Best AI Visibility Platforms for B2B Companies

Answer Capsule

Profound is the consensus leader for B2B companies tracking how often AI systems recommend them, named by 6 of 7 platforms (85.7% share) at an average listed position of 2.17 and a best position of 1. Peec AI (5 mentions, 71.4%) is the strongest alternative for mid-market teams that need daily prompt tracking, competitor gap analysis, and cited-source intelligence without enterprise overhead. Otterly.AI (4 mentions, 57.1%) is the lowest-cost credible entry point, and Semrush (4 mentions, 57.1%) is the best fit for teams already running SEO in that suite. This index studied 7 platforms — openai, anthropic, deepseek, grok, perplexity, kimi, and google — using one standardized prompt sent once to each. The principal limitation: platform mentions count only ranking-discovery mentions, AI answers vary by date, wording, location, account state, model, and retrieved sources, and the supplied URLs were not independently validated.

Research Snapshot

• Topic: AI visibility and LLM monitoring platforms for B2B companies
• Target buyer: B2B marketing and revenue teams focused on vendor discovery, buying-journey prompts, and competitor comparisons
• Use case: Tracking how often AI systems recommend the company when buyers ask high-intent questions about vendors, software, services, and solutions
• Platforms included (7): openai, anthropic, deepseek, grok, perplexity, kimi, google
• Research date: 2026-09-19
• Unique entities named across platforms: 37
• Qualifying entities: 9
• Eligibility rule: Named by at least two platforms during ranking discovery
• Ranking unit: Software platform or research platform
• Geography: United States

The study used one standardized prompt sent once to each included platform. Platform-reported research dates differ from the authoritative run date for some platforms (deepseek reported 2026-01-05, 2026-01-15, and 2026-06-01 across entity bundles; kimi reported 2026-06-30 for Otterly.AI). Those dates are provenance metadata and do not independently prove freshness.

The Consensus Ranking

Questions This Section Answers

• What are the best AI visibility and LLM monitoring platforms for B2B companies in 2026?
• Which AI visibility platform is named most often across ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity, Grok, Kimi, and DeepSeek for B2B buying-journey tracking?

The table below is the ranking authority for this index. Platform mentions count only platforms that named the entity during ranking discovery; they do not count platforms that later completed a fit assessment.

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

Questions This Section Answers

• Which AI visibility platform should a B2B company choose if it needs daily prompt tracking and citation intelligence on a mid-market budget?
• Is Profound or Peec AI better for B2B buying-journey prompt monitoring when enterprise governance matters?
• Which AI visibility platform is best for a B2B team that already runs SEO in Semrush or Ahrefs?

1. Profound

Questions This Section Answers

• Is Profound worth it for B2B AI visibility tracking, and what are its main drawbacks?
• Which Profound plan should a B2B company choose if it needs multi-engine coverage beyond ChatGPT?

Profound ranks first because it was named by 6 of 7 platforms at an average listed position of 2.17, with four platforms placing it first. It is the most consistently recommended platform in this study for B2B teams treating AI visibility as an ongoing marketing KPI.

Why it ranked here. Profound combines prompt-level monitoring, competitor benchmarking, citation intelligence, and historical tracking in one platform. It states that it runs structured prompts daily, supports recommended and user-added prompts, and analyzes brand and competitor presence ^[1]. Anthropic-reported evidence describes real user conversation data (1.5B+ conversations from Conversation Explorer) rather than simulated prompts, with citation patterns across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, Gemini, Claude, and Copilot depending on tier ^[2]. Google-reported evidence describes a formal G2 partnership that embeds Profound's AI visibility data directly into G2 dashboards, letting software vendors see how and when they are cited by models sourcing from G2 ^[4].

Best suited for. Fortune 500 and large B2B SaaS brands ($50M+ ARR) with dedicated AEO teams, procurement budgets, multi-platform requirements, and enterprise governance needs ^[5]. Also mid-market teams that need more than ChatGPT coverage and can justify the Growth tier.

Main strengths for this use case. Direct prompt-level monitoring across answer engines; competitor and citation analysis aligned with vendor-discovery and comparison research; daily structured tracking that supports historical visibility reporting; Enterprise controls including multiple companies, tailored prompt tracking, dedicated Slack support, SSO/SAML, and SOC2 compliance ^[1]. Google-reported evidence also cites a Prompt Volumes feature powered by a database of real user queries, enabling week-over-week conversational search volume analysis ^[6].

