Otterly.ai vs Profound
 Otterly.ai |  Profound | |
|---|---|---|
| Sentiment | ||
| Score | 39/100 | 17/100 |
| Rank in category | #3 | #4 |
| Rated comments | 11 | 10 |
| Best for | Smaller teams that want a low-cost, self-serve starting point for AI-answer visibility tracking; Teams that mainly need monitoring alerts and a regular read on prompt-level visibility | Larger brands with an enterprise budget that want a broad AI visibility tracker with a consistent week-over-week metric |
| Skip it if | Anyone who needs AI share-of-voice figures they can report as precise numbers; Teams tracking a large prompt set on a fixed budget | Small teams or agencies on a tight monthly budget; Buyers who need prompt sets and prompt-volume figures they can verify |
| Starting price | $29/mo | Custom pricing |
| Pricing (vendor-stated) | From $29/mo (Lite, 15 search prompts) billed monthly, or $25/mo billed annually; Standard $189/mo (100 prompts), Premium $489/mo (400 prompts), Enterprise custom from 1,000 prompts. Free trial for new users; no free plan. | No public price for brands: a free 7-day trial (50 preset prompts run daily on ChatGPT, Gemini and Google AI Overviews), then Enterprise at custom, sales-led pricing. For agencies, the self-serve Agency Growth plan lists client workspaces as add-ons at $399/month each but shows no base price; Agency Enterprise is custom. |
Only 11 of the 100 Reddit comments mentioning Otterly are independent opinions, while 66 are promotional, including one 'Otterly dashboards' line pasted by several accounts to push a review site and repeated clusters of accounts naming Otterly before plugging Brandlight, Vismore, Leapd, Meridian, RankPrompt and other trackers. The genuine users treat it as a cheap, lightweight self-serve tracker that is fine for basic monitoring and alerts. Their caveats are that prompt-based pricing adds up as you track more queries, and that its visibility percentages swing between runs and may not match the clicks you actually get.
Users like
- Recommended by users as a decent, low-cost place to start before committing to pricier platforms, and shortlisted by an SEO team that found Profound overpriced[1][2][3][4]
- A user on the $189/mo plan calls it a good option for monitoring alerts, and another says it has been great for sentiment and visibility on specific prompts[1][2]
- Placed fourth, behind Peec, Mention and Writesonic, in one team's internal accuracy test on a sample of 100 queries[1]
- One user trying to work out which queries their brand shows up for in AI answers found it had "some useful ideas"[1]
Users complain about
- Pricing is per prompt, so costs climb past a handful of queries: the $189/mo plan covers 100 prompts and more cost extra[1][2]
- Its visibility percentages come from re-asking models a fixed set of typed prompts; answers change between runs and real prompt volume is unknown, so users say to treat the figures as a trend (a critique aimed at the category)[1][2]
- One user says Otterly shows their brand doing fine in AI answers while they get almost no clicks from AI search[1]
- One evaluator noted it did not track Claude[1]
Independent discussion is thin: only 10 non-promotional comments give a real opinion of Profound. Users who have it see one of the most comprehensive trackers and say the prompt tracking itself is reliable and gives a consistent number to report week over week, but the recurring complaints are enterprise pricing (one user cites about $20K a year for 200 to 300 prompts), a credit-based setup that can burn budget, and prompt sets and prompt-volume figures that are AI-generated or estimated and hard to trust. 32 of the 100 comments mentioning it were promotional and excluded, including a cluster of near-identical posts from different accounts calling Profound too expensive and steering readers to the same free alternative; many other comments use "profound" only as an ordinary word.
Users like
- Seen as one of the most comprehensive trackers, and the one that comes closest to explaining why a brand gets cited rather than just counting mentions[1][2]
- The prompt tracking itself is described as legit, and one team uses its share-of-model metric because it gives a consistent number to track week over week[1][2]
- Its interface is described as slick and well liked, even by a commenter who doubts its underlying data[1]
Users complain about
- Enterprise pricing: users call it enterprise priced, cite about $20K a year to track 200 to 300 prompts, or chose Peec at roughly half the price[1][2][3]
- Prompt data is not trusted: a customer says the rep showed that prompts are generated with AI and grouped into topics to suggest volume, and is unsure about renewing; another calls its prompt volume an estimate not worth much trust[1][2]
- Its credit-based usage model worried one evaluator as an easy way to burn through budget[1]
- Where its data comes from is questioned: one commenter claims it buys most of its data from outside vendors or uses synthetic data[1]