Best White-Label AI Visibility Platforms for Agencies

Answer Capsule

LLM Pulse is the consensus leader among white-label AI visibility platforms for agencies in this 7-platform study, named by 4 of 7 platforms (57.1%) at an average listed position of 2.75 and a best position of 1. Peec AI ties on mentions (4 of 7, 57.1%) but ranks second on average position (3.5). Rank Prompt holds the strongest average listed position of any qualifier (2.33) but was named by only 3 platforms. For distinct buyer needs, Trakkr is the clearest fit for agencies that require a fully branded client portal with zero vendor branding, Profound is the strongest fit for large agencies serving enterprise clients with SOC 2 and compliance requirements, and Otterly AI is the most limited fit because it states it does not offer native white-labeling. Ten entities qualified by being named by at least two platforms. The principal limitation: this study used one standardized prompt sent once to each of 7 platforms, and most supporting evidence is company-owned rather than independently verified.

Research Snapshot

• Topic: White-label AI visibility and LLM monitoring platforms for agencies
• Target buyer: Agencies that need white-label AI search, audit, visibility, or reporting capabilities for client delivery
• Platforms included (7): openai, anthropic, deepseek, grok, perplexity, kimi, google
• Research date: 2026-09-19
• Unique entities named across platforms: 45
• Qualifying entities: 10
• Eligibility rule: Named by at least two platforms during ranking discovery
• Geography: United States
• Ranking unit: Agency or consulting partner

Platform mentions count only ranking-discovery mentions. All 7 included platforms later completed a fit assessment, but that is a separate measure from the mention counts shown in the ranking table.

The Consensus Ranking

Questions This Section Answers

• What are the best white-label AI visibility platforms for agencies in 2026?
• Which white-label AI visibility platform was named by the most AI platforms in this study?
• Which white-label AI visibility platforms qualify for an agency shortlist based on multi-platform consensus?

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

Questions This Section Answers

• Which white-label AI visibility platform should an agency choose if it needs a fully branded client portal with no vendor branding?
• Which platform is best for an agency that needs transparent self-serve pricing rather than a custom enterprise quote?
• Which white-label AI visibility platform should an agency pick if it serves enterprise clients requiring SOC 2 compliance?

1. LLM Pulse

Questions This Section Answers

• Is LLM Pulse worth it for agencies that need white-label AI visibility reporting, and what are its main drawbacks?
• Which LLM Pulse plan should an agency choose for branded multi-client dashboards versus embedded dashboards?
• What should an agency verify before buying LLM Pulse for white-label client delivery?

LLM Pulse ranked first because it was named by 4 of 7 platforms (57.1%) at an average listed position of 2.75, with a best position of 1. It was the only entity to receive a best-position ranking of 1 from more than one platform while also appearing on more than half of all platforms.

Verdict. LLM Pulse is a good fit for US agencies seeking white-label AI visibility delivery, with Full Whitelabel as the clearest match for branded multi-client dashboards and Embed Integration better suited to agencies with an existing client portal or SaaS product ^[1]. Anthropic rated it strong, calling it purpose-built for agency resale with three white-label tiers, unlimited seats, and exportable reporting on self-serve plans starting at €49/month ^[2]. Deepseek rated it uncertain, noting that public evidence about agency white-label capabilities and pricing was too limited to confirm ^[3]. That split is the central tension: the platform's agency positioning is consistent across platforms, but the commercial terms for full white-label are not.

Why it ranked here. Four platforms named LLM Pulse during ranking discovery, and three of those four placed it in the top three. Its average listed position of 2.75 is the second-best among entities with four or more mentions. The ranking reflects broad recognition of its agency-specific white-label tiers rather than a single platform's enthusiasm.

Best suited for. Agencies packaging AI-search visibility monitoring as a recurring client service; agencies needing branded multi-client dashboards rather than only downloadable reports; agencies that want prompt, citation, sentiment, recommendation, and competitor tracking in one platform; and agencies or SaaS providers that need embedded dashboards through iframe and JWT authentication ^[1].

Main strengths for this use case. LLM Pulse offers three white-label tiers: Partial White-Label with a branded subdomain and visible "Powered by LLM Pulse" attribution, Full White-Label with a custom domain and no LLM Pulse branding, and Embed Integration using a secure iframe with JWT authentication, domain allowlisting, and customizable colors and fonts ^[1]. Multi-client dashboards and unlimited seats are standard on all self-serve plans, with no Enterprise contract required for basic multi-client setup ^[4]. The platform tracks citations, share of voice, sentiment, competitor benchmarking, and recommendations, and it supports a Looker Studio connector with a ready-made template, CSV and Excel exports, REST API access, and an MCP server ^[5].