Main limitations. Starter is ChatGPT-only and limited to 50 prompts, which is narrow for a B2B buying journey spanning multiple engines and categories ^[1]. Growth is substantially more expensive than Starter while still publicly listing only 100 prompts and three engines. Enterprise pricing and several operational terms are not public. Anthropic-reported evidence flags no native GA4 integration, with attribution relying on CDN integration and custom middleware, which creates a material gap for SaaS and B2B companies without enterprise CDN infrastructure ^[7]. Single-account architecture is inefficient for agencies; Growth adds $399/month per client workspace, so five clients implies $1,995/month in add-ons alone ^[9]. Public evidence does not independently validate measurement accuracy, citation completeness, or pipeline impact.

Pricing or cost summary. Public pricing lists Starter at $99/month and Growth at $399/month, both shown with annual billing, while Enterprise is custom.

2. Peec AI

Questions This Section Answers

• Is Peec AI worth it for mid-market B2B AI visibility monitoring, and what are its main limitations?
• Which Peec AI plan covers enough prompts and models for B2B category and competitor tracking?

Peec AI ranks second with 5 platform mentions (71.4%) at an average listed position of 3.20 and a best position of 2. It is the strongest alternative for mid-market B2B teams that need daily prompt tracking, competitor gap analysis, and cited-source intelligence without enterprise overhead.

Why it ranked here. Peec AI runs custom prompts daily across ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Perplexity, Google AI Mode, and Copilot, recording whether brands are mentioned, position in the answer, sentiment, and which sources are cited ^[10]. Its Citation Gap Analysis shows where competitors appear but the brand does not, identifying where to focus digital PR and third-party placement ^[12]. Google-reported evidence describes AI Referrals and My Website features that integrate with Google Analytics to tie LLM citations to website traffic, engagement, conversions, and revenue ^[13].

Best suited for. B2B SaaS marketing teams ($2M–$50M ARR) with established content and clear buying-journey prompts; marketing agencies managing multiple B2B clients across AI visibility; in-house teams tracking competitive positioning in ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity recommendations ^[14].

Main strengths for this use case. Prompt-level granularity that maps to category discovery, comparison, integration, security, and pricing prompts; citation gap analysis that surfaces which sources competitors are cited in but the brand is not; segment-specific tracking by persona and region; daily updated data; unlimited seats on all plans; and a 4.8–4.9/5 G2 rating across 18+ verified reviews as of August 2026 ^[15]. Google-reported evidence also cites MCP access on all paid plans, allowing teams to query AI visibility data in natural language inside tools such as Claude ^[16].

Main limitations. Peec AI is monitoring-only; it does not generate content, run technical AEO audits, or execute remediation, and the Actions feature is explicitly beta ^[17]. Self-serve plans include only three AI models on base pricing, with additional models costing €20–€30 per model per month; full multi-engine coverage at the Advanced tier can reach €665/month or roughly $800/month ^[19]. No native API access on self-serve plans limits integration into CRM or demand-generation workflows. Enterprise features such as SOC 2, SSO, and dedicated customer success are not available on published tiers. The platform is most effective when teams already know their buying journey and have content assets to promote.

Pricing or cost summary. Self-serve tiers: Starter €85–$95/month, Pro €205–$245/month, Advanced €425–$495/month, with prices dropping about 15% on annual billing.

3. Otterly.AI

Questions This Section Answers

• Is Otterly.AI worth it for B2B AI visibility monitoring, and what are its main drawbacks?
• Which Otterly.AI plan is best for a B2B team that needs more than 15 tracked prompts and multi-engine coverage?

Otterly.AI ranks third with 4 platform mentions (57.1%) at an average listed position of 5.25 and a best position of 3. It is the lowest-cost credible entry point in this index and a practical option for teams validating AI visibility before committing to a larger contract.

Why it ranked here. Otterly.AI lets users define and monitor prompts across ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity, and Microsoft Copilot, with Google AI Mode, Gemini, and Claude available as paid add-ons ^[20]. Prompt detail views include responses, cited URLs, competitor rankings, and brand coverage over time. The platform compares tracked brands on mentions, share of voice, average rank, sentiment, citations, and prompt-level presence, and its gap-analysis functions identify prompts where competitors appear and the tracked brand does not ^[20].

