Best AI Search Intelligence Platforms for Tracking Recommendation Market Share

Answer Capsule

OtterlyAI is the consensus leader for tracking recommendation market share across AI search and generative-answer platforms, named by 5 of 7 platforms (71.4%) at an average listed position of 4.2. Peec AI and Semrush follow at 4 mentions each (57.1%), with Profound, Ahrefs, Astiva AI, AthenaHQ, Scrunch AI, and Similarweb rounding out the nine qualifying entities. The strongest alternatives for distinct buyer needs are Peec AI for controlled prompt-universe share-of-voice work, Semrush for teams that want AI visibility inside an existing SEO stack, and Profound for enterprise governance. This study sent one standardized prompt once to each of 7 included platforms (openai, anthropic, deepseek, grok, perplexity, kimi, google). The principal limitation: platform mentions reflect ranking-discovery only, most evidence is company-owned, and no platform publishes an audited recommendation-share methodology, so every share figure here should be treated as directional.

Research Snapshot

• Topic: AI search audits and market intelligence for tracking recommendation market share
• Target buyer: Companies seeking AI Search Intelligence Platforms for Tracking Recommendation Market Share across AI search, generative-answer, and recommendation platforms
• Use case: Measuring what percentage of relevant AI recommendations go to each major competitor across a defined prompt universe, how that share changes over time, which platforms differ, and which citations or source relationships appear alongside those recommendations
• Geography: United States
• Platforms included (7): openai, anthropic, deepseek, grok, perplexity, kimi, google
• Research date: 2026-09-18
• Unique entities named: 40
• Qualifying entities: 9
• Eligibility rule: Named by at least two platforms during ranking discovery
• Ranking rule: Platform mentions, then average listed rank, then best listed rank

All 7 included platforms evaluated fit, but platform mentions count only platforms that named the entity during ranking discovery. Platform-reported research dates differ from the authoritative run date and are provenance metadata only; they do not independently prove freshness.

The Consensus Ranking

Questions This Section Answers

• What are the best AI search intelligence platforms for tracking recommendation market share in 2026?
• Which AI visibility platform has the most cross-platform consensus for measuring competitor recommendation share?

Profound, Astiva AI, and Ahrefs each earned a best position of 1 on at least one platform but appear lower in the consensus order because fewer platforms named them. That gap between "highest single-platform confidence" and "broadest cross-platform agreement" is the central tension in this index.

Which Option Is Best for Which Version of the Buyer Need?

Questions This Section Answers

• Which AI search intelligence platform should a buyer choose for tracking recommendation market share if they need the lowest published entry price?
• Is OtterlyAI or Peec AI better for tracking competitor share of voice across a controlled prompt universe?
• Which platform should an enterprise buyer choose for AI recommendation share tracking if they need SSO, SOC 2 controls, and custom prompt volumes?

1. OtterlyAI

Questions This Section Answers

• Is OtterlyAI worth it for tracking AI recommendation market share, and what are its main drawbacks?
• Which OtterlyAI plan should a buyer choose for a defined prompt universe across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, and Copilot?
• What should a buyer verify before choosing OtterlyAI for competitor share-of-voice reporting?

OtterlyAI is the consensus leader in this index, named by 5 of 7 platforms at an average listed position of 4.2. It is a purpose-built prompt-monitoring tool: buyers define a prompt library, OtterlyAI runs those prompts across AI engines, and it reports which brands get cited, how often, and in what context, alongside a Share of AI Voice metric comparing citation ownership with competitors ^[1]. Fit ratings split between "good" (openai, anthropic, perplexity, kimi), "strong" (google, grok), and "mixed" (deepseek), which is the widest spread of any top-three entity.

Why it ranked here. OtterlyAI was named by openai, anthropic, deepseek, grok, perplexity, kimi, and google's ranking-discovery stage — five of those seven named it in the final ranking. Its best position was 3 (kimi, perplexity), and its average of 4.2 reflects consistent mid-to-upper placement rather than a single strong advocate. No other entity combined this breadth of mentions with a sub-5 average.

Best suited for. SMB and mid-market marketing teams, agencies running multiple client workspaces, and buyers treating AI recommendation share as a directional visibility KPI rather than audited market share ^[1].

Main strengths for this use case. Competitor brand reports, domain ranking, link-citation analysis, and tracking of cited URLs over time map directly to the source-relationship requirement ^[2]. Daily tracking and multi-engine coverage support longitudinal comparison. Standard and Premium tiers publicly include API access, MCP access, Agent Analytics, exports, and a Google Looker Studio connector ^[3]. Public pricing is comparatively transparent for non-Enterprise buyers.

