Peec AI vs Promptwatch for Tracking Competitors in AI Search

*By Tom Benattar, founder of Cited.today. Features and pricing checked on 19 October 2026.*

Pick Peec AI if you want brand-level competitor tracking (visibility, position, sentiment, share of voice) for a whole team, since every plan has unlimited users. Pick Promptwatch if you need the widest engine list, a Page Tracker that follows specific competitor URLs, and API access from the entry plan. If what you actually need is a list of the buying questions you lose, the exact competitor page cited for each one, and what to publish to replace it, you need question-level page data, which is what Cited.today (a competing tool, disclosed below) does.

Peec AI vs Promptwatch which is better for tracking competitors

Neither tool is better in every case. They measure competitors in similar ways and differ in three places that decide most purchases:

• Seats. Peec gives unlimited users on every plan. Promptwatch's Essential plan has 1 seat, Professional has 2, Business has 5.
• Engines. Promptwatch lists more engines on its standard plans, including Perplexity, Claude and Grok. Peec's base plans let you choose 3 models from a shorter list, with others as paid add-ons.
• URL-level work. Both list citation data down to the URL. Promptwatch adds a Page Tracker for watching a specific competitor URL and seeing which prompts cite it.

A note on method, because it matters: this comparison is built from each vendor's official product, pricing and documentation pages as they stood on 19 October 2026. It is not a paid hands-on run of both tools on the same brand, so I do not show screenshots or claim results I did not record. Where a vendor's pages contradict each other, I say so.

Disclosure: I run Cited.today, which overlaps with both tools on one job. I say below where Peec or Promptwatch is the better pick.

What tracking competitors in AI search actually means

"Tracking competitors" covers three different levels of detail. Most confusion in these comparisons comes from mixing them up.

1. Brand level: who gets mentioned. For a set of prompts, how often does each brand appear, in what position, with what sentiment, and what share of all mentions. This is share of voice. Both tools do it.
2. Source level: which sites the engines lean on. Which domains are cited most often in answers about your category: review sites, Reddit, YouTube, publishers, competitor blogs. Both tools do it.
3. Page level, per question: which exact page wins which question. For the question "best X for Y", which competitor URL does ChatGPT cite, what is on that page, and what would you have to publish to be cited instead.

The first level tells you whether you are losing. The second tells you roughly where. The third tells you what to write on Monday morning. The tools below are strongest at the first two, and both have moved into the third.

Peec AI for competitor tracking

Peec's AI visibility product page (opens in a new tab) defines four metrics:

• Visibility: the % of AI responses that mention your brand.
• Position: your average rank when you are mentioned.
• Sentiment: a score from 0 to 100.
• Share of voice: your % of mentions compared with competitors.

Its FAQ says each metric "updates daily per engine" and that it compares you with competitors side by side on all four, per engine. It also shows the most-cited sources for your tracked prompts, ranked by citation count, and gives prioritised actions ranked by potential impact, including "which competitor content to counter".

The pricing page (opens in a new tab) adds the detail that matters for competitor work:

• Unlimited competitors on Starter, Pro and Advanced.
• Source analytics with a "Domain & URL detail view", citation share, retrievals, a fanout overview and source classification (competitor, editorial, reference, UGC).
• Gap analysis: sources that appear often and name competitors but not you, broken down by source, domain, subdomain, URL and host.
• Recommended actions grouped into earned and owned, plus "agent actions".
• Data access through API, MCP and custom CSV exports. The page text does not make clear which plans get which, except that Enterprise lists API access. The product page says Peec connects to Claude, Cursor, n8n and other tools through MCP and API.

Engines: the pages disagree. The product page FAQ lists ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, AI Overviews and AI Mode. The pricing page lists ChatGPT, AI Mode, AI Overviews, Microsoft Copilot, Gemini and Naver AI for Starter, Pro and Advanced, with Perplexity in the Enterprise list and under paid add-on models. If Perplexity matters to you, confirm on the trial whether it is included or an add-on.