2. Peec AI

Questions This Section Answers

• Is Peec AI or LLM Pulse better for an agency that needs white-label client delivery?
• Which Peec AI agency plan should a buyer choose for multi-client monitoring with competitor benchmarking?
• What should an agency verify about Peec AI's white-label scope before buying?

Peec AI ranked second with 4 platform mentions (57.1%), an average listed position of 3.5, and a best position of 2.

Verdict. Peec AI is a good fit for agencies managing multiple clients who prioritize competitive benchmarking, citation tracking, and exportable reporting via CSV, Looker Studio, or API ^[6]. It is a conditional purchase for strict white-label requirements: public pages describe agency-branded reporting and dashboards, but do not clearly establish whether every client-facing interface, domain, email, and exported artifact can be fully rebranded ^[7]. Anthropic stated plainly that Peec does not offer a native white-label dashboard or client-facing portal on self-serve or standard agency plans, and that white-label reporting relies on export-to-BI, manual Looker Studio builds, or MCP-driven generation ^[8].

Why it ranked here. Peec AI tied LLM Pulse on platform mentions but placed lower on average listed position (3.5 versus 2.75). Its best position of 2 came from Deepseek, while Anthropic placed it 6th. The ranking reflects strong recognition of its agency packaging and benchmarking depth, offset by platform disagreement about its white-label credentials.

Best suited for. Boutique agencies managing 3–10 clients with competitive benchmarking as a core selling point; agencies serving international clients requiring 115+ language and multi-country tracking; teams already using Google's analytics stack with native Looker Studio integration; and multi-brand tracking where citation sources and competitor comparisons drive client stories ^[6].

Main strengths for this use case. Agency plans organize clients as separate isolated projects with client-specific prompts, competitors, and channels, and agency pages state that client seats are unlimited with client data isolated ^[7]. Peec AI reports cited and accessed sources at domain and URL levels and identifies sources influencing tracked AI answers, distinguishing source usage from explicit visible citations ^[9]. The platform provides prioritized recommendations involving owned content, editorial coverage, reference sites, UGC communities, content gaps, and citation opportunities ^[10]. Agency plans include pitch workspaces and co-branded initiative tools to support client pitches ^[11]. Credits are allocated per prompt × model × frequency and do not expire or reset monthly ^[12].

Main limitations. No native white-label dashboard or client portal on standard plans; white-label delivery requires export-to-BI build, manual Looker Studio configuration, or third-party MCP workflows ^[8]. Self-serve brand plans include only 3 of 6 standard models, with additional models costing €30–€140/month ^[13]. API access is gated to Enterprise and agency Scale/Comprehensive tiers ^[14].

3. Rank Prompt

Questions This Section Answers

• Is Rank Prompt worth it for agencies that need white-label reports and client portals, and what are its main drawbacks?
• Does the Rank Prompt Agency plan include the white-label client portal, or is Agency Plus required?
• How does Rank Prompt's per-brand pricing compare with other white-label AI visibility platforms for agencies?

Rank Prompt ranked third with 3 platform mentions (42.9%), the strongest average listed position of any qualifier at 2.33, and a best position of 1.

Verdict. Rank Prompt is a good fit for agencies that need a relatively low-cost, multi-brand AI-visibility monitoring and client-reporting platform with white-label delivery ^[15]. Agency Plus is the stronger fit when the agency needs a branded client portal, client logins, cross-brand operations, approvals, prospecting, and an agency-wide dashboard ^[16]. Google rated it strong, describing it as an agency-first platform combining AI visibility tracking across six engines with workflow tools and highly customizable white-label structures ^[17]. Deepseek rated it mixed, stating that the site does not mention white-label dashboards, custom domains, or client portals and that the offering appears to be monitoring-only with shared reporting ^[18].

Why it ranked here. Rank Prompt received the best average listed position in the study (2.33) because Anthropic and Google both placed it 1st. It ranked third overall only because it was named by 3 platforms rather than 4. Its best position of 1 is shared with LLM Pulse and Profound.

Best suited for. Digital marketing agencies managing 10–50 small-to-mid-market client brands needing AI visibility as an add-on service; agencies selling recurring GEO retainers who need white-label reports and multi-brand dashboards in one platform; and service providers emphasizing per-brand economics and automation over enterprise-grade features ^[19].