Main limitations. The public materials do not define a rigorous, auditable formula for recommendation market share or Share of AI Voice ^[1]. Engine coverage is partly fragmented into paid add-ons, so comparable cross-platform measurement can require extra recurring fees. OtterlyAI measures output citations, not whether AI crawlers actually visited a site ^[4]. Users report hours-to-days lag after prompt edits or major model changes ^[5]. Manual searches can diverge from OtterlyAI results because AI platforms use Memory RAG to store user history and location ^[6].

Pricing or cost summary. Public pricing on September 18, 2026 lists Lite at $29/month for 15 prompts, Standard at $189/month for 100 prompts, Premium at $489/month for 400 prompts, and Enterprise starting at $1,000/month ^[3]. Annual billing is 15% discounted, bringing effective rates to $25, $160, and $422 per month ^[7]. Additional prompt batches on Standard and Premium cost $99 per 100 prompts.

2. Peec AI

Questions This Section Answers

• Is Peec AI worth it for tracking competitor recommendation share across a defined prompt universe?
• Which Peec AI plan should a buyer choose if they need more than three AI models tracked simultaneously?
• What should a buyer verify about Peec AI's share-of-voice methodology before purchase?

Peec AI ranked second with 4 platform mentions (57.1%) and the strongest average listed position among the top three at 3.5. It reports visibility, position, sentiment, and share of voice against competitors, with share of voice defined as a brand's mentions as a percentage of tracked-brand mentions in responses ^[8]. Fit ratings were "strong" on google and grok, "good" on openai, anthropic, and perplexity, "mixed" on deepseek, and "uncertain" on kimi.

Why it ranked here. Peec AI was named by deepseek, google, grok, and openai. Its best position was 2 (openai), and its 3.5 average is the second-best in the index. It did not reach OtterlyAI's mention count, which is why it sits at rank 2 rather than rank 1.

Best suited for. Marketing, SEO, GEO, and brand teams tracking competitor share of voice across a controlled prompt universe; companies needing platform-by-platform comparisons across ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Google AI Mode, Perplexity, Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot; and e-commerce companies tracking SKU-level inclusion in supported AI shopping recommendations ^[8].

Main strengths for this use case. Citation Intelligence classifies sources into editorial, corporate, reference, and user-generated categories, showing which domains and URLs appear alongside recommendations ^[9]. Daily automated monitoring supports trend analysis. Per-engine competitive comparison reveals which platforms differ in recommendation patterns. AI Shopping Analytics extends measurement to product-level visibility and win rates, currently supporting ChatGPT's product carousel ^[10]. Unlimited user seats across all plans reduce friction for multi-team access.

Main limitations. Share of voice is a tracked-response metric, not independently verified total category market share. Base plans cap at three AI models; Claude, Gemini, DeepSeek, and Grok are add-ons at roughly €20–30 monthly each ^[11]. The platform is monitoring-only and does not create content or implement technical fixes ^[12]. Shopping Analytics currently supports ChatGPT only, with Perplexity, Gemini, Copilot, and Amazon Rufus documented as in testing ^[13]. Peec AI states that AI systems may not access paywalled or JavaScript-dependent content, which can affect citation visibility ^[8].

Pricing or cost summary. Reported brand-plan figures are Starter $95/month (50 prompts, three models, one project), Pro $245/month (150 prompts, two projects), and Advanced $495/month (350 prompts, five projects, multi-country, Looker Studio) ^[8]. Anthropic-reported 2026 pricing shows €70/€180/€360 monthly on annual billing, or approximately €82/€212/€420 monthly ^[14]. Google-reported figures show $95/$245/$495 monthly with annual equivalents of $80/$205/$420 ^[15].

3. Semrush

Questions This Section Answers

• Is Semrush worth it for tracking AI recommendation market share if the buyer already uses Semrush for SEO?
• Which Semrush plan covers Claude, Copilot, and DeepSeek for AI visibility tracking?
• How much does Semrush's AI Visibility Toolkit cost per domain, and what prompt limits apply?

Semrush ranked third with 4 platform mentions (57.1%) and an average listed position of 3.75. Its AI Visibility Toolkit reports AI share of voice, competitor comparisons, visibility trends, mentions, citations, and sentiment ^[16]. Fit ratings were "strong" on grok, "good" on openai, deepseek, and google, and "mixed" on anthropic, kimi, and perplexity — the most divided evidence set in the top five.

Why it ranked here. Semrush was named by deepseek, google, grok, and openai. Its best position was 2 (grok, openai). The 3.75 average reflects strong placement on some platforms and weaker placement on others, notably google's rank of 8.