Best suited for. B2B marketing teams starting AI visibility monitoring with budget constraints; agencies managing multiple client brands with limited initial prompt tracking needs; revenue teams validating whether brands appear in ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, and Perplexity buyer queries ^[21].

Main strengths for this use case. Lowest entry price in the category at $29/month with genuine usability for initial validation; prompt-level monitoring that mirrors B2B buyer discovery workflows; citation intelligence and share-of-voice metrics across multiple engines from one dashboard; a GEO audit layer that diagnoses why pages get skipped by AI engines; agency-friendly unlimited workspaces and multi-client dashboards; and a public API, MCP server, and Claude Skill launched June 2026 ^[22]. Google-reported evidence also cites a Prompt Research tool with Query Fan-Out functionality that maps a single B2B buyer query into dozens of sub-queries ^[23].

Main limitations. Steep prompt-volume pricing cliff: a 6x cost jump from Lite (15 prompts) to Standard (100 prompts), and independent reviewers report most teams outgrow Standard within 4–6 months ^[24]. Claude is locked behind a $149/month add-on at Premium, a significant blind spot for technical buyer segments ^[25]. All-in multi-engine cost scales to roughly $1,226/month at Premium plus add-ons ^[26]. No traditional SEO integration, so teams need a parallel tool for keyword rankings and backlinks. Output-only monitoring cannot distinguish between unscanned content and crawled-but-not-cited content. The platform does not prove conversion causality, and it does not recommend optimization actions.

Pricing or cost summary. Lite: $29/month monthly or $25/month annual-equivalent with 15 prompts. Standard: $189/month monthly or $160/month annual-equivalent with 100 prompts. Premium: $489/month monthly or $422/month annual-equivalent with 400 prompts.

4. Semrush

Questions This Section Answers

• Is Semrush worth it for B2B AI visibility tracking, and what are its main drawbacks?
• Which Semrush plan or bundle should a B2B team choose if it needs AI visibility plus traditional SEO in one subscription?

Semrush ranks fourth with 4 platform mentions (57.1%) at an average listed position of 5.75 and a best position of 3. It is the best fit for B2B teams already running SEO in the Semrush suite and wanting AI visibility in the same account.

Why it ranked here. The AI Visibility Toolkit supports 25 custom prompts with daily AI rankings on the Base plan, and Prompt Research plus synthetic Brand Performance prompts supplement custom tracking ^[27]. Competitor Research compares AI visibility, mentions, citations, and topic coverage against up to four competitors at a time ^[28]. The platform reports mentions, citations, cited pages, citation distribution, and the models or platforms referencing a brand ^[29].

Best suited for. B2B companies with existing Semrush SEO subscriptions who need to add AI visibility tracking without switching platforms; mid-market B2B brands tracking a single domain or small number of domains with moderate prompt budgets under 100 tracked prompts; marketing teams that value competitor benchmarking across traditional SEO and AI visibility in a unified dashboard ^[30].

Main strengths for this use case. Combines AI visibility with established SEO, keyword, competitor, content, and site-audit workflows; provides competitor comparison, citation metrics, prompt research, custom prompt tracking, and historical trend reporting; supports recurring stakeholder reports and optional branded or white-labeled reporting; and offers an enterprise route for custom prompt tracking, multi-brand visibility, APIs, governance, attribution, and support ^[27]. Google-reported evidence also cites an AI Site Audit tool that identifies technical indexation issues, ensuring critical content is not blocking LLM crawlers like GPTBot or ClaudeBot in robots.txt ^[31].

Main limitations. The Base plan's 25 custom prompts may be insufficient for a broad B2B buying journey spanning many categories, industries, use cases, and comparison variants ^[27]. The product measures observed or sampled AI responses and does not establish that visibility causes pipeline, revenue, or vendor selection. Coverage and methodology differ across reports, platforms, locations, and update schedules. The standalone AI product may be expensive for teams that do not also need Semrush SEO capabilities. Advanced multi-brand, custom-scale, API, governance, forecasting, and attribution capabilities are positioned for enterprise or custom pricing. Anthropic-reported evidence flags per-domain unit pricing as neutral for a single brand and punishing above that; ten clients requires $990/month before add-ons ^[32]. Engine coverage has lagged dedicated tools, and Claude, Copilot, and DeepSeek are Enterprise AIO features only, with Grok absent ^[33]. .

