uses, and why it is the only one we can apply to somebody else's product

We have run no head to head test of Otterly or Peec, so any score here would be invented. What can be read without a login, repeated by you in ten minutes and dated is the publishing record: which facts about the product sit in a document a buyer can fetch. That is a narrow criterion and a real one, because a fact that is not in the document is a fact that arrives in a sales call.

The method: one request per URL, a desktop browser user agent, no cookies, scripts and tags stripped, what remained counted as visible text. A money figure counts as present when a currency mark sits beside a number. An engine counts as named when the name appears in that text.

What the nine documents carried on 20 October 2026

document	status	visible words	of the five engines named	money figure
otterly.ai	200	3,790	5	yes
otterly.ai/features/	200	1,657	5	yes
otterly.ai/pricing/	200	1,908	5	yes
otterly.ai/robots.txt	200	n/a	n/a	n/a
otterly.ai/sitemap_website.xml	200	81 urls	n/a	n/a
peec.ai	200	3,858	4	no
peec.ai/pricing	200	3,454	5	no
peec.ai/sitemap.xml	200	249 urls	n/a	n/a
peec.ai/integrations	404	n/a	n/a	n/a

The Peec home page named four of the five and its pricing page named all five, so the missing name on one document is a page by page difference and not a coverage statement. The 404 is on a path we assembled ourselves, which is our error and not a finding about Peec.

Otterly publishes a count and a list, in its own words

The features document carries a stated engine count with the list written out beside it: "Tracks all 7 major AI search engines. ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Google AI Mode, Gemini, Perplexity, Microsoft Copilot, and Claude." The same document states "Monitors 65+ countries and languages". A count with an enumerated list behind it is the strongest form this fact takes, because you can hold the quote up against the tier you are quoted and see whether the two agree.

Its sitemap adds three documents that are unusual in this category: a security page, a named customer case study at its own URL, and a free brand report. A case study that names the customer is checkable in a way that an unnamed one is not, because you can go and ask them.

Peec publishes the unit, the model count and the cadence

Peec's pricing document does not carry a currency figure in the served text, and it carries the three fields that decide what any figure would mean. The tiers are described in prompts, as "50 prompts", "150 prompts" and "350 prompts", each with "Choose 3 models", "Unlimited users" and "Daily tracking frequency", with a project count rising across the tiers. The top tier reads "Choose from all models", "Daily or weekly tracking frequency", "Unlimited projects", "API access", "Single Sign-on (SSO)" and "Up to 13 LLM models tracked".

The refresh rule is published as plain text in its own FAQ: "Peec AI executes each prompt once every 24 hours on every AI model you've selected." That single sentence settles a question most procurement conversations in this category never reach, because the unit a vendor bills and the number of answers on file are the same thing seen from two sides. Peec's sitemap also lists a changelog, an authors page, a data processing agreement, an agency directory and a research post whose own title states the size of its dataset, nearly 200,000 AI responses across 8 AI engines.

Where each of them beats us on this criterion, said plainly

We apply the test to our own site with the same request and the same counting. Our home page serves 1,382 visible words and names all five engines, and our pricing page serves 3,377 words with figures in four currencies. Two gaps are real and both belong to the other two companies.

• Peec publishes a changelog and a named authors page at listed URLs. We publish neither. A changelog is the cheapest proof that a product is still being worked on, and a reader cannot infer it from our site today.
• Otterly publishes a named customer case study and a security page at listed URLs. We publish a dated Search Console export instead. Those are different kinds of evidence and a buyer with a procurement checklist usually wants the security page first.

What we publish that neither sitemap lists is a dedicated method document, at our own methodology page, naming how each engine is reached, the blind question rule, the check frequency per priority band and what the method cannot see. Neither of the two sitemaps we read lists a page of that kind, and Peec's research post carries its own dataset size in its title instead.

The reading that cost us two hours, and the rule it produced

Our first pass asked otterly.ai with a Chrome on Windows user agent and received HTTP 403 twice, on the home page and on the pricing page. The same host returned HTTP 200 with the full document minutes later to a Safari on macOS agent carrying an Accept-Language header. The 403 was never an access decision and never a policy: it was a response to the shape of our request.

So a refusal from a vendor's own server is evidence about your request before it is evidence about the vendor. Change the agent, add the headers a browser sends, and read it again before writing anything down. A twelve document fetch we published earlier had to exclude both Otterly rows for exactly this reason, and that British vendor page fetch has a gap where this page now has two rows.

How to turn this into a decision between the two

• Take Otterly's engine quote into the demo. Seven engines are named in the document. Ask which of the seven sit inside your tier and what each extra one costs.
• Take Peec's three fields into the demo. Prompts, models chosen per tier and a 24 hour cadence. Multiply them out: 50 prompts on 3 models re-run daily is 150 answers a day, and that is the number your bill is really about.
• Ask both for the answers themselves. Peec's top tier lists API access in the document. Ask Otterly for the same in writing.
• Re-read both documents on the day you sign. A figure read three weeks ago is a figure about three weeks ago.

Questions buyers ask when choosing between Otterly.AI and Peec AI

Which of the two covers more AI engines?

Both named all five of ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude and Google AI Overviews in the documents we read on 20 October 2026. Otterly states a count of seven major engines with the list written out, and Peec's top tier states up to 13 LLM models tracked. Those two numbers count different things, so the comparison to make is between the enumerated list on each quote rather than between the two headline counts.

Why does this page not print either company's prices?

This site records prices and does not reprint them, our competitors' included. A figure copied here stops being true the next time somebody changes a plan, and we would then be publishing a wrong statement about another company without knowing it. Peec's pricing document carried no currency figure in the served text at all on 20 October 2026, so even a copied table would have had a hole in it.

Does Peec AI run my prompts more often than Otterly.AI?

Peec publishes its cadence as once every 24 hours per selected model, with daily or weekly on the top tier. Otterly's documents did not state a cadence in the text we read, so that is a question for the quote rather than a difference we measured. Get the answer in writing either way, because cadence multiplies the answer count and the answer count is what you are buying.

Is a 403 from a vendor's website a sign the company blocks AI crawlers?

Treat it as a question about your own request first. otterly.ai answered 403 to one browser agent and 200 to another within minutes on 20 October 2026, and its robots.txt answered 200 throughout. A refusal counts as a refusal when it repeats across different agents, different header sets and a separate session hours later.

Should a shortlist have both of them on it?

Yes, and the work that decides it is not a feature table. Put the same fifteen buyer questions in front of both, ask each to reproduce a number you labelled by hand, and ask both for the raw answers behind one week of readings.

The document is the part you get to keep

A demo is a performance and a document is a record. Both of these companies put specific, checkable facts about their own products into pages anybody can fetch, and the facts they chose to publish are different facts. Read both before either call, write down the three fields that decide your bill, and the sales conversation becomes a short one about a list you are already holding.