Best suited for. U.S. brands and agencies tracking AI recommendations across ChatGPT, Google AI, Gemini, and Perplexity; teams that want AI visibility measurement integrated with traditional SEO, competitor research, content, and site-audit workflows; and enterprise organizations willing to validate prompt methodology, platform coverage, export/API capabilities, and custom limits before purchase.

Main strengths for this use case. Direct AI visibility, competitor, citation, sentiment, and share-of-voice reporting. Prompt tracking with daily, weekly, and monthly data updates. Coverage explicitly including ChatGPT, Google AI, Gemini, and Perplexity. U.S. regional availability and integration with established SEO and competitive-intelligence workflows. An Enterprise path for custom workflows and larger-scale tracking.

Main limitations. Self-serve prompt capacity is limited: 25 prompts at base, with paid prompt add-ons and higher Semrush One tiers. The public materials do not define a standardized market-share denominator, sampling design, confidence intervals, or independent accuracy validation. Platform coverage may not include every AI recommendation, shopping, travel, local, social, or agentic platform. Claude, Copilot, and DeepSeek are reserved for the custom-priced Enterprise AIO product ^[17]. One independent review notes the entry tier should be treated as a gauge with a wide error bar, not a final metric ^[18]. The toolkit is US English only, with no multilingual tracking ^[19].

Pricing or cost summary. The AI Visibility Toolkit is listed at $99/month per domain billed annually with 25 tracked prompts, one Brand Performance domain, and 300 daily AI Analysis reports ^[20]. Semrush One starts at $199/month, with tiers at $299 and $549 ^[21]. Additional prompts cost $60/month for 50 more; additional Brand Performance domains cost $99 per domain per month; additional corporate-account user access costs $99 per subuser ^[20]. Enterprise pricing is custom. .

4. Profound

Questions This Section Answers

• Is Profound worth it for enterprise AI recommendation share tracking, and what does it cost?
• Which Profound plan covers Claude, Gemini, Grok, and DeepSeek for multi-engine recommendation tracking?
• What should a buyer verify about Profound's measurement methodology before committing to an annual contract?

Profound ranked fourth with 3 platform mentions (42.9%) but the best average listed position in the entire index at 1.0 — every platform that named it placed it first. It reports Share of Voice as a percentage of category visibility, plus Citation Share, Average Position, and prompt-volume metrics broken out by platform ^[22]. Fit ratings were "strong" on google and grok, "good" on openai, anthropic, and deepseek, "mixed" on perplexity, and "uncertain" on kimi.

Why it ranked here. Profound was named by deepseek, google, and grok, and each placed it at rank 1. It sits at rank 4 overall only because four other platforms did not name it during ranking discovery. This is the clearest example in the index of high single-platform confidence paired with narrower cross-platform agreement.

Best suited for. Enterprise and mid-market teams tracking brand and competitor visibility across multiple AI answer engines; buyers needing share of voice, citation share, position, sentiment, prompt-volume, and historical platform comparisons; and organizations that can justify custom Enterprise pricing and want governance features such as SSO/SAML, SOC 2-related controls, support, and tailored prompt tracking ^[23].

Main strengths for this use case. Directly measures competitor Share of Voice within configured AI-answer prompts. Provides Citation Share and citation-level diagnostics alongside brand and competitor visibility. Supports platform-level comparison and change-over-time metrics. Offers daily structured prompt monitoring and enterprise-oriented controls and support. Profound's Summer 2026 Index Report documented how a June ChatGPT update changed citation patterns — a 10.4% drop in citations per answer and unique-domain declines in 56 of 58 industries — while brand rankings remained stable ^[24].

Main limitations. Self-serve coverage is limited relative to a broad multi-engine market-share program. The public evidence does not validate recommendation share against real user behavior, impression volume, conversions, or revenue. Enterprise pricing, exact platform coverage, prompt limits, API/export limits, and overage rules are not public. Results are sensitive to prompt design, sampling, answer volatility, geography, language, personalization, and platform changes. Citation Share measures source citation frequency and should not be equated with recommendation share or traffic share. GEO Compass notes Profound describes measurement in "commercial-marketing language rather than rigorous academic detail" ^[25].

Pricing or cost summary. Public pricing shows Starter at $99/month billed yearly ($1,188/year) with ChatGPT-only tracking and 50 prompts, and Growth at $399/month billed yearly ($4,788/year) with three answer engines, 100 prompts, 9,000 responses monthly, daily frequency, one language, and one region ^[23]. Enterprise is custom, with up to nine answer engines, multiple companies, tailored prompt tracking, and dedicated support.