5. Scrunch

Questions This Section Answers

• Is Scrunch worth it for B2B AI visibility tracking, and what are its main drawbacks?
• Which Scrunch plan is best for a B2B team that needs citation intelligence and GA4 attribution?

Scrunch ranks fifth with 3 platform mentions (42.9%) at an average listed position of 2.67 and a best position of 2. It has the second-best average listed position in this index despite fewer mentions, and it is the strongest option for teams that need citation intelligence plus crawler-side attribution.

Why it ranked here. Scrunch supports unique prompt tracking and allows analysis by persona, prompt topic, funnel stage, branded versus non-branded status, country, AI platform, and competitor presence ^[34]. It reports which pages and third-party sources are cited, compares competitor citation performance, and provides an Influence Score for individual sources ^[35]. Anthropic-reported evidence describes GA4 and Cloudflare integrations that show which AI crawlers (GPTBot, ClaudeBot, PerplexityBot) visit the site and attribute traffic to AI referrals ^[36].

Best suited for. B2B brand and communications teams prioritizing how AI systems represent their brand narrative in early-stage buying research; mid-market enterprises with dedicated AI visibility budgets ($250+/mo) seeking citation-level tracking; organizations needing SOC 2 Type II compliance before vendor selection ^[37].

Main strengths for this use case. Citation Intelligence identifies domains and individual URLs cited by AI systems and quantifies influence scores ^[38]. Prompt-level granularity allows filtering by persona, topic, funnel stage, and individual prompts. Competitor visibility gaps are clearly identified. GA4 integration and crawler analytics are genuinely rare in this category. Enterprise includes SOC 2 Type II compliance, which clears enterprise procurement gates ^[37]. Google-reported evidence describes an Agent Experience Platform (AXP) that operates at the CDN level, auto-detecting AI crawling agents and serving them token-light versions of pages to boost real-time LLM retrieval and citation rates ^[39].

Main limitations. Core plan covers only 4 of 9 supported engines; Claude, Gemini, Meta AI, Grok, and Google AI Mode require Enterprise pricing ^[41]. The $250/month Core plan exceeds budget alternatives by 2.5–10x. Prompt credit consumption is higher than expected because each AI engine counts separately, effectively about 31 unique queries per independent reviewer ^[43]. Scrunch is monitoring-only and lacks content optimization tools or automated recommendations. Data updates weekly, which reviewers flag as too slow for active optimization ^[44]. No Reddit intelligence. The June 2026 Sitecore acquisition introduces roadmap risk ^[45].

Pricing or cost summary. Core plan: $250/month, covering 125 prompts, 4 AI engines, 5 site audits/month, 5 user seats, and 1 brand workspace.

6. CheckThat

Questions This Section Answers

• Is CheckThat worth it for B2B AI visibility tracking, and what are its main drawbacks?
• Which AI visibility platform has a prebuilt B2B prompt library and free access to category-level data?

CheckThat ranks sixth with 2 platform mentions (28.6%) at an average listed position of 2.00 and a best position of 2. It has the best average listed position in this index despite the fewest mentions, and it is the only option with a substantial free tier built around a prebuilt B2B prompt library.

Why it ranked here. CheckThat provides a shared prompt library based on how buyers evaluate B2B software, with human editorial review described for each prompt ^[46]. Anthropic-reported evidence describes tracking of 5,800+ brands across 1,840+ B2B software categories, analyzing 2.6M+ AI responses monthly with 1.6M+ accessible to users for free ^[47]. The platform is explicitly positioned around buyer intent and covers B2B software categories, products, personas, positioning, and competitors ^[46].

Best suited for. B2B software companies evaluating category-level and buying-journey prompts; teams needing a prebuilt B2B prompt library rather than starting with manually designed queries; marketing teams comparing brand visibility and competitor recommendations across AI answers; teams wanting source and citation intelligence alongside visibility trends ^[48].