Main strengths for this use case. The Agency plan covers up to 500 brands and Agency Plus up to 1,000 brands, both with unified cross-brand dashboards, heatmaps, trend tracking, and competitor intelligence ^[19]. White-label PDF exports carry agency branding including logo, colors, business name, and reply-to email, with automated scheduling for daily, weekly, or monthly delivery ^[20]. Agency Plus adds a no-login magic-link client portal showing reports, pending approvals, and client-specific content ^[21]. The platform monitors six AI engines — ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Mode, Claude, Gemini, and Grok — in a single visibility score with per-engine breakdown ^[22]. Per-brand economics are strong: $149/month for 500 brands on Agency and $299/month for 1,000 brands on Agency Plus works out to roughly $0.30 per brand per month ^[23].

Main limitations. Monthly credit allowances constrain prompt monitoring, content generation, and certain audits, and credits reset without rolling over ^[15]. The public pricing page contains inconsistent monthly-price presentations, creating procurement ambiguity ^[15].

4. Ayzeo

Questions This Section Answers

• Is Ayzeo worth it for agencies that need branded PDF reports and an optional branded client dashboard?
• What is the total monthly cost of Ayzeo for an agency tracking multiple AI engines across several clients?
• Which Ayzeo plan should an agency choose if it needs API access or custom domains?

Ayzeo ranked fourth with 3 platform mentions (42.9%), an average listed position of 3.33, and a best position of 2.

Verdict. Ayzeo is a good fit for agencies that prioritize branded PDF AI-visibility reporting, project-based client management, competitor and citation analysis, and an optional branded dashboard ^[24]. The Pro-plus-dashboard configuration is commercially relevant at $448/month before scale-related add-ons ^[24]. Anthropic rated it strong, noting that the Pro Plan delivers multi-client management, white-label PDF reports, competitor benchmarking, citation tracking, and unlimited team seats ^[25]. Deepseek rated it uncertain, stating that the assessment rests almost entirely on vendor claims and one agency-side source, and that pricing could not be verified against Ayzeo's own published page ^[26].

Why it ranked here. Three platforms named Ayzeo, with Anthropic placing it 2nd and Kimi placing it 2nd, while Grok placed it 6th. Its average listed position of 3.33 reflects that split. The ranking reflects recognition of its white-label PDF reporting at the Pro tier rather than a fully native white-label application.

Best suited for. Small and midsize agencies packaging AI-visibility monitoring or GEO audits into recurring client services; agencies that primarily need branded PDF reports and optional branded dashboard access; and multi-client teams that can model each client as a separate project and accept per-project pricing ^[24].

Main strengths for this use case. White-label PDF reports are included on the Pro plan with no Ayzeo branding — agency logo, company name, primary color, footer text, and contact information are fully customizable, with two report templates and unlimited monthly report generation ^[27]. The Pro plan includes three client projects with additional projects at $49/month each, and each project maintains independent branding and role-based permissions ^[25]. Unlimited team seats are included on all paid plans ^[28]. The platform combines monitoring with optimization tooling including technical audits, JSON-LD schema generation, LLMs.txt generation, meta-tag optimization, and a WordPress plugin ^[29]. Pro includes native GA4 and Search Console integration ^[30].

Main limitations. The branded dashboard requires a $299/month add-on on Pro, making the effective white-label configuration $448/month before extra projects and engine add-ons ^[31]. Base plans include only ChatGPT and Google AI Overviews; Claude, Perplexity, Gemini, DeepSeek, and Grok each cost $29/month per model per project ^[32]. Pro includes 40 prompts per project, expandable via Prompt Packs at $15/month per pack for 10 additional prompts ^[33].

5. Profound

Questions This Section Answers

• Is Profound worth it for agencies that need white-label client portals, and what are its main drawbacks?
• Which Profound plan should a large agency choose for multi-client monitoring, and what does each client workspace cost?
• Does Profound offer native white-label reporting for agencies, or is it enterprise-only?

Profound ranked fifth with 3 platform mentions (42.9%), an average listed position of 5.33, and a best position of 1.

Verdict. Profound is a mixed fit for agencies whose core requirement is a fully rebranded client-facing platform ^[34]. It is potentially a strong underlying enterprise AI-visibility system for agencies needing multi-client monitoring, broad answer-engine coverage, competitor analysis, tailored prompt tracking, and dedicated support ^[35]. Deepseek rated it weak, stating that white-label support is enterprise-only, multi-client management and scalable prompt monitoring are absent from public plans, and competitors offer more complete white-label features at lower price points ^[36]. Anthropic rated it good for large agencies with enterprise budgets but not for portfolio-scale agencies due to per-client workspace costs ^[37].