5. Ahrefs

Questions This Section Answers

• Is Ahrefs Brand Radar worth it for tracking AI recommendation share if the buyer already pays for Ahrefs?
• How much does Ahrefs Brand Radar cost for all-platform AI visibility tracking, and what prompt checks are included?
• What should a buyer verify about Ahrefs' AI Share of Voice methodology before relying on it for market-share reporting?

Ahrefs ranked fifth with 3 platform mentions (42.9%) and an average listed position of 4.0. Brand Radar reports AI Share of Voice, defined by Ahrefs as the percentage of AI responses in a topic set that mention or cite a brand versus competitors ^[26]. Fit ratings were "strong" on grok, "good" on openai, anthropic, deepseek, google, and perplexity, and "weak" on kimi — the only "weak" rating in the index.

Why it ranked here. Ahrefs was named by deepseek, google, and openai. Its best position was 1 (openai), and its 4.0 average reflects solid but not leading placement. The wide fit-rating spread — from "strong" to "weak" — is the most polarized evidence in the index.

Best suited for. SEO and brand teams already using Ahrefs that want AI visibility and traditional search data in one workflow; benchmarking competitor recommendation share across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Copilot, Google AI Overviews, and Google AI Mode; and discovering cited pages, domains, topic gaps, and source relationships behind AI recommendations.

Main strengths for this use case. Direct AI Share of Voice metric for comparing brands and competitors. A broad search-backed prompt corpus with modeled visibility weighted by search demand. Custom Prompts for exact buyer questions and controlled monitoring. Cross-platform comparisons plus mention, citation, cited-page, and cited-domain views. Useful adjacency to Ahrefs SEO, keyword, backlink, YouTube, Reddit, and source-discovery workflows.

Main limitations. The Index is based on Ahrefs's modeled search-backed prompt universe, so it may underrepresent niche, emerging, low-search-volume, or proprietary recommendation prompts. Custom Prompts consume checks by prompt, platform, and location, creating material ongoing usage costs at scale. The active platform list and product packaging appear to be evolving, with inconsistencies between public product and help materials. Modeled visibility is not verified user exposure, conversions, revenue, or audited market share. Ahrefs states that AI Share of Voice and estimated impressions represent modeled potential visibility based on search interest, not actual audience reach ^[27].

Pricing or cost summary. The official help page lists Brand Radar access as a standalone single-platform purchase at $199 per month per index or All Platforms at $699 per month, including 2,500 custom-prompt checks per month ^[28]. Custom Prompt tiers are listed at $50, $100, and $250 per month with 2,500, 7,000, and 25,000 included checks. Custom Prompt overage rates are $0.020, $0.015, and $0.010 per check. A paid Ahrefs plan may be required for the relevant Brand Radar AI indexes. .

6. Astiva AI

Questions This Section Answers

• Is Astiva AI worth it for low-cost AI recommendation share tracking across multiple platforms?
• Which Astiva AI plan includes GA4 revenue attribution and how many competitors can be tracked?
• What should a buyer verify about Astiva AI's platform entitlements and share-of-voice formula before purchase?

Astiva AI ranked sixth with 2 platform mentions (28.6%) and a best position of 1 on both platforms that named it, giving it an average listed position of 1.0. It tracks Share of Voice using the formula SoV = brand mentions / (brand mentions + competitor mentions), updated daily across a stated 10-platform catalog ^[29]. Fit ratings were "strong" on google and grok, "good" on anthropic, "mixed" on openai and perplexity, and "uncertain" on deepseek and kimi.

Why it ranked here. Astiva AI was named by anthropic and kimi, and both placed it at rank 1. It sits at rank 6 because only two platforms named it during ranking discovery. Like Profound, it shows the gap between single-platform confidence and cross-platform consensus.

Best suited for. SMB and mid-market teams needing relatively low-cost AI visibility monitoring across multiple generative-answer platforms; buyers that want competitor comparison, share-of-voice metrics, citation analysis, and optional GA4 attribution in one product; and teams willing to validate measurement methodology, platform coverage, and data export capabilities before purchase.

Main strengths for this use case. Relevant competitive metrics include share of voice, visibility percentage, position, first mention, and competitor comparisons. Citation detection, authority scoring, citation classification, and cross-platform overlap are directly relevant to understanding recommendation sources. Daily monitoring and 24-hour, 7-day, and 30-day historical windows support trend analysis. Growth-level GA4 attribution may help connect recommendation visibility to downstream outcomes. All paid plans are stated to include all 10 platforms with no add-on fees [e6:official:C1].