Main strengths for this use case. Strong thematic alignment with B2B vendor-discovery and buying-evaluation prompts; a prebuilt, human-reviewed prompt library that reduces prompt-design effort; competitor recommendations and visibility comparisons directly relevant to category positioning; source-level citation visibility that can inform third-party content, analyst, review, and comparison-site priorities; and historical tracking relevant for measuring changes in AI visibility over time ^[49]. Google-reported evidence describes a no-cold-start setup with over 199 B2B software categories pre-mapped ^[50].

Main limitations. Core paid-plan pricing and commercial terms are not publicly clear. Exact engine and surface coverage is inconsistent across public pages: the homepage references ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Google AI, Google AI Mode, and other engines, while the overview page says tracking is limited to ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Perplexity ^[49]. Public documentation does not clearly confirm API access, CRM integrations, scheduled reporting, export formats, seats, permissions, or enterprise governance. Evidence is dominated by company-owned claims, with limited independent validation. Anthropic-reported evidence notes zero reviews on G2, Capterra, or TrustRadius and no published case studies with quantified results ^[51]. Google-reported evidence notes the platform is closed-source and that customized brand tracking runs through the companion GrowthOS platform ^[52].

Pricing or cost summary. Public pricing for the CheckThat AI Visibility Platform core product was not found in the reviewed materials.

7. Athena HQ

Questions This Section Answers

• Is Athena HQ worth it for B2B AI visibility tracking, and what are its main drawbacks?
• Which AI visibility platform covers the most AI models at a single self-serve tier for B2B vendor-discovery prompts?

Athena HQ ranks seventh with 2 platform mentions (28.6%) at an average listed position of 3.50 and a best position of 3. It offers the broadest advertised model coverage at a single self-serve tier in this index.

Why it ranked here. AthenaHQ states that it tracks prompt and response performance, recommendation rate, brand mentions, and prompt-level visibility across major AI platforms ^[53]. The Starter plan is advertised with visibility across 11 models, including ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, Google AI Mode, Gemini, Claude, Copilot, Grok, DeepSeek, Meta AI, and Mistral ^[53]. Anthropic-reported evidence describes the platform as the only tool covering all five major AI platforms (ChatGPT, Perplexity, AI Overviews, Gemini, Claude) plus additional engines ^[54].

Best suited for. B2B software and service companies monitoring vendor-discovery, evaluation, comparison, and high-intent buying prompts; marketing teams that need competitor share-of-voice, recommendation coverage, citation tracking, and content actions in one platform; enterprise teams needing persona targeting, custom reporting, integrations, SSO, audit logs, or BI-tool support ^[53].

Main strengths for this use case. Strong alignment with prompt-level vendor discovery, evaluation, and competitor-comparison monitoring; broad multi-model coverage on the Starter plan; citation-source analysis and competitor share-of-voice functions directly relevant to B2B buying journeys; Enterprise features including persona targeting, executive dashboards, BI-tool support for Tableau, Power BI, and Looker, SSO, and audit logs; and a platform that combines monitoring with content-gap and optimization recommendations rather than reporting visibility alone ^[53]. Google-reported evidence also cites GA4, Google Search Console, and Shopify integrations to tie AI visibility back to web traffic and revenue ^[55].

Main limitations. Historical-data retention, reporting granularity, export limits, and prompt-volume controls are not fully documented publicly. Pricing is credit-based, so total cost depends on response volume and the number of monitored prompts and models. API access and extra credits cost more than the Starter subscription. Reported customer outcomes and platform claims are company-reported or testimonial-based rather than independently validated causal evidence. Independent review evidence identifies credit-system complexity, occasional glitches, and lack of consolidated multi-brand management as possible tradeoffs ^[56]. Anthropic-reported evidence notes the paid entry point is high at $295/month, credits are difficult to forecast, and distinctive enterprise controls such as the Athena Citation Engine are not available on Starter ^[57].

Pricing or cost summary. Essential: free with a $25 free credit and 300 credits. Starter: $295/month with 3,600 credits. Enterprise: custom pricing and custom credit allocation.

8. SE Ranking

Questions This Section Answers

• Is SE Ranking worth it for B2B AI visibility tracking, and what are its main drawbacks?
• Which SE Ranking plan or add-on is best for a B2B team that needs AI visibility plus traditional SEO in one subscription?