Why it ranked here. Profound received a best position of 1 from Deepseek but was placed 10th by Anthropic and 5th by Google, producing an average listed position of 5.33. The wide spread reflects genuine disagreement about whether Profound belongs on an agency white-label shortlist at all.

Best suited for. Large agencies or holding companies serving enterprise clients in regulated industries requiring SOC 2 and compliance certifications; in-house teams at Fortune 500 companies managing AI visibility at scale; and agencies with clients willing to pay premium retainers and valuing Profound's 10+ engine coverage and Conversation Explorer feature ^[38].

Main strengths for this use case. Profound's multi-tenant architecture supports agency reselling at the enterprise tier, and the Agency Growth model enables separate pitch and client workspaces ^[39]. The platform tracks 10+ AI engines including ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, Gemini, Claude, and Copilot ^[40]. It includes citation accuracy scoring, citation tracking by platform, sentiment analysis, share-of-voice views across named competitors, and competitive benchmarking ^[41]. Enterprise tier lists SOC 2 compliance, SSO/SAML, dedicated Slack support, and up to nine answer engines ^[35]. Conversation Explorer surfaces how often topics are discussed inside AI engines, drawing on more than a billion real user conversations ^[42].

Main limitations. Full white-label client portals, custom-domain branding, vendor-neutral client login, and branded automated reports are not expressly confirmed in reviewed official materials ^[34]. Enterprise pricing is not public, so agency unit economics and margins cannot be assessed from published information ^[35]. Per-client workspace cost of $399/month makes portfolio economics unfavorable for agencies with 10–50 mid-market clients ^[37].

6. Geneo

Questions This Section Answers

• Is Geneo worth it for agencies launching a branded GEO service, and what are its main drawbacks?
• How many credits does Geneo consume per prompt run, and what happens when credits are exhausted?
• Which Geneo agency plan should a buyer choose for a specific number of client seats?

Geneo ranked sixth with 2 platform mentions (28.6%), an average listed position of 2.0, and a best position of 2.

Verdict. Geneo is a good fit for agencies needing branded, multi-client AI-visibility monitoring and client reporting, with its strongest evidence for white-label portals, custom domains, client workspaces, prompt monitoring, competitor comparisons, citation tracking, and exportable reports ^[43]. Google rated it strong, describing it as a highly strong fit for agencies launching high-margin GEO services with dedicated agency plans starting at $129/month including fully white-labeled client portals and custom domain CNAME configurations ^[44]. Kimi rated it uncertain, reporting that the official website could not be verified for content, product offerings, or pricing and that the recommended plan names and prices could not be validated ^[45].

Why it ranked here. Geneo achieved the best average listed position of any entity named by exactly two platforms (2.0), because both Google and Grok placed it 2nd. It ranked sixth overall because only 2 of 7 platforms named it. Its ranking reflects strong placement among the platforms that recognized it rather than broad consensus.

Best suited for. Agencies launching branded AI visibility retainer services for clients; SEO and digital agencies adding GEO as a high-margin service line; small to mid-size agencies managing 10–50 client accounts; and teams prioritizing clean white-label client portals over engine breadth ^[46].

Main strengths for this use case. Geneo provides a client portal on the agency's domain with agency logo and colors, white-label dashboards, customized reports, and automated report delivery ^[43]. Custom domain setup requires a simple CNAME record change and typically takes less than 5 minutes, with SSL certificates handled automatically ^[46]. Each client gets an isolated profile for prompts, competitors, and reports while the agency retains centralized oversight ^[47]. The platform tracks brand mentions, citation sources, sentiment, and share of voice across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, and Gemini ^[48]. Agency Growth is listed at $249/month with 15,000 credits and 15 client seats, and Agency Scale at $499/month with 50,000 credits and unlimited client seats ^[43].

Main limitations. Credit consumption per prompt, engine, rerun, historical query, and report is not clearly documented ^[49].

7. Trakkr

Questions This Section Answers

• Is Trakkr worth it for agencies that need a fully white-label client portal, and what are its main drawbacks?
• Is white-label included in the Trakkr Scale plan, or is it billed per branded client portal?
• How many brands and prompts does the Trakkr Scale plan include, and what do additional brands cost?

Trakkr ranked seventh with 2 platform mentions (28.6%), an average listed position of 3.5, and a best position of 3.