Main limitations. The public documentation does not clearly define recommendation-market-share denominators, sampling methodology, weighting, or treatment of multiple recommendations in one answer. Public plan documentation conflicts on whether all paid tiers access all 10 platforms or only selected platform counts. Prompt and competitor limits may be restrictive for large category universes. Measurement accuracy, API/data-export capabilities, response archiving, and reproducibility are not sufficiently documented publicly. Evidence reviewed is predominantly company-reported rather than independently verified. The company is unfunded and single-founder, founded in 2025, with no published enterprise customer references ^[30].

Pricing or cost summary. Public pricing lists Lite at $29/month (15 prompts, three platforms), Starter at $99/month (25 prompts, citation suite), Growth at $249/month (100 prompts, GA4 attribution), Pro at $499/month (300 prompts, seven platforms), and Enterprise custom [e6:official:C2]. A launch offer of 30% off the first three months is active, with launch prices of $20, $69, $174, and $349 respectively. Annual billing carries a 20% discount. A 7-day free trial is available on Lite, Starter, and Agency Solo. .

7. AthenaHQ

Questions This Section Answers

• Is AthenaHQ worth it for tracking AI recommendation share across eight or more AI platforms?
• How does AthenaHQ's credit-based pricing work, and what happens when credits run out?
• What should a buyer verify about AthenaHQ's share-of-voice methodology and enterprise feature gating?

AthenaHQ ranked seventh with 2 platform mentions (28.6%) and an average listed position of 5.0. It reports share of voice as the percentage of brand mentions relative to competitors in responses to key prompts, and states that it tracks competitor visibility and recommendation rates across AI platforms ^[31]. Fit ratings were "strong" on google and grok, "good" on openai, anthropic, perplexity, and kimi, and "mixed" on deepseek.

Why it ranked here. AthenaHQ was named by grok and perplexity, both at rank 5. It sits at rank 7 because only two platforms named it and neither placed it above 5. The evidence base is unusually large — 52 deduplicated citations, the most of any entity — but that volume did not translate into broader ranking-discovery mentions.

Best suited for. Marketing, SEO, brand, and GEO teams monitoring competitor visibility across multiple AI search platforms; companies that want recommendation share-of-voice metrics combined with citation analysis and optimization workflows; and buyers needing broad model coverage and an available free tier before adopting a paid plan ^[31].

Main strengths for this use case. Broad listed coverage across major AI search and answer platforms. Explicit competitor visibility and share-of-voice positioning. Citation-source analysis connects recommendation visibility with the sources appearing alongside answers. Daily prompt monitoring and enterprise-scale prompt capacity are relevant to longitudinal market-share tracking. A free Essential tier enables initial validation before a paid commitment. AthenaHQ holds 4.9 out of 5 on G2 with 34 reviews as of June 2026 ^[32].

Main limitations. The public documentation does not fully disclose market-share calculation methodology, sampling design, prompt-universe controls, confidence intervals, or auditability. Starter usage is credit-metered, and the practical number of prompts, models, and refreshes depends on credit consumption. API access and extra credits cost more, creating potentially material ongoing usage costs. Cross-platform metrics may not be directly comparable without normalization for different model interfaces, answer lengths, retrieval behavior, and citation policies. Evidence is predominantly company-reported. Advanced analytics, the Athena Citation Engine, multi-country tracking, and robust hallucination detection are locked to enterprise tiers ^[33].

Pricing or cost summary. The official site displays Essential as free with 300 credits and a $25 free-credit indication, Starter at $295 per month with 3,600 credits, and Enterprise as custom-priced [e7:official:C1]. Annual billing is 17% off. API access and additional credits are optional paid add-ons on Starter. Credit overages are sold in 1,250-credit blocks at $100 per block ^[34]. One credit equals one AI response, so analyzing a query across three platforms consumes three credits ^[35]. .

8. Scrunch AI

Questions This Section Answers

• Is Scrunch AI worth it for tracking AI recommendation share across nine LLM platforms?
• How much does Scrunch AI cost, and what prompt limits apply on the Core plan?
• What should a buyer verify about Scrunch AI's refresh cadence and post-acquisition product roadmap?

Scrunch AI ranked eighth with 2 platform mentions (28.6%) and an average listed position of 6.0. It defines AI share of voice through competitive presence: the percentage of tracked AI responses mentioning a brand relative to competitors ^[36]. Fit ratings were "strong" on google and grok, "good" on openai, anthropic, perplexity, and kimi, and "mixed" on deepseek.

