6 Best Affordable AI Visibility Tracking Tools (2025)

If you’re buying an AI visibility tracker on a tight budget, price-per-run matters more than glossy screenshots. Here’s the lens we use with clients: weekly run economics. Most agencies don’t need daily checks on 100+ prompts. They need a consistent weekly cadence—say, 20 prompts/week—which works out to roughly 80 total runs per month. In this guide, we rank tools by how affordably they support that pattern while still covering the engines that matter (Google AI Overviews, ChatGPT, Perplexity) and delivering auditable reporting.

Pricing and plan details referenced below come from each vendor’s public pages and are subject to change. Where units differ—prompts vs. checks vs. credits—we explain our assumptions to keep the comparison fair.

Key takeaways

• Weekly run economics is the fairest affordability test for most teams: 20 prompts/week ≈ ~80 total runs/month.

• Geneo leads on weekly value for multi-brand monitoring with a low Pro price and flexible credits; pay‑as‑you‑go can dip under $0.50 per run for burst or multi‑brand tracking (see the Geneo Pricing page; subject to confirmation on exact per‑run quotes).

• ZipTie.dev is a strong budget pick if you want straightforward “check” quotas across AIO, ChatGPT, and Perplexity.

• Semrush’s AI Visibility Toolkit makes sense if you already pay for Semrush, but it’s an add‑on with per‑user licensing.

• Peec AI and Otterly.AI emphasize higher prompt volumes and more frequent cadences; they’re powerful but pricier for a weekly‑only workflow.

How we chose (methodology)

We weighted affordability highest and made the weekly cadence explicit:

• Affordability (30%): Minimum plan that supports ~20 prompts/week, effective per‑run math, and overage costs

• Capability match (20%): Coverage across Google AI Overviews, ChatGPT, and Perplexity

• Cadence flexibility (15%): Ability to schedule weekly and scale up or down without punitive overages

• Reporting and learning curve (10%): Executive‑ready outputs, white‑label options, and clarity of metrics

• Multi‑brand scalability (10%): Seats, domains/brands, and white‑label support

• Evidence quality/recency (10%): Official pricing/doc links; currency notes

• Reliability/support (5%): Documentation depth and known support patterns

Assumptions and unit mapping:

• “20 prompts/week” ≈ ~80 total runs per month for a weekly cadence.

• “Prompts” = tracked queries; “checks” = one run (often across multiple engines); “credits” = units consumed per analysis/report. Where a vendor lists “answers analyzed,” we treat that as processing capacity rather than the primary unit.

We cite official pricing pages throughout and—where helpful for context—link to educational explainers on Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) and AI visibility methodology.

1) Geneo — Best overall weekly value for multi‑brand agencies

Disclosure: Geneo is our product.

Geneo specializes in Generative Engine Optimization workflows: scan key engines (Google AI Overviews, ChatGPT, Perplexity), analyze brand mentions and links, then recommend optimizations. For affordability, the Pro plan’s credits align naturally with weekly runs. If an “AI Platform Analysis” consumes 10 credits and Pro includes ~1,000 credits/month, you can complete roughly 100 analyses per month—enough headroom for a 20 prompts/week program (80 runs/month) with room to spare.

• Pricing and plan signals: Free tier available; Pro at $39.9/month; agency white‑label tiers also available. See the Geneo Pricing page for current details and pay‑as‑you‑go options. According to Geneo materials, pay‑as‑you‑go per‑prompt can be under $0.50 per run for multi‑brand scenarios (subject to confirmation on the pricing page). Sources: Geneo homepage and Geneo pricing.

• What it covers: Multi‑platform monitoring across ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, and Perplexity; a Brand Visibility Score; competitive positioning; and white‑label reporting. For methodology and sample outputs, see Geneo’s review of AI search visibility tracking and the scan→analyze→optimize workflow.

• Why it’s affordable for weekly cadence: Credits map to analyses rather than rigid prompt caps, so you aren’t paying a premium for daily runs you won’t use. For agencies, white‑label reporting and multi‑brand management reduce the need for extra seats or separate tool stacks.

• Best for: Agencies and in‑house teams running weekly audits who want low effective per‑run cost with competitive context and client‑ready reporting.

2) ZipTie.dev — Best low‑cost per‑check monitoring

ZipTie.dev prices by “AI Search checks.” Each check includes Google AI Overviews, ChatGPT, and Perplexity, which keeps the math simple. For a weekly 20‑prompt program (~80 checks/month), its entry plan comfortably covers the workload.

• Price and limits (public): Basic $69/month for 500 checks; Standard $99 for 1,000; Pro $159 for 2,000. Each check runs across AIO, ChatGPT, and Perplexity. Sources: ZipTie.dev Pricing and ZipTie FAQ.

• Weekly fit: 80 checks/month lands well within Basic (500), making it a predictable, low‑friction option.

• Trade‑offs: Reporting depth and competitive scoring can be lighter than full GEO platforms. If you need white‑label, check plan specifics.

• Best for: Small teams and solo practitioners who want straightforward, multi‑engine checks without managing credits or add‑ons.

3) Peec AI — Best for daily cadence and large answer volumes

Peec AI lists higher prompt capacities and substantial “answers analyzed” allocations. If you truly need daily runs at scale, Peec can be attractive—but for strictly weekly programs, you may end up paying for unused headroom.