Verdict. Trakkr is a good fit for agencies seeking a self-serve, multi-client AI visibility platform with white-label portals, client access, competitor comparisons, citation tracking, exports, and API access ^[50]. Anthropic rated it strong, describing it as the only platform currently offering full white-label support with custom domain, branded client login portals, client emails from the agency domain, and zero Trakkr branding anywhere ^[51]. The main qualification is that the agency Scale plan is limited to 10 included brands and 50 prompts per brand, with larger portfolios requiring extra-brand charges or Enterprise pricing ^[52].

Why it ranked here. Trakkr was named by 2 platforms, with Grok placing it 3rd and Perplexity placing it 4th. Its average listed position of 3.5 is the best among entities named by exactly two platforms after Geneo. The ranking reflects strong recognition of its white-label depth among the platforms that named it.

Best suited for. Agencies managing approximately 3–10 client brands that need branded client access and recurring visibility reporting; agencies selling AI search audits, citation monitoring, competitor comparisons, and visibility retainers; and teams needing daily monitoring across multiple AI models with API and export options ^[50].

Main strengths for this use case. The Agency Scale offering includes a custom domain with SSL, agency branding, branded client logins, emails from the agency domain, unlimited client seats, white-label PDF reports, and no Trakkr branding ^[50]. Agencies can group brands by client, scope access to individual brands, invite clients to groups, and use unlimited team seats ^[50]. Scale includes daily tracking for 10 brands, 50 prompts per brand, and eight included AI surfaces: ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, Grok, DeepSeek, and Meta AI ^[52]. The platform tracks citation sources, perception analysis, competitor comparisons, win/loss tracking, threat alerts, model breakdowns, and visibility rankings ^[53]. Scale includes REST API access, and the agency page states that full API access is included ^[50].

Main limitations. Scale includes 10 brands and 50 prompts per brand; larger portfolios may require additional-brand fees or Enterprise pricing ^[52]. Pricing is presented inconsistently between the agency page and general pricing page, requiring confirmation of the actual US checkout amount ^[52]. Historical scores start fresh when importing existing prompts during the trial ^[52].

8. Surva.ai

Questions This Section Answers

• Is Surva.ai worth it for agencies that need branded client portals and digest emails, and what are its main drawbacks?
• Is Surva.ai's Agency Mode included with the Business plan or sold as a separate $99/month add-on?
• How many brands and prompts does the Surva.ai Business plan include for agency use?

Surva.ai ranked eighth with 2 platform mentions (28.6%), an average listed position of 5.0, and a best position of 3.

Verdict. Surva.ai is a good fit for agencies that want a self-serve, white-label AI-visibility delivery platform combining multi-client workspaces, prompt monitoring, competitor intelligence, citation tracking, AI audits, branded reporting, and prospecting ^[54]. Google rated it strong, describing it as an exceptionally strong, end-to-end white-label AI visibility tool specifically tailored for agencies ^[55]. Kimi rated it uncertain, reporting that the official agency page failed to load and that no independent sources, directories, or reviews document its features, pricing, or white-label capabilities ^[56].

Why it ranked here. Surva.ai was named by 2 platforms, with Perplexity placing it 3rd and Grok placing it 7th. Its average listed position of 5.0 reflects that spread. The ranking reflects recognition of its integrated prospecting and white-label workflow rather than broad consensus.

Best suited for. SEO, content, and digital agencies adding AI-search visibility as a recurring client service; agencies needing branded client portals, PDF reports, digest emails, and custom-domain delivery; and agencies managing multiple client brands from one account and selling AI-visibility audits or retainers ^[54].

Main strengths for this use case. Agency Mode removes Surva.ai branding from client-facing login pages, dashboards, PDF reports, and digest emails, with agency logos, colors, custom domains or subdomains, and branded sender domains ^[54]. The Business plan is described as including unlimited client sub-accounts, separate client workspaces, one-click brand switching, portfolio roll-up reporting, and isolated client data ^[57]. The platform tracks competitor positioning, brand mentions, citations, response sentiment, citation sources, and which competitors appear for client prompts ^[54]. The Business plan includes AI SEO audits covering up to 1,000 pages and 30 audits per month, citation-source analysis, 60 generated articles per month, CMS publishing, API access, and alert streams ^[57]. A Prospect Finder tool and built-in CRM allow agencies to run free AI visibility audits on prospective clients and convert won prospects into active brands with a single click ^[58].