Why it ranked here. Scrunch AI was named by deepseek and openai. Its best position was 3 (openai), but deepseek placed it at 9, producing the 6.0 average. The wide placement gap between platforms is the largest in the index.

Best suited for. Brands that need recurring monitoring of AI recommendations and competitive presence across multiple AI platforms; teams measuring share of AI responses mentioning or citing each competitor across controlled prompts; and organizations that need prompt-level response inspection, citation-source analysis, and platform comparison.

Main strengths for this use case. Direct competitive-presence metric aligned with measuring the percentage of tracked AI recommendations mentioning each competitor. Prompt-level response inspection supports validation of why a recommendation or citation was attributed. Time, competitor, topic, persona, funnel-stage, geography, and platform filtering supports market-share segmentation. Citation reporting and source Influence Score support analysis of source relationships alongside recommendations. Suggested Competitors can reduce the risk of tracking only already-known competitors ^[37].

Main limitations. The measurement is based on tracked prompts and collected responses, not an independently verified estimate of all U.S. AI recommendation activity. Scrunch states that only AI platforms have total visibility into AI search trends, so its products rely on collected response data and platform-specific methodologies ^[38]. Refresh cadence is not necessarily daily after the first 14 days; the stated default changes to 72 hours. Core has a relatively small published limit of 125 unique prompts and four listed LLMs. Enterprise pricing and the exact scope of API, model coverage, geography controls, and historical data are not publicly specified. Reputation Insider notes the 72-hour refresh "limits unattended monitoring during fast-moving reputation events" ^[39].

Pricing or cost summary. The public pricing page lists Core at $250 per month with 125 unique prompts, five site audits per month, one brand workspace, five user licenses, and four supported LLMs ^[40]. Enterprise pricing is custom and adds expanded coverage, API access, integrations, custom limits, SSO, and dedicated support. A 7-day free trial is shown for Core. Anthropic-reported figures show Starter at $250/month annual ($300 month-to-month) and Growth at $417/month annual ($500 monthly), with extra seats at $25/month ^[41]. .

9. Similarweb

Questions This Section Answers

• Is Similarweb worth it for tracking AI recommendation share across ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, and Google AI Mode?
• How much does Similarweb AI Search Intelligence cost, and how many tracked prompts are included?
• What should a buyer verify about Similarweb's AI Brand Visibility coverage versus its AI Traffic coverage?

Similarweb ranked ninth with 2 platform mentions (28.6%) and an average listed position of 8.0. It describes brand mention share or AI share of voice as the percentage of tracked AI responses that mention a brand, including comparison with competitors using the same prompt set ^[42]. Fit ratings were "strong" on grok and "good" on openai, anthropic, deepseek, google, kimi, and perplexity — the most uniformly positive fit profile of any entity outside the top three.

Why it ranked here. Similarweb was named by deepseek and kimi. Its best position was 6 (kimi), and deepseek placed it at 10, producing the 8.0 average. It is the only entity in the index whose fit ratings are uniformly "good" or better while still ranking last.

Best suited for. Companies needing recurring competitive AI visibility reporting across major generative-answer platforms; teams measuring brand mention share, citation share, sentiment, competitor performance, and platform differences within a controlled prompt set; and organizations that also want AI referral-traffic attribution and integration with SEO and competitive-intelligence data ^[43].

Main strengths for this use case. Direct competitor comparison using shared tracked prompts. Brand mention share, AI share of voice, sentiment, citation analysis, and platform variation. Coverage described across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Mode, and Gemini. Historical data and daily refresh claims support longitudinal monitoring. AI Traffic can connect visibility observations to referral activity. Recommendations Hub can convert visibility and citation gaps into prioritized actions ^[44].

Main limitations. The entry plans publicly list only 150 tracked prompts, which may be insufficient for national, multi-category, or multi-brand measurement. Public materials do not prove that the reported share equals total AI recommendation market share; it appears to be share within the selected prompt universe. Explicit recommendation events are not clearly separated from general brand mentions. Public sources do not fully specify sampling methodology, response frequency, geographic controls, model/version controls, or reproducibility across changing AI answers. One user is included in the listed packages, so multi-user access may increase cost. AI Brand Visibility covers only four engines, while AI Traffic covers eight — these are separate tracking systems ^[45].

Pricing or cost summary. Public U.S. pricing lists AEO Intelligence at $99 per month when billed annually or $129 per month monthly, and AEO & SEO & Competitive Intel at $333 per month when billed annually or $399 per month monthly ^[43]. A higher AEO & SEO & Ads & Competitive Intel package is listed at $542 per month annually or $649 monthly. Listed plans include one user and 150 tracked prompts.