SE Ranking ranks eighth with 2 platform mentions (28.6%) at an average listed position of 6.00 and a best position of 5. It is the best fit for B2B teams already using SEO, rank tracking, competitor research, or agency-style reporting and wanting AI visibility in the same suite.

Why it ranked here. AI Results Tracker uses user-defined prompts and reports brand mentions, links, positions, competitors, and answer context ^[59]. SE Ranking recommends mapping prompts to business outcomes, personas, use cases, and funnel stages, which is relevant to B2B vendor-discovery and comparison journeys. AI Search in Competitive Research compares a domain with competitors across AI engines, identifies missing prompts and topics, shows competitor presence, and supports prompt-level review of answers and cited sources, with a documented workflow supporting up to five competitors ^[60].

Best suited for. B2B teams already using SEO, rank tracking, competitor research, or agency-style reporting; teams tracking category, vendor-comparison, and high-intent prompts across ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, and Google AI Mode; organizations needing source and citation gap analysis against named competitors ^[62].

Main strengths for this use case. Strong prompt-level coverage for vendor discovery and comparison questions; a useful competitor-gap workflow showing prompts where rivals appear and the buyer does not; detailed source, citation, coverage, and mention-rate analysis; historical views that support monitoring changes in AI recommendations over time; and a good fit where AI visibility must be combined with conventional SEO, competitor research, and agency-style reporting ^[63]. Anthropic-reported evidence describes SE Ranking as a powerful consolidation play for 1–3 person B2B marketing teams that need 80% of Semrush's capability at about 60% of the cost ^[64].

Main limitations. The product measures visibility signals, not verified buyer exposure, traffic, pipeline, or revenue. Prompt and platform checks can become expensive for broad B2B buying-journey coverage, and the one-check-per-prompt-per-platform model requires careful prompt-volume planning ^[65]. Exact reporting-field availability, historical retention by plan, and engine-specific limits require confirmation. Public evidence is primarily vendor documentation; independent validation of accuracy and business outcomes was not established. Anthropic-reported evidence notes SE Visible launched with ChatGPT and Google AI Mode, with Perplexity, Gemini, and Claude on the roadmap, and that SE Visible refreshes weekly, which is slow for a $189/month tool ^[66]. Traffic estimates are modeled, not measured, and will not reconcile with GA4 ^[68]. .

9. Ahrefs

Questions This Section Answers

• Is Ahrefs Brand Radar worth it for B2B AI visibility tracking, and what are its main drawbacks?
• Which Ahrefs Brand Radar package is best for a B2B team that needs broad prompt discovery and retroactive competitor data?

Ahrefs ranks ninth with 2 platform mentions (28.6%) at an average listed position of 6.50 and a best position of 4. It is the best fit for B2B companies already using Ahrefs for SEO, competitive research, content, or reporting and wanting broad discovery across competitor-comparison, category, pricing, and vendor-selection topics.

Why it ranked here. Brand Radar AI combines a pre-collected AI Visibility Index with Custom Prompts; the index supports broad brand and competitor discovery, while Custom Prompts track buyer questions defined by the customer ^[69]. Custom Prompts can track exact buyer questions, including competitor comparisons and other pipeline-relevant prompts, with cadence options from monthly to daily ^[69]. Brand Radar reports AI Share of Voice, mentions, citations, impressions, and comparative performance for selected brands and competitors ^[69].

Best suited for. B2B companies already using Ahrefs for SEO, competitive research, content, or reporting; teams that want broad discovery across competitor-comparison, category, pricing, and vendor-selection topics; organizations needing citation/domain analysis, share-of-voice benchmarking, historical trends, API access, or Looker Studio reporting ^[70].

Main strengths for this use case. Broad search-derived prompt coverage useful for discovering category, comparison, pricing, and vendor-selection topics before a company has a mature prompt list; direct competitor benchmarking through mentions, citations, impressions, and AI Share of Voice; citation and found-in analysis that helps identify pages and domains influencing AI answers; historical responses, trend charts, API access, Report Builder, and Looker Studio support for recurring B2B reporting; and existing Ahrefs SEO, keyword, content, and competitive datasets that connect AI visibility findings to content and search-demand work ^[71]. Anthropic-reported evidence cites a strong 0.664 correlation between branded web mentions and AI Overview visibility ^[72].

