Teams that need a budget figure for AI search visibility before starting a vendor conversation
Best AI visibility tools with published pricing
Six AI search visibility tools that put a number on the page, ranked on lowest published price, engines stated per tier, response volume and add-on-free coverage.
Karl-Gustav Kallasmaa, Founder & CEOLast updated How this list was made
A tool qualified for this list only if a currency amount, or an explicitly free tier, appears against a self-serve plan on its own pricing page without a signup or a sales conversation. Vendors whose pricing pages name plans but publish no amounts were excluded, and that exclusion is itself the finding. Each qualifying vendor's pricing page was fetched on 3 September 2026 and read for four things: the lowest published price, how precisely the answer engines are stated per tier, whether a monthly volume of AI responses is published rather than only a prompt count, and whether the advertised coverage is included or sold as paid add-ons. No third-party roundup was used and no vendor was contacted.
The criteria
Declared before the ranking, with how each one was measured and who wins it.
| Criterion | How it was measured | Best on this |
|---|---|---|
| Lowest published entry priceThe cheapest published number is what a team without an approved budget can actually start with, and it sets the floor the rest of the category has to justify itself against. | Read from the vendor's own pricing page: the lowest currency amount, or explicitly free tier, against a self-serve plan requiring no sales conversation. | Athena |
| Answer engines stated tier by tierA published price is only useful if you can tell what it buys, and the single most common gap between expectation and delivery in this category is a headline assistant list that turns out to be split across tiers. | Read from the vendor's own pricing page: whether the number or names of covered answer engines appear against each individual plan rather than as one blanket list. Athena also splits engines by plan; Profound wins because it states a numeric engine count against every tier including Enterprise, where Athena's top tier is custom rather than counted. | Profound |
| Monthly response volume published, not just promptsA prompt count is a plan limit; a response count is how much evidence you get, and two plans with identical prompt allowances can differ by an order of magnitude in the number of answers actually collected. | Read from the vendor's own pricing page: whether a monthly number of AI responses, credits or answers is published against each plan. | Attensira |
| Advertised coverage included rather than sold as add-onsAn add-on priced per tier can double a headline price at exactly the moment a team commits, which makes the published number a starting bid rather than a cost. | Read from the vendor's own pricing page: whether any of the assistants named in the product's marketing are priced separately from the plan. | Scrunch AI |
The tools
- 1
Athena
A credit-metered AI visibility tool with a free Essential tier carrying an included allocation, a $295 Starter tier, and a pricing page that defines the billing unit precisely as one credit per AI response and names its monitored assistants plan by plan.
- Best for:
- A team that wants the lowest possible published entry point and prefers a usage meter it can reason about to a flat prompt allowance it cannot.
- Where it falls short:
- The gap between the free tier and the $295 Starter plan is the largest single step on this list, API access and extra credits are paid add-ons, and the Enterprise tier's coverage is described as custom rather than as a stated engine count.
- Lowest published entry price: Essential free with an included $25 credit source
- Answer engines stated tier by tier: Five named on Essential; 10 models on Starter; Enterprise stated as the same coverage, custom-configured source
- Monthly response volume published, not just prompts: 300 credits free, 3,600 per month on Starter source
- Advertised coverage included rather than sold as add-ons: Engines included; API and extra credits are paid add-ons source
Athena · checked on
- 2
Otterly.AI
An AI search monitoring tool with the lowest published paid price on this list and the most transparent add-on pricing, listing exactly what Claude, Google AI Mode and Gemini cost at each of its three self-serve tiers.
- Best for:
- A small team on a fixed budget that wants to know the total, including the assistants it actually needs, before it signs anything.
- Where it falls short:
- Three of the seven assistants it can cover are add-ons priced per tier, so the headline $29 is not the cost of full coverage, and no monthly response volume is published.
- Lowest published entry price: $29/month (Lite) source
- Answer engines stated tier by tier: Four engines on all plans; three add-ons priced per tier source
- Monthly response volume published, not just prompts: Prompt counts published; response volume not published source
- Advertised coverage included rather than sold as add-ons: Claude, Google AI Mode and Gemini are paid add-ons source
Otterly.AI · checked on
- 3
Writesonic
A content platform whose plan ladder publishes both a prompt count and a daily answer count per tier, from three tracked platforms on the entry plan up to ten at Enterprise, with a free trial requiring no credit card.
- Best for:
- A team that wants the largest published daily answer volume per dollar at the entry tier and is comfortable buying it inside a broader content product.
- Where it falls short:
- The ten-platform coverage and the custom regions and languages both sit at the Enterprise tier, which has no published price, so the published ladder stops short of the advertised capability.
- Lowest published entry price: $79/month billed annually (Starter) source
- Answer engines stated tier by tier: Three platforms on the published tiers, ten at Enterprise source
- Monthly response volume published, not just prompts: 50 to 600 answers tracked daily by tier source
- Advertised coverage included rather than sold as add-ons: No add-ons stated; full coverage requires Enterprise source
Writesonic · checked on
- 4
Profound
An AI search visibility platform whose pricing page states an answer-engine count, a prompt count, a credit allowance and a seat count against every individual tier, which makes it the easiest ladder here to read at a glance.