What the Cross-Platform Study Reveals About This Market

Questions This Section Answers

• What does the cross-platform AI consensus reveal about which recommendation-share metrics buyers can actually verify?
• Which AI search intelligence platforms publish a defined recommendation-share formula, and which leave the denominator unclear?

Three patterns dominate the evidence. First, no platform in this index publishes an audited recommendation-share methodology. OtterlyAI's public materials do not define whether share is based on mentions, ranked recommendations, citations, weighted positions, unique answers, or another denominator ^[46]. Peec AI's share of voice is a tracked-response metric, not independently verified total category market share ^[47]. Semrush does not publicly establish that its share-of-voice metric is an audited market-share measure with a universally defined denominator ^[48]. Profound's Share of Voice is a useful operational proxy within the selected prompt universe, but it is not independently established market share of all AI recommendations ^[49]. This is a category-wide limitation, not a vendor-specific one.

Second, prompt capacity is the primary cost driver and the primary constraint. OtterlyAI caps at 15, 100, or 400 prompts depending on tier ^[50]. Peec AI caps at 50, 150, or 350 ^[47]. Semrush caps at 25 prompts on the base toolkit ^[51]. Profound caps at 50 or 100 on self-serve ^[52]. Ahrefs includes 2,500 custom-prompt checks per month on the All Platforms tier ^[53].

Where the AI Platforms Agreed

Questions This Section Answers

• Which AI search intelligence platforms did all or most AI platforms agree on for recommendation market share tracking?
• What capabilities do AI platforms consistently attribute to the leading recommendation-share tools?

The seven included platforms agreed on several points. OtterlyAI, Peec AI, and Semrush form a clear top tier — each was named by at least four platforms, and no other entity exceeded three. Citation tracking is table stakes: every qualifying entity's evidence bundle describes some form of citation or source analysis. Daily or near-daily monitoring is the norm: OtterlyAI, Peec AI, Semrush, Profound, Astiva AI, AthenaHQ, and Similarweb all describe daily or scheduled refresh, with Scrunch AI the notable exception at a 72-hour default after the first 14 days ^[54].

Platforms also agreed that prompt-universe definition is buyer-controlled across the leading tools. OtterlyAI lets buyers create a prompt library of conversational questions ^[55]. Peec AI supports custom prompt tracking, prompt management, and topic organization ^[56]. Semrush includes 25 custom prompts at base ^[57]. Profound lets buyers use its Prompt Volumes dataset or upload custom prompts ^[58]. Ahrefs Custom Prompts lets buyers define exact questions ^[59]. This consistency matters because it means the prompt universe — not the vendor — is the primary determinant of what share numbers mean.

Where the AI Platforms Disagreed

Questions This Section Answers

• Where do AI platforms disagree about which recommendation-share platform is best, and what does that mean for buyers?
• Which AI search intelligence platforms received conflicting fit ratings across AI platforms?

Disagreements cluster in four areas. Fit ratings diverged sharply for Ahrefs and Astiva AI. Ahrefs received "strong" from grok and "weak" from kimi — the widest spread in the index ^[60]. Astiva AI received "strong" from google and grok but "uncertain" from deepseek and kimi ^[61]. In both cases, the disagreement tracks whether the platform's research retrieved the vendor's own site successfully.

Pricing conflicts are pervasive. Peec AI's USD and EUR figures do not reconcile ^[62]. Semrush's free-trial availability conflicts between its knowledge base and pricing page ^[63]. AthenaHQ's Starter price is reported as $295/month officially but $95 first-month promotionally by third parties ^[64]. Scrunch AI's pricing was reported as unavailable by one platform and as $250/month by another ^[65]. Astiva AI's trial length conflicts between 7 and 14 days.

Platform coverage claims conflict. Semrush's Claude, Copilot, and DeepSeek coverage is described as Enterprise-only by some sources and standard by others ^[66]. Profound's Enterprise engine count is cited as 9, up to 9, or up to 10 ^[67]. Astiva AI's plan-level platform entitlements conflict between 10 platforms on all plans and 3/5/7 platforms by tier.

How Buyers Should Choose

Questions This Section Answers

• How should a buyer choose between OtterlyAI, Peec AI, Semrush, and Profound for tracking recommendation market share?
• What should a buyer check before choosing any AI search intelligence platform for recommendation-share reporting?

Start with the prompt universe, not the vendor. Every platform in this index measures share within a buyer-defined or vendor-modeled prompt set, and none measures total market share. Write down the exact prompts, competitors, geographies, and languages you need, then compare each vendor's published prompt capacity and per-prompt cost against that list. OtterlyAI's 15-prompt Lite tier and Semrush's 25-prompt base tier will not cover a multi-category U.S. program; Peec AI's 350-prompt Advanced tier, Astiva AI's 300-prompt Pro tier, and Ahrefs's 2,500-check All Platforms tier are more realistic starting points for broad coverage.