Main limitations. Agency Mode pricing is inconsistent: the agency page mentions a $99/month flat add-on while the pricing page says it is included with the $299/month Business plan at no extra cost ^[57].

9. Otterly AI

Questions This Section Answers

• Is Otterly AI worth it for agencies that need native white-label client delivery, and what are its main drawbacks?
• How much does Otterly AI cost for an agency tracking multiple clients, and what do additional prompts and engines cost?
• Does Otterly AI offer a native white-label option, or must agencies use Looker Studio?

Otterly AI ranked ninth with 2 platform mentions (28.6%), an average listed position of 7.0, and a best position of 5.

Verdict. Otterly AI is a mixed fit. It has strong multi-client monitoring, prompt tracking, competitor comparison, citation analysis, recommendations, workspaces, exports, APIs, and agency reporting workflows, but it does not provide native white-labeling of its own interface, branding, or URLs ^[59]. Client-facing white-label delivery requires Looker Studio and agency implementation ^[60]. Grok rated it strong, describing it as a strong fit for agencies needing multi-client AI search monitoring, competitor tracking, citation analysis, and white-label Looker Studio reporting ^[61]. Perplexity rated it mixed, stating that it is a weak fit if native white-label delivery is a hard requirement because Otterly states it does not currently offer a native white-label option ^[62].

Why it ranked here. Otterly AI was named by 2 platforms, with Deepseek placing it 5th and Anthropic placing it 9th. Its average listed position of 7.0 is tied with Scrunch AI for the lowest among qualifiers. The ranking reflects the platform's explicit statement that native white-labeling is unavailable, which is a direct mismatch with the buyer's core requirement.

Best suited for. Agencies that need scalable AI-search visibility monitoring across multiple clients; agencies comfortable delivering branded dashboards through Google Looker Studio rather than reselling a fully white-labeled application; and agencies needing competitor, citation, recommendation, and prompt-level reporting ^[63].

Main strengths for this use case. Standard and Premium include unlimited workspaces and unlimited brand reports, with workspaces separating each client's brands, prompts, reports, and team access ^[63]. The Agency Partner program increases the included prompt allowance to 150 on Standard and 500 on Premium while retaining unlimited workspaces ^[64]. Prompt detail analysis reports competitor rankings, brand coverage, AI responses, cited URLs, citation frequency, domain categories, and competitor presence ^[65]. Recommendations analyzes cited websites, successful competitors, and mentioned brands to produce prioritized actions with filtering by country and AI search engine ^[66]. Standard and Premium list API access, MCP access, Agent Analytics, and Looker Studio connectivity, with response-level data exportable in CSV or JSON ^[63].

Main limitations. Otterly AI states that it does not currently offer native white-labeling; its interface, branding, and URLs cannot be customized to show the agency's identity ^[59]. White-label reporting depends on Looker Studio and therefore requires configuration, maintenance, and potentially separate tooling ^[60].

10. Scrunch AI

Questions This Section Answers

• Is Scrunch AI worth it for agencies that need white-label client delivery, and what are its main drawbacks?
• What does Scrunch AI's Agency Core plan cost, and how many brands and prompts does it include?
• Which AI models does Scrunch AI monitor on its agency plan, and are Claude and Gemini included?

Scrunch AI ranked tenth with 2 platform mentions (28.6%), an average listed position of 7.0, and a best position of 6.

Verdict. Scrunch AI is a good fit for agencies that need multi-client AI-search monitoring, competitor and citation analysis, prospecting workspaces, API access, and white-label outputs ^[67]. Fit is weaker for agencies requiring broad model coverage, fully transparent enterprise pricing, or independently verified client-reporting depth ^[68]. Google rated it strong, describing it as a top-tier white-label AI visibility platform specifically engineered for agency environments ^[69]. Kimi rated it uncertain, stating that Scrunch AI's core product is an influencer marketing and audience intelligence platform, not an AI search visibility or GEO platform ^[70].

Why it ranked here. Scrunch AI was named by 2 platforms, with Deepseek placing it 6th and Google placing it 8th. Its average listed position of 7.0 is tied with Otterly AI for the lowest among qualifiers. The ranking reflects recognition of its agency positioning and prospecting tools, offset by unresolved questions about white-label depth and pricing transparency.

Best suited for. Agencies packaging AI-visibility audits and recurring monitoring for several clients; agencies that need prospecting or pitch environments before a client is won; agencies building their own dashboards or client portals through API and white-label outputs; and teams prioritizing competitor mentions, citations, position, sentiment, and share-of-voice analysis ^[67].