Main limitations. The AI Visibility Index is modeled from Ahrefs search data, so it can underrepresent low-volume, emerging, highly technical, or account-specific B2B questions ^[69]. Custom Prompts do not provide historical backfill before tracking begins. The product measures mentions, citations, impressions, and share of voice; public documentation does not establish reliable revenue attribution, pipeline influence, or recommendation-to-conversion measurement. Public documentation does not clearly establish complete controls for geography, language, logged-in state, persona, personalization, or exact model/version selection for every platform. Grok collection is temporarily unavailable for new data in the cited help documentation, and Claude is limited to Custom Prompts with eight checks consumed per check ^[71]. Public Ahrefs pages show changing prompt-index totals, including 405M+, 455M+, and 475M+ references ^[69].

What the Cross-Platform Study Reveals About This Market

Questions This Section Answers

• What do AI platforms consistently recommend when a B2B company asks which AI visibility tool to buy?
• How does the AI visibility platform market split between dedicated specialists and SEO-suite add-ons for B2B buyers?

The market splits into three distinct groups. Dedicated AI visibility specialists — Profound, Peec AI, Otterly.AI, Scrunch, CheckThat, and Athena HQ — were named by platforms as purpose-built tools for prompt-level monitoring, competitor analysis, and citation intelligence. SEO-suite add-ons — Semrush, SE Ranking, and Ahrefs — were named primarily for teams already invested in those ecosystems.

Profound and Peec AI dominate the top of the ranking with 6 and 5 mentions respectively, and both were described by multiple platforms as having the deepest prompt-level and citation capabilities. Scrunch and CheckThat have the best average listed positions (2.67 and 2.00) despite fewer mentions, suggesting that platforms that named them ranked them highly.

A consistent theme across evidence bundles is that no platform in this index closes the loop from AI visibility to pipeline or revenue. Profound, Peec AI, Otterly.AI, Semrush, Scrunch, CheckThat, Athena HQ, SE Ranking, and Ahrefs all measure visibility signals rather than verified buyer exposure, traffic, pipeline, or revenue. Buyers should treat visibility metrics as directional measurement rather than a complete census of all buyer prompts or AI answers.

A second consistent theme is engine coverage gating.

Where the AI Platforms Agreed

Questions This Section Answers

• Which AI visibility platform do ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity, Grok, Kimi, and DeepSeek agree is best for B2B companies?

Platforms agreed on several points. Profound is the consensus leader: 6 of 7 platforms named it, and four placed it first. Peec AI is the strongest mid-market alternative: 5 of 7 platforms named it, and it was the only other entity named by more than half the platforms.

Platforms agreed that prompt-level monitoring, competitor analysis, citation intelligence, and historical tracking are the core requirements for this use case. Every qualifying entity was described as offering at least three of these four capabilities.

Platforms agreed that AI visibility data is directional rather than definitive. Profound's own guidance states that AI-search products rely on panel data because AI platforms do not provide complete visibility into AI-search trends ^[73]. Multiple platforms noted that visibility metrics may improve without corresponding lead or revenue lift.

Platforms agreed that pricing transparency varies widely. Semrush, Otterly.AI, Peec AI, Scrunch, Athena HQ, SE Ranking, and Ahrefs publish at least some plan pricing. Profound and CheckThat require sales contact for Enterprise or paid-tier pricing.

Where the AI Platforms Disagreed

Questions This Section Answers

• Why do AI platforms disagree about which AI visibility tool is best for B2B companies?
• Which AI visibility platforms have unverified pricing or feature claims that B2B buyers should check before purchase?

Platforms disagreed sharply on fit ratings for nearly every entity. Profound received ratings from "strong" (google) to "uncertain" (deepseek, grok, kimi). Peec AI received ratings from "good" (anthropic, google, grok, openai) to "uncertain" (deepseek, kimi). Otterly.AI received ratings from "good" (five platforms) to "uncertain" (kimi). Semrush received ratings from "good" (five platforms) to "weak" (kimi). Scrunch received ratings from "strong" (google, grok) to "uncertain" (deepseek, kimi). CheckThat received ratings from "strong" (grok) to "uncertain" (deepseek, kimi). Athena HQ received ratings from "strong" (google) to "uncertain" (kimi). SE Ranking received ratings from "good" (three platforms) to "mixed" (four platforms). Ahrefs received ratings from "good" (three platforms) to "weak" (kimi).