What Peec does well for this job: it is easy to roll out to a whole marketing team, tracking extra countries or languages costs nothing more, and the gap analysis is aimed squarely at "sources that name competitors but not you".

Promptwatch for competitor tracking

Promptwatch publishes a detailed AI instructions page (opens in a new tab), marked "Last updated: October 2026". It says it collects answers from the real user interfaces of AI platforms, not only from APIs.

Its metrics:

• Visibility Score from 0 to 100, based on placement, share of attention and depth. Responses that do not mention the brand count as 0.
• Share of Voice, counting one mention per response per brand.
• Position, the brand's order within the answer (lower is better).
• Sentiment from 0 to 100, with about 50 as neutral, and breakable by competitor.
• Citation rank, where your own domain sits in the source list, and self-citation rate, the share of citations pointing to your domain.

Prompts refresh daily on all plans. On competitors specifically, it detects every competitor that appears in responses and merges duplicate brand names, so you do not have to know your competitor list in advance.

The competitor features that go past brand level:

• Citations shows every URL and domain cited, URL positions over time and citation trends across 22 content types and 20 source types, with first-cited date, peak and decay per page.
• Page Tracker watches specific URLs, yours or a competitor's, and shows the prompts and responses that cite them.
• Offsite Mentions shows third-party pages that name you or competitors even without a link, with separate citation reports for Reddit, YouTube and LinkedIn.
• Action Board, a prioritised to-do list with a weekly digest. Agent Chat includes a "competitor gap analysis" skill. Content Agents write and publish to WordPress, Webflow and Framer.
• Data access: CSV exports, PDF reports, a REST API, an MCP server, and a Looker Studio connector from Professional up. API/MCP limits are listed from the Essential plan (500 requests per hour).

Engines listed: ChatGPT (with web search), Google AI Overviews, Google AI Mode, Gemini, Perplexity, Microsoft Copilot, Claude, Grok, DeepSeek, Mistral and Amazon Alexa, plus the coding agents Codex, Claude Code and OpenCode. Standard plans let you pick 4 models.

What Promptwatch does well for this job: the Page Tracker is the most direct answer to "which prompts is this competitor article winning", and the engine list is the broadest of the two.

Side-by-side comparison

All rows checked on 19 October 2026 against the sources linked. Prices can change, so confirm before you buy.

Prompt counts line up almost exactly (50, 150, 350). On volume, Promptwatch lists 6,000, 18,000 and 42,000 responses a month against Peec's 4,500, 13,500 and 31,500 AI answers, which follows from 4 models versus 3. Peec defines one AI answer as one chat result from one model: 25 prompts × 3 models × 30 days = 2,250.

For agencies, Promptwatch has separate plans (Kick-off $199, Growth $399, Scale $799) with unlimited projects and prompts, all models and 10 seats. Peec's answer to agencies is unlimited users on every plan and more projects as you go up.

The gap: from "a competitor URL is cited" to "here is what to write"

Both tools can show you that a competitor URL is cited. The vendor pages do not show whether either one, in daily use, hands you this for each buying question you care about:

1. The question, worded the way a buyer asks it.
2. The competitor page ChatGPT cites for it, and how consistently.
3. What that page does well, taken apart.
4. The article you should write to be cited instead, as a brief.

That chain is the part a dashboard leaves to you. With Peec or Promptwatch you get the data and recommendations, then someone on your team still has to open the cited page, work out why it wins, and turn that into a brief. Promptwatch goes furthest toward closing it with Content Agents that write and publish, but that is on its Business plan.

This is the job Cited.today is built for. You give it your domain, nothing to connect. For every buying question a competitor wins in ChatGPT's answers, it shows who wins it, the page ChatGPT cites, and the article to write to take it back, with its brief. It does not write the articles. 28 days after you mark an article as published, it asks the same questions again and tells you whether ChatGPT now cites your page. It costs $99 per site per month, with a 7-day free trial (card required) and a full refund if you are not happy after the first month. Details at cited.today (opens in a new tab).