Main strengths for this use case. Scrunch markets multi-client workspaces that allow agencies to manage multiple clients and brands from one workspace ^[67]. The platform states that its API-first architecture can power agency dashboards and fully white-label outputs for clients ^[67]. It supports tracked seed prompts and platform-specific prompt variants, with visibility metrics across supported AI platforms ^[71]. Competitor comparison spans mentions, citations, position, sentiment, and response context, and the Suggested Competitors feature can identify competitors from prompt responses and backfill historical data ^[72]. Scrunch offers prospecting environments intended for demonstrations and pitch workflows ^[67]. GA4 integration tracks which AI crawlers visit a site, which pages they access, and how that traffic trends ^[73].

Main limitations. Agency pricing and limits are not fully displayed in the official pricing-page search result and rely partly on an independent review ^[68]. Self-serve coverage may be limited to four AI models; broader nine-model coverage appears tied to Enterprise ^[68].

What the Cross-Platform Study Reveals About This Market

Questions This Section Answers

• What does the cross-platform study reveal about how white-label AI visibility platforms differ for agencies?
• Which white-label AI visibility platforms offer native white-labeling versus Looker Studio workarounds?
• How much do white-label AI visibility platforms for agencies cost across the market?

Three structural patterns emerge from the evidence bundles.

First, "white-label" means at least three different things in this market. At one end, Trakkr and Geneo describe custom domains, branded client logins, and zero vendor branding as included features ^[74]. In the middle, LLM Pulse and Rank Prompt offer tiered white-labeling where full brand removal is available but may require a higher plan or a custom quote ^[76]. At the other end, Otterly AI states plainly that it does not offer native white-labeling and that agencies must build branded dashboards in Looker Studio ^[78]. Peec AI and Profound sit in an ambiguous zone where agency-branded reporting is claimed but native client portals are not publicly documented ^[79]. Buyers who treat "white-label" as a single feature will misjudge fit.

Second, pricing models diverge sharply and are frequently inconsistent across a vendor's own pages. LLM Pulse publishes a transparent EUR ladder from €49 to €1,199/month ^[81].

Where the AI Platforms Agreed

Questions This Section Answers

• Which white-label AI visibility platforms did the AI platforms agree on for agency use?
• What capabilities do most white-label AI visibility platforms for agencies share?

Agreement was strongest on four points.

LLM Pulse and Peec AI belong on every agency shortlist. Both were named by 4 of 7 platforms, the highest mention counts in the study. No other entity exceeded 3 mentions. Even platforms that rated them with caveats placed them in the top tier during ranking discovery.

Multi-client management is now table stakes. Every qualifying entity's evidence bundle describes some form of multi-client or multi-brand management: separate projects, workspaces, sub-accounts, or brand groups ^[82]. The differentiation has shifted from whether a platform supports multiple clients to how it isolates their data, scopes access, and prices the second, fifth, and twentieth client.

Competitor comparison and citation tracking are standard. Every qualifier's bundle describes competitor benchmarking and citation or source tracking in some form ^[92].

Where the AI Platforms Disagreed

Questions This Section Answers

• Which white-label AI visibility platforms received conflicting ratings across AI platforms, and why?
• Is Peec AI or Profound a better fit for agencies that need white-label client delivery?

Disagreement was material on five points, and buyers should treat each as an open question rather than a settled fact.

Peec AI's white-label status. Grok stated that white-label reporting and branded client delivery are supported on agency plans with client portals and dashboards in agency branding ^[101]. Anthropic and Google both stated that Peec AI does not feature a native, hostname-bound, in-app white-labeled client portal and that white-label relies on Looker Studio or MCP workflows ^[102]. Perplexity noted that one third-party review explicitly says no white-label reporting is offered ^[104]. This is a direct factual conflict, not a difference of emphasis.

Profound's category fit. Deepseek placed Profound 1st and rated it weak, arguing that competitors offer more complete white-label features at lower prices ^[105]. Anthropic placed it 10th and rated it good only for large enterprise-budget agencies ^[106]. Google stated that Profound completely lacks native white-label branding, custom domains, or scheduled reporting ^[107]. Kimi reported that no direct verified information on Profound's product features, pricing, or white-label capabilities was found ^[108].

How Buyers Should Choose

Questions This Section Answers

• What should an agency check before choosing a white-label AI visibility platform for client delivery?
• Which white-label AI visibility platform should an agency choose if it needs a custom domain and branded client logins?
• How should an agency compare total cost across white-label AI visibility platforms when engine add-ons apply?