The disagreement pattern is consistent: platforms with search enabled and successful official-site retrieval reported detailed, verifiable evidence, while platforms with failed official-site retrieval or no search reported uncertainty. Deepseek, grok, and kimi reported official-site retrieval failures for Profound, Peec AI, Otterly.AI, Scrunch, CheckThat, and Athena HQ. This is a methodology limitation, not evidence that those entities lack capabilities.

Platforms also disagreed on pricing.

How Buyers Should Choose

Questions This Section Answers

• What should a B2B buyer check before choosing an AI visibility platform for vendor-discovery and buying-journey prompts?
• Which AI visibility platform has the lowest published entry cost for a B2B pilot, and what fees apply?

Start with the buyer situation, not the ranking. The ranking reflects how often platforms named each entity, not which entity is best for every buyer.

For enterprise B2B teams ($50M+ ARR) with dedicated AEO staff and procurement requirements, Profound is the consensus leader and the only entity in this index with SOC 2 Type II, SSO, role-based access, and dedicated strategist support described across multiple platforms. Verify Enterprise pricing, data-retention policy, and GA4 integration before committing.

For mid-market B2B teams ($2M–$50M ARR) needing daily prompt tracking and citation gap analysis, Peec AI is the strongest alternative. Budget for model add-ons if the team needs more than three engines. Verify whether citation tracking is included at the tier being quoted.

For teams validating AI visibility for the first time, Otterly.AI Lite at $29/month is the lowest-cost credible entry point. Budget for the Standard tier at $189/month if the team needs more than 15 prompts or API access. .

Methodology

This index was built from one standardized prompt sent once to each of 7 included platforms: openai, anthropic, deepseek, grok, perplexity, kimi, and google. The prompt asked which AI visibility platforms would be recommended for a B2B company that needs prompt-level recommendation data, competitor analysis, citation intelligence, historical tracking, and reporting that reflects a B2B buying journey.

Entities were eligible if named by at least two platforms during ranking discovery. The final ranking order is based on platform mentions, then average listed rank, then best listed rank. 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 count platforms that later completed a fit assessment. All included platforms evaluated fit, but platform_mentions counts only platforms that named the entity during ranking discovery.

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 entity evidence bundles provide that information.

Methodology Limitations

The 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. Platform recommendations are market intelligence, not independent customer reviews or proof of quality.

Platform-reported research dates differ from the authoritative run date for some platforms. Deepseek reported 2026-01-05, 2026-01-15, and 2026-06-01 across entity bundles. Kimi reported 2026-06-30 for Otterly.AI. Those dates are provenance metadata and do not independently prove freshness.

Official-site retrieval failed for one or more mentions for Profound, Peec AI, Otterly.AI, Scrunch, CheckThat, Athena HQ, SE Ranking, and Ahrefs. No failed fetch was used as a verified domain key. The deterministic identity audit contains qualification notes that must be disclosed where relevant.

Company-owned citations materially outnumber independent citations for Semrush and CheckThat. Do not describe company claims as independently verified.

No-search model claims require explicit verification before being described as current facts. Deepseek operated with search disabled in this run.

Final Verdict

Profound is the consensus leader for B2B companies tracking how often AI systems recommend them, named by 6 of 7 platforms at an average listed position of 2.17. Peec AI is the strongest mid-market alternative, named by 5 of 7 platforms. Otterly.AI is the lowest-cost credible entry point at $29/month. Semrush is the best fit for teams already running SEO in that suite. Scrunch is the strongest option for citation intelligence plus crawler-side attribution. CheckThat is the only option with a substantial free tier built around a prebuilt B2B prompt library. Athena HQ offers the broadest advertised model coverage at a single self-serve tier. SE Ranking and Ahrefs are best for teams already invested in those SEO ecosystems.

No platform in this index closes the loop from AI visibility to pipeline or revenue. Buyers should treat visibility metrics as directional measurement and verify pricing, engine coverage, historical retention, and contract terms directly with each vendor before committing.