Otterly vs Peec AI vs Linkeddit (2026): $29, $80 and $99, and What Each Stops Short Of

01The short answer

Otterly if you want the cheapest possible start and your engines are the base set: $29 for 15 prompts with a GEO audit thrown in, knowing that every engine beyond the base and every prompt past the cap is a line on the bill. Peec if you want a clean dedicated tracker with unlimited users and a documented MCP, and three models per tier is enough or a fourth is worth $30. Linkeddit if you want four engines including Claude at a fixed $99 and you want the measurement to end in a sourced fix and a re-measurement, and you accept that we have no index and fewer reviews than either.

02Pricing on the day

Otterly’s and Peec’s pricing pages were read on 4 September 2026 for their reviews, Peec’s as full text after an extractor had dropped its price nodes earlier and produced a false claim we corrected. Linkeddit’s figures are our own pricing page.

03Engines, and what Claude costs on each

Read the table for your own engine set. Otterly is the cheapest tracker only on the base engines and only below 15 prompts; the moment Claude is required, its Lite plan doubles. Peec’s three-model cap is generous if three is your number and a tax if it is four. Our $99 is flat, and the honest caveat is that the allowance is credits, one credit per measured sample, shown in the app rather than printed as a prompt count here; the usage tool reports it before you spend.

04What each does, and where it stops

Otterly tracks prompts across its engine set, captures full responses, and adds a GEO audit that scans URLs for citation readiness across a list of factors, which a month-long Reddit comparison called “actually useful”. Looker Studio integration and MCP and API arrive from the Standard tier. It stops at the score, the citations and the audit; what to write is yours.

Peec AI tracks prompts on three chosen models with visibility, mention position, sentiment, citations and share of voice per prompt, funnel-stage segmentation of prompts, unlimited users, and Peec Actions that turn the data into recommendations for content gaps and source opportunities. It stops at the recommendation; it does not draft against the evidence or re-measure a specific change.

Linkeddit Answer Radar asks your approved buying questions of four engines, grades every sample for admissibility, reports six defined metrics per engine, records every cited page and every fan-out search, ranks recommendation gaps by intent and evidence, assembles a fix skeleton from the recorded evidence with no prose generated, rejects any draft that cites a source the run never recorded, saves it for a person to approve, and re-measures after an indexing delay as an observed delta. It stops where you would expect a measurement product to stop: it does not publish to your site, it has no cross-brand index and no prompt volume estimate, and the does-not-do page lists the rest.

05MCP on all three, differently

Peec publishes an official MCP server at docs.peec.ai, and its Reddit users call the integration useful for custom workflows. Otterly offers MCP and API access from its Standard tier, metered. Linkeddit ships every capability as an MCP tool on the $99 plan, measurement and actions alike, over one OAuth 2.1 connector; the playbooks are recorded transcripts of it in use, including the guard rejecting an unsupported source. The difference to test is whether the write side, drafting, checking, saving for approval and registering a re-measurement, is callable, because that is the half a client actually needs to finish the job.

06Reviews and Reddit

Otterly: 4.7 out of 5 on 54 G2 reviews, and third parties cite a Gartner Cool Vendor listing. The complaints in our review were the add-on bill and prompt caps. Peec: 4.8 on 20 G2 reviews; in r/aeo a marketer said “u will need sometime to learn how to use their dashboard and it’s more like showing the market share”, and an agency lead preferred “more autonomous tools with recommendations”. Linkeddit: far fewer reviews than either, which we state rather than skirt; the evidence for our product is the recorded playbooks and the methodology page, not a review count.

The Reddit thread that frames all three is the r/DigitalMarketing tester who tried ten tools: “lots of dashboards, not many that actually change answers”, and a commenter asking whether “any tool lets you export the raw AI response alongside the parsed citation, because that’s the only real way to audit the gap”. Otterly captures full responses; Peec shows citations per prompt; Answer Radar returns normalized samples with every citation in raw mode. All three pass that bar in different places.

07Measured: what four AI engines say about the three

This section is ours and labelled as such, and one of the three vendors is us, so read the third column with that in mind. On 4 September 2026 we ran our own Answer Radar project for linkeddit.com, 21 approved buying questions about AI visibility and competitive intelligence tools, through ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Perplexity via their official APIs with grounded search. Otterly and Peec are not tracked competitors on that project, so their numbers are volunteered mentions. Linkeddit is the tracked brand, so its numbers are presence, named or cited, on its own prompts. Per engine, admissible samples only, counts stated, per the methodology.

Across our full population of 220 completed answers about this category, otterly.ai was cited three times, twice by Gemini and once by Perplexity, and peec.ai zero times. Our own recommendation rate on our own prompts is low, 0 of 10 on Claude and 1 of 15 on Gemini, which is the reason the project’s action queue holds nine content gap cards and the reason this series of pages exists. We publish that number because a vendor that hides its own measurement has no business selling one.

08Matrix

09Questions to settle on the trial, per vendor

Each of the three hides its real cost in a different place, so the trial questions differ. These are the ones the pricing pages and review threads left open on 4 September 2026.

Otterly. Price the engines you actually need before you look at the prompt count: a Lite plan with Claude and AI Mode is $67, not $29, and a Standard plan with both is $357, not $189. Ask how the MCP and API meter works on Standard, because the page says metered and does not print the rate. Ask whether the GEO audit covers a competitor’s URL or only yours.

Peec. Decide your three models first from the six self-serve ones, Claude not among them, because the fourth is $30 a month on Starter and the cap is per tier, not per brand. Ask what the annual commitment means in practice, since the $80 figure is billed annually and the monthly figure is about $95. Ask what Peec Actions produces on your own gaps rather than the demo account’s, and whether an action links back to the answers that triggered it.

Linkeddit. Run the usage tool before the first audit so the credit allowance is a number you saw, not one we told you. Ask us to show the faithfulness guard rejecting a source on your own project, not a recorded one. Ask what happens at 168 hours when the verification result reads not comparable, because that outcome exists and you should know what it looks like before it lands. The verify a fix help page lists every outcome.

10Verdict, including against us

Pick Otterly if you want the lowest possible entry and your engines are the base set, if the GEO audit of your URLs is the feature you will use, or if you want a Gartner-listed vendor with a five-year-old review base on a small budget. Price your engines first; the add-ons are where the $29 becomes $58 or $298.

Pick Peec AI if you want the cleanest dedicated tracker, unlimited users for an agency, a documented MCP, and recommendations attached to the data, and three models per tier is your number. Budget the fourth model if it is not.

Pick Linkeddit if you want four engines including Claude at a fixed $99 with no add-ons, MCP that carries the actions as well as the data, the measurement to end in a fix built only from what the engines actually read and a re-measurement that says whether it moved, and a weekly competitor brief on the same bill. Do not pick us for an index, for prompt volume, or for a long review base; we have none of the three, and Otterly and Peec are the better-reviewed trackers today.

11Frequently asked questions