Start with the white-label definition, not the feature list. Ask each vendor to specify in writing whether white-labeling includes a custom domain, logo and color control, removal of vendor branding from emails and exports, client logins, and separate client permissions. Otterly AI's public documentation states that native white-labeling is unavailable, which disqualifies it for agencies whose core requirement is a fully branded application ^[109]. Peec AI's public pages describe agency-branded reporting but do not clearly establish whether every client-facing surface can be rebranded ^[110]. Trakkr and Geneo describe custom domains and branded client logins as included features, but Trakkr's white-label fee structure is described inconsistently across sources ^[111].

Then price the actual configuration. Headline plan prices rarely reflect the total cost for an agency tracking multiple engines across multiple clients. Ayzeo's Pro plan at $149/month becomes $448/month with the branded dashboard add-on, before engine add-ons at $29/month per model per project ^[113].

Methodology

This study used one standardized prompt sent once to each of 7 included platforms: openai, anthropic, deepseek, grok, perplexity, kimi, and google. The prompt asked which white-label AI visibility platforms the platform would recommend for a marketing or SEO agency that needs multi-client management, scalable prompt monitoring, competitor comparisons, citation and recommendation tracking, exportable reporting, and white-label or client-facing functionality.

The research date is 2026-09-19. Platform-reported research dates are provenance metadata and do not independently prove freshness. One platform reported a different research date for its response, and that discrepancy is disclosed as a methodology limitation.

Entities qualified for the ranking if they were named by at least two platforms during ranking discovery. Forty-five unique entities were named across all platforms, and 10 qualified. 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. All 7 included platforms later completed a fit assessment, but that is a separate measure from the mention counts shown in the ranking table.

Citations are platform-reported evidence, not independently verified facts. Company-owned citations materially outnumber independent citations across the evidence bundles. The supplied URLs were collected from platform responses and were not independently validated by the writer stage.

Methodology Limitations

Several limitations apply to this study and should be weighed before acting on the ranking.

Single prompt, single run. The study used one standardized prompt sent once to each platform. AI answers can vary by date, wording, location, account state, model, interface, browsing configuration, and the sources retrieved. A different prompt or a repeat run could produce a different ranking.

Platform-reported research dates differ from the authoritative run date. One platform reported a research date that differs from the 2026-09-19 run date. Platform-reported dates are provenance metadata and do not independently prove freshness.

Company-owned sources dominate. Across the evidence bundles, company-owned citations materially outnumber independent citations. Company claims should not be described as independently verified.

Identity normalization issues. The deterministic identity audit flagged unresolved identity issues for several entities, including conflicting official domains for Profound and failed official-site retrieval for Peec AI, Geneo, Surva.ai, and others. Where official-site retrieval failed, no failed fetch was used as a verified domain key.

Pricing and plan details conflict across sources. Multiple entities have internally inconsistent pricing or plan information across their own pages, including Geneo, Surva.ai, Trakkr, and Rank Prompt. These conflicts are described in the relevant ranked sections rather than resolved by guessing.

Platform recommendations are market intelligence, not customer reviews. The platforms' recommendations reflect their training data, retrieval configuration, and ranking behavior. They are not independent customer reviews or proof of product quality. .

Final Verdict

LLM Pulse is the consensus leader among white-label AI visibility platforms for agencies in this 7-platform study, named by 4 of 7 platforms at an average listed position of 2.75 with a best position of 1. It combines three white-label tiers, multi-client dashboards, unlimited seats on self-serve plans, and a transparent EUR pricing ladder from €49 to €1,199/month, with the main caveats being quote-based full white-label pricing, unverified SOC 2 status, and EUR-denominated billing for US buyers.

Peec AI ties on mentions but ranks second on average position, and its white-label status is the most contested finding in the study. Rank Prompt holds the strongest average listed position of any qualifier and the best per-brand economics, but its client portal is gated to Agency Plus and independent corroboration is thin. Ayzeo offers the lowest-cost path to branded PDF reports with an optional branded dashboard. Profound is the strongest fit for enterprise compliance requirements but the weakest fit for portfolio-scale white-label delivery. Geneo, Trakkr, and Surva.ai each offer native white-label features at accessible price points, with Trakkr the clearest match for agencies that require zero vendor branding. Otterly AI and Scrunch AI round out the list with material caveats: Otterly AI states it does not offer native white-labeling, and Scrunch AI's category fit is disputed.

Buyers should treat this index as a shortlist generator, not a purchase decision.