It is not a replacement for share-of-voice tracking across many engines. If that is what your board wants to see, use Peec or Promptwatch.

Worked example: this exact question

The cleanest example I have is the question this article answers.

The question: "Peec AI vs Promptwatch which is better for tracking competitors".

Who wins it: Peec's own AI visibility product page (opens in a new tab). It was cited in 4 of 4 ChatGPT answers to this question over the last 7 days. Cited.today was cited or named in 0.

What the cited page contains: about 2,143 words, 4 headings and an FAQ. It defines four brand metrics clearly, states daily updates per engine, lists engines and integrations, and leans on social proof: "Trusted by 3500+ brands and agencies" and named testimonials, including one claiming a 5x year-over-year rise in traffic and demo requests from LLMs.

Why it wins: it is the most direct, structured definition of competitor-tracking metrics available, from one of the two brands in the question.

What it lacks: it is a product page, not a comparison. It never mentions Promptwatch. It has no author, no date and no prices. Its engine list differs from Peec's own pricing page. Its recommendations are generic samples, with no example tied to one competitor.

The brief for the replacement article (the one you are reading):

• Answer the comparison in the first paragraph, naming who should pick each tool.
• Put both tools' metrics in one table with the same rows: definitions, refresh, engines, URL detail, recommendations, API, price, trial, date checked.
• Link every price to its source and flag what could not be verified.
• Add a named author and a checked date.
• Disclose any competing interest and say when each rival is the better pick.
• Close with an FAQ that matches follow-up questions.

In 28 days the question gets asked again, and we will know whether ChatGPT cites this page. That is the whole loop: question, cited page, teardown, brief, publish, re-check.

The same method is how we grew our own product, gethumaninbox.com. In July it had no content and no traffic. For each question it was losing, we took apart the competitor article the engines cited and wrote the one to beat it. In a few weeks its AI visibility score went from 0% to 12%, and it went from 0 to 420 Google clicks in six weeks, with 27,000 impressions.

Which to choose

Some teams use two: Peec or Promptwatch for reporting share of voice, and a page-level workflow for deciding what to publish next. At MailTracker, blog traffic doubled in six months once we stopped writing about the product and answered the questions people actually ask. The tool matters less than whether it points you at those questions.

FAQ

Does Peec AI show which competitor URL is cited?

Peec's pricing page lists a "Domain & URL detail view" and a gap analysis broken down to URL level, showing sources that name competitors but not you. Its product page also says it suggests "which competitor content to counter". How clearly it ties one URL to one question in daily use is best checked on the trial.

Does Promptwatch track competitors automatically?

Yes. According to its documentation, it detects every competitor that appears in AI responses and merges duplicate brand names, so competitors you had not listed still show up. Sentiment can be broken down per competitor.

Which is cheaper, Peec AI or Promptwatch?

At entry level they are close: Promptwatch Essential is $95 (€85) a month, and Peec Starter is reported at €85 a month on monthly billing by a third-party source (opens in a new tab), checked October 2026. Peec includes unlimited users, which makes it cheaper for larger teams. Promptwatch's top self-serve plan costs more than Peec's.

Which tool covers more AI engines?

Promptwatch lists more on its standard plans, including Perplexity, Claude, Grok, DeepSeek, Mistral and Alexa. Peec's base plans let you choose 3 models, and its Enterprise plan says "Up to 13 LLM models tracked". Extra models on Peec are a paid add-on.

Is Cited.today an alternative to Peec AI and Promptwatch?

Partly. It does not track share of voice across many engines. It shows the buying questions a competitor wins in ChatGPT's answers, the page cited for each, and a brief for the article to write, then re-checks 28 days after you publish. If you need dashboards and multi-engine reporting, Peec or Promptwatch fits better.