• Price and limits (public): Starter at €199/month with 100 prompts and roughly 9,000 answers analyzed per month; Enterprise €499+/month for 300+ prompts and 27,000+ answers analyzed. Unlimited seats indicated. Source: Peec AI Pricing (EUR; subject to FX).

• Weekly fit: Over‑capacity if you only need weekly 20 prompts; excellent if you want to move to daily tracking without switching tools.

• Best for: Teams that want high-frequency monitoring and large answer‑volume analysis across engines with unlimited seats.

4) Otterly.AI — Best for teams using prompt packs and add‑on scaling

Otterly.AI uses “search prompts” and sells add‑on packs. For weekly 20 prompts, you’ll likely step up to its mid tier.

• Price and limits (public): Lite $29/month for 15 prompts; Standard $189/month for 100 prompts; Premium (higher limits) not listed on page; +100 prompts add‑on $99. Source: Otterly.AI Pricing.

• Weekly fit: Lite falls short for 20 prompts; Standard covers it at $189/month.

• Best for: Teams that prefer prompt‑based management and expect to scale via add‑ons over time.

5) Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit — Best if you’re already on Semrush

Semrush offers an AI visibility add‑on rather than a standalone tool. The add‑on model can be convenient inside an existing Semrush workflow but watch per‑user licensing and domain add‑ons.

• Price and limits (public): $99/month add‑on; includes 25 prompts for Prompt Tracking, 1 Brand Performance domain/folder, and 300 daily queries in AI Analysis reports. Add‑ons: +50 prompts $60/month; extra domain/location $99/month; each subuser needs a separate $99 license. Sources: Semrush KB: AI Visibility Toolkit and Getting started guide.

• Weekly fit: 25 prompts cover a 20‑prompt program, but per‑user licensing increases cost for teams.

• Best for: Existing Semrush customers who want integrated reporting and can live within add‑on constraints.

6) Profound — Best for enterprise programs (custom pricing)

Profound positions as an enterprise platform. The official pricing page directs to sales for custom quotes; third‑party and first‑party blog content sometimes reference mid‑four‑figure annualized costs, but we rely on the official “custom” stance here.

• Price stance (public): Enterprise/custom pricing only on the official page. Source: Profound Pricing.

• Weekly fit: Not an affordability leader for a 20‑prompt weekly program; more suitable for larger enterprise implementations.

• Best for: Enterprises seeking bespoke workflows and integrations, with budget to match.

Side‑by‑side comparison (weekly 20 prompts ≈ ~80 runs/month)

Pricing subject to change; currencies as listed on vendor pages.

Mini case: What does 20 prompts/week cost per month?

Assumption recap: ~80 total runs/month, weekly cadence, and we select the minimum public plan that covers the scenario (not matching daily frequency). Effective monthly outlay to run the program:

• Geneo Pro: $39.9/month. Credits imply capacity for ~100 analyses/month; weekly program fits with headroom. If you need to spike for a new client or campaign, pay‑as‑you‑go per‑run pricing (under $0.50/run, subject to confirmation on the Geneo Pricing page) can keep burst costs low across brands.

• ZipTie.dev Basic: $69/month. Straightforward, covers the volume comfortably.

• Peec AI Starter: €199/month. Powerful and scalable for daily tracking, but the weekly scenario won’t use all capacity.

• Otterly.AI Standard: $189/month. Covers 20 prompts with room to scale via add‑ons.

• Semrush AI Visibility: $99/month add‑on. Covers 25 prompts; remember per‑user licensing and potential base‑plan needs.

• Profound: Custom. Treat as enterprise budgeting rather than a weekly affordability play.

If your team regularly tracks multiple brands, model credit or check sharing vs. per‑seat costs. That’s where Geneo’s credits and white‑label reporting often reduce total cost of ownership for agencies running client‑by‑client audits.

FAQs

What exactly is a “run,” and why compare weekly?
A run is a single execution of a tracked query (prompt) across one or more engines to collect the latest AI answers and citations. Many teams don’t need daily runs for every prompt. Weekly checks catch meaningful shifts while keeping costs predictable, which is why we standardize comparisons on a 20 prompts/week baseline.

How do “prompts,” “checks,” and “credits” compare?
Prompts are queries you track. Checks are units vendors use for each run (often includes multiple engines). Credits are general tokens that a platform consumes to perform an analysis. We normalize these by estimating how many runs/month each plan supports.

What about agencies and multi‑brand portfolios?
Watch for seat fees and domain caps. Tools that license by user or by domain can inflate cost as your portfolio grows. Credits‑based tools with white‑label reporting can be more efficient for weekly audits across many clients.

Do I need daily monitoring?
If you’re running sensitive product launches or regulated‑industry communications, daily can be valuable. But for most ongoing brand programs, weekly provides a practical balance between signal and spend. If you anticipate frequent swings, choose a tool that can flex to daily without forcing an immediate plan jump.

Choose the tool that matches your cadence, portfolio size, and reporting needs. If affordability at a weekly rhythm is your north star, start with Geneo’s credits‑based Pro plan, pressure‑test a 20‑prompt set, and expand with pay‑as‑you‑go only when the data justifies it.