Peec AI alternatives with better reporting: it is the only vendor here that publishes what a report can be cut by, naming four source categories and three intent classes on its own pricing page
Competitor, editorial, reference and UGC for sources; informational, commercial and transactional for intent. Everybody else publishes how the data leaves and not what shape it is in.
Published by AI Knows Us · Updated 21 October 2026
Most reporting disappointment in this category is a shape problem wearing an export complaint. A bigger file of the same column does not help anybody. What helps is a column that says which competitor took the slot and what kind of page the assistant read to decide, because those are the two things somebody can act on. Read on 21 October 2026, Peec AI is the only vendor in this set that publishes those columns by name on its pricing page: source classification into competitor, editorial, reference and UGC, and intent classification into informational, commercial and transactional.
So if you are leaving Peec because its reporting is thin, check first whether what you want is a different pipe or a different shape, because on shape Peec is ahead of this whole set and on pipe it is behind most of it. We sell a tracker here, so our own terms sit in the table with everybody else's.
The criterion: what a report can be cut by, not just how it gets out
One criterion: which analytical dimensions does the vendor publish by name, so a buyer knows what the report will be able to say. Read 21 October 2026, two agents each, bodies saved.
| read 21 Oct 2026 | dimensions published by name | what that lets a report say |
|---|---|---|
| Peec AI | source category as competitor, editorial, reference and UGC; intent as informational, commercial and transactional; branded against non branded; prompt volume scored 1 to 5; brand attribute scoring; recurring objections traced to pages | which kind of page won the slot, and at which stage of the buying question |
| Scrunch | funnel stages, sentiment analysis, citations and sources, query fan out, product observability | where in a funnel the answer failed, and which product was named |
| Rankscale | brand dashboards, page audits, regions, search terms, credits per engine query | which page and which region, with the cost of each check attached |
| Otterly.AI | share of voice, sentiment, brand visibility index, domain ranking, citation sources, link citations | a visibility index over time, with the citing domains behind it |
| Depra AI | citation gap against rivals, sentiment, average position, competitor benchmarking, English against Hinglish | which sites cite a rival and never you, and whether the language changes the answer |
| AI Knows Us, ours | cited share against named share, the source behind each answer, per engine results across the five surfaces we name | whether you were read, and separately whether you were recommended |
On that criterion Peec is first, and it is first because the categories are printed rather than implied. Every vendor here classifies something internally; Peec is the one that tells you the category names before you buy, which is the difference between a demo and a specification. Depra is a strong second for one dimension nobody else publishes at all: a citation gap, meaning the sites that cite your rival and never you, which is the single most actionable column in this whole category.
Where our own row is narrow is deliberate and it is also the line we lose on breadth: we publish two shares and the sources behind them, and we do not publish a funnel stage, a sentiment score or an attribute model. What we do publish is the distinction those richer models usually blur, and it matters more than it sounds. Being cited means our page was used as a source. Being named means the answer recommended us by name. One of our own properties is cited in 78% of Indian readings and named in about 1% of them, and those two numbers describe the same pages on the same day. A report that averages them says nothing true.
What the assistants did with a reporting question about Peec
Our standing dataset is 1,260 readings from ChatGPT and Gemini across the United States, the United Kingdom and India; 718 name at least one tracked vendor, counted once per reading in which the name appears in the answer prose. Eight of them name Peec in a question that also names a report, a dashboard, an export, a stakeholder or a board. Inside those eight, Otterly was co named 4 times, Semrush 4, Profound 3 and Brandlight once. Two produced a numbered shortlist and they split it, one putting Brandlight first and one putting Peec first.
Brandlight is named in 4 readings of the whole 718, so it takes an outsized share of the first places on this one framing. On a cut of eight that is one reading moving a figure, and it is published at that size rather than scaled up into a claim. Our own name appeared in none of the 1,260.
The pipe, where Peec is behind most of this set
Separating shape from pipe makes the rest of this easy. Peec publishes a Looker Studio integration on its third brand tier and API access on its fourth, annual tier. So a scheduled feed is two tiers above the entry plan and the API is behind an annual commitment.
| read 21 Oct 2026 | file or connector starts on | programmatic route starts on |
|---|---|---|
| Peec AI | the third brand tier, as a Looker Studio integration | the fourth, annual tier |
| Rankscale | its lowest monthly plan, with dashboards and Looker Studio | its second of four plans, as REST API |
| Otterly.AI | the entry tier, as detailed reports and export | the second of four, with 2,000 API and 2,000 MCP requests a month published |
| Depra AI | every plan, as CSV download | every plan, as a read only MCP server |
| Scrunch | Enterprise, with Looker Studio a dash on the plan you can buy | Enterprise, for query API, MCP and CLI alike |
| AI Knows Us, ours | every plan, as an exportable tracking log | two plans, as a Visibility API |
Depra is first on the pipe and by a clear margin: a CSV download and a read only MCP server on the cheapest plan means the data is reachable from a terminal or an assistant without a tier change at all. Otterly is the only vendor publishing a request cap, which is the number a pipeline actually breaks on.
Peec's agency ladder, which is separate from its brand ladder, closes some of this gap: it publishes a shareable view only dashboard limited to the charts you choose, Data Studio templates cloned per client and shared read only without a login, automated client reporting sent on a schedule through its MCP or agent, and custom CSV exports. So an agency buying Peec gets a reporting product the brand ladder does not advertise, and that is worth asking about before switching.
Which alternative fixes which reporting complaint
- The export is two tiers away. Depra publishes CSV on every plan. Otterly publishes export on its entry tier. Both sit below where Peec's connector begins.
- We need a scheduled pull without an annual contract. Rankscale publishes REST API on its second of four monthly plans and Otterly on its second of four with the caps printed.
- The report cannot name the competitor that beat us. Stay for this one, or ask every rival to prove it. Peec publishes competitor as a source category and a recurring objections view traced to the pages behind it, which is the most specific published answer to that complaint in this set. Depra publishes the citation gap, which answers the same question from the other side.
- The board wants one number. Ask which number. A cited share and a named share move independently, and being read and being chosen have to be reported as two measurements. 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.
Questions about getting a usable report out of Peec and its rivals
Which Peec tier has the API?
The fourth, which is annual and priced on request. Its Looker Studio integration appears on the third tier, and its first two tiers publish neither. Its separate agency ladder publishes automated client reporting through its MCP or agent instead.
What does source classification actually give me?
A label on every page an assistant used, sorted into competitor, editorial, reference and UGC. That turns a list of citing urls into an answer about where to spend: if the editorial share is high you have a public relations problem, and if the UGC share is high you have a community one.
Does anybody publish how far back the history goes?
Profound does, as all time on its top tier and None on its trial. Peec, Otterly, 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 of us.
Why does the reporting cut have only eight readings?
Because reporting is rarely how a buyer phrases the question before they own a tool; it becomes the question afterwards. Eight is published as eight, with the question set and the matching rule beside it, rather than widened until the sample looks respectable.
What should I ask a vendor to show me in a demo?
One real answer, from one real buyer question about your category, with every source attached and each source labelled. Any vendor in this set can show a chart. The ones worth paying can show the answer behind the chart, and Peec is the one that has already told you what the labels will be.