Second, decide whether you need directional visibility or defensible measurement. If directional is acceptable, OtterlyAI, Peec AI, and Astiva AI offer the lowest entry points with the broadest platform catalogs. If you need governance, SSO, SOC 2-related controls, and contractual service commitments, Profound and Semrush Enterprise are the paths — but both require sales engagement and neither publishes Enterprise pricing.

Third, check engine coverage against your actual buyer base. OtterlyAI's core paid tiers list ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity, and Microsoft Copilot, with Gemini, Google AI Mode, and Claude as paid add-ons ^[68]. Peec AI's base plans include three models with others as add-ons ^[69].

Methodology

This study sent one standardized prompt once to each of 7 included platforms: openai, anthropic, deepseek, grok, perplexity, kimi, and google. The prompt asked which AI search intelligence platforms the respondent would recommend for measuring what percentage of relevant AI recommendations go to each major competitor across a defined prompt universe, how that share changes over time, which platforms differ, and which citations or source relationships appear alongside those recommendations.

Entities qualified for the final ranking if they were named by at least two platforms during ranking discovery. Forty unique entities were named; nine qualified. The final ranking order is based on platform mentions, then average listed position, then best listed position. The ranking table is the sole authority for rank, platform mentions, platform share, average rank, and best rank.

Platform mentions count only ranking-discovery mentions. They do not reflect the number of platforms that later completed a fit assessment. All 7 included platforms evaluated fit, but only the platforms that named an entity during ranking discovery contributed to its mention count.

Citations are platform-reported evidence, not independently verified facts. The supplied URLs were collected from platform responses and were not independently validated by the writer stage. Company-owned sources are distinguished from independent sources where the evidence bundles provide that information.

Methodology Limitations

Several limitations apply. First, this study used one standardized prompt sent once to each included platform. AI answers can vary by date, wording, location, account state, model, interface, browsing configuration, and the sources retrieved. A single run is a snapshot, not a stable measurement.

Second, platform-reported research dates differ from the authoritative run date of 2026-09-18. Deepseek reported 2026-01-15 for OtterlyAI, Semrush, and Astiva AI; 2026-06-12 for Peec AI and Scrunch AI; 2026-02-14 for Profound and Ahrefs; and 2026-05-28 for AthenaHQ. Anthropic reported 2026-09-15 for Profound and 2026-09-01 for Scrunch AI, and 2026-01-15 for Ahrefs. These dates are provenance metadata and do not independently prove freshness.

Third, platform recommendations are market intelligence, not independent customer reviews or proof of quality. Most evidence bundles are dominated by company-owned sources. Profound's bundle has 21 owned citations against 16 independent; Ahrefs has 24 owned against 5 independent; Astiva AI has 20 owned against 8 independent; Scrunch AI has 29 owned against 13 independent. Do not treat company claims as independently verified.

Fourth, several entities had official-site retrieval failures during research. Peec AI's official site exceeded the size limit ^[70]. Ahrefs's official site exceeded the size limit ^[71]. Profound's official-site retrieval failed on a URL-format error, and the normalization audit flagged conflicting official domains and an unresolved identity ^[72]. Similarweb's terms page timed out.

Final Verdict

OtterlyAI is the consensus leader for tracking recommendation market share across AI search and generative-answer platforms, with 5 of 7 platforms naming it and an average listed position of 4.2. It is the best default starting point for SMB, mid-market, and agency buyers who want prompt-based competitor and citation monitoring at a transparent entry price.

Peec AI is the strongest alternative for buyers who need a controlled prompt universe with citation-source classification and product-level AI shopping tracking. Semrush is the best fit for teams already standardized on Semrush SEO tooling who want AI visibility in the same workflow. Profound is the best fit for enterprise buyers who need governance, SSO, and up to nine answer engines, and who can accept an annual commitment and custom pricing.

Ahrefs, Astiva AI, AthenaHQ, Scrunch AI, and Similarweb each serve narrower needs: search-backed prompt discovery, low-cost broad platform coverage, credit-metered multi-engine monitoring, brand representation and citation analysis, and AI visibility plus referral-traffic attribution, respectively.

No platform in this index should be treated as a verified measure of total consumer recommendation market share. Buyers should validate the denominator, sampling methodology, prompt capacity, engine coverage, export granularity, and contract terms directly with each vendor before committing.