- Best for:
- A buyer who needs to compare three tiers against a budget line in five minutes and wants every dimension stated per plan rather than in a shared feature list.
- Where it falls short:
- The clarity comes with a steep ladder, since moving from one answer engine to three is a four-fold price increase, and no monthly response volume is published.
- Lowest published entry price: $99/month (Starter) source
- Answer engines stated tier by tier: ChatGPT only, 3 engines, up to 9 — stated per tier source
- Monthly response volume published, not just prompts: Prompts and agent credits published; response volume not published source
- Advertised coverage included rather than sold as add-ons: No add-ons stated; engines are a tier dimension source
Profound · checked on
- 5
Scrunch AI
A platform publishing both annual and month-to-month prices for two self-serve tiers, covering five named assistants with no add-on pricing anywhere on the page, plus a seven-day trial whose contents are itemised.
- Best for:
- A team that wants the published price to be the real price, with no separately-billed assistants waiting at the point of commitment.
- Where it falls short:
- It is the most expensive published entry tier here, the paid plans' prompt allowances are not stated on the pricing page, and agency terms are behind an application.
- Lowest published entry price: $250/month billed annually, $300 month-to-month source
- Answer engines stated tier by tier: Five assistants named; not split by tier source
- Monthly response volume published, not just prompts: Trial prompt count stated; paid response volume not published source
- Advertised coverage included rather than sold as add-ons: No paid assistant add-ons stated source
Scrunch AI · checked on
- 6
Attensira
That is usAn AI visibility platform whose pricing page publishes a monthly response budget and a sampling depth against every tier alongside the prompt count, model count, history retention and seat policy, so the amount of measurement a plan buys is a stated quantity.
- Best for:
- A team that needs to know not only what a plan costs but how many model calls it is buying, because the number will be reported to somebody who asks how it was produced.
- Where it falls short:
- There is no free tier and no trial stated, so the published price is the only way in; the entry plan is more expensive than three of the five alternatives here.
- Lowest published entry price: $129/month (Starter) source
- Answer engines stated tier by tier: 4 models on Starter, 5 on Growth and Business source
- Monthly response volume published, not just prompts: 6,000, 67,500 and 157,500 responses per month by tier source
- Advertised coverage included rather than sold as add-ons: No paid assistant add-ons stated source
Attensira · checked on
Which AI visibility tools publish their prices?
Six of them, as of 3 September 2026: Athena, Otterly.AI, Writesonic, Profound, Scrunch and Attensira all put a currency amount, or an explicitly free tier, against a self-serve plan on their own pricing page. Athena has the lowest entry point because its Essential tier is free. Profound states its answer engines most precisely, tier by tier. Attensira publishes the monthly response volume behind each plan. Scrunch's published price is the closest to the final price, because nothing it advertises is sold as an add-on.
Two well-known tools in this category are not on this page at all, and that is the point of the page.
Why a published price is a product decision
Every vendor here could publish or hide a number, and the choice says something about who they expect to buy.
A published price is a bet on self-serve evaluation: the buyer will look, decide the number is plausible, sign up, and either keep it or not. A hidden price is a bet on a sales conversation, usually because the plan is negotiated, the onboarding is real work, or the vendor wants to price against the account rather than the product. Both are honest business models. Only one of them lets a marketing manager with an unapproved budget do anything this week.
The category currently splits almost evenly, which is unusual and probably temporary. As tools converge on similar capabilities, published pricing tends to win, because the cost of a sales call stops being justified by the difference between the products.
There is a second-order effect worth naming. Published prices make vendors specific about what a tier contains, because a number invites the question "for what". Profound's page states an answer-engine count, a prompt count, a credit allowance and a seat count against each tier. That specificity exists because the price does.
Reading the ranking
Athena wins the lowest published price by being free at the entry, with an included credit allocation and a unit definition — one credit, one AI response — that is the clearest on this list. Its engine coverage is stated per plan: five assistants against the free Essential tier, ten models on Starter, and Enterprise described as the same coverage with custom configuration. Two caveats matter. The step from free to $295 is the biggest single jump here, and API access and extra credits are sold as separate add-ons, so the published tiers are not quite the whole cost.
Otterly.AI has the lowest published paid price at $29 and the most honest add-on table in the category, listing exactly what Claude, Google AI Mode and Gemini cost at each tier. It wins no criterion on this page and deserves credit anyway: publishing that the add-ons exist, and what they cost per tier, is more useful than a rival's silence. It loses the add-on criterion precisely because it is the only vendor transparent enough to be scored on it, which is a real limitation of any ranking built from public pages.
Writesonic publishes a daily answer count as well as a prompt count, which is rarer than it should be, and its $79 entry tier is good value on that measure. The published ladder stops short of the advertised product: ten platforms and custom regions both sit at an Enterprise tier with no number attached.
Profound wins engines stated per tier. Writing "ChatGPT tracking only" against a $99 plan is a small act of clarity that saves buyers a month. Every dimension is stated per plan rather than in a shared feature list, so a three-way budget comparison takes five minutes. The ladder is steep and no response volume is published.
Scrunch wins coverage without add-ons. Five named assistants, two self-serve tiers with both annual and monthly prices, and no assistant priced separately anywhere on the page. The published number is close to the real number, which is worth more than a low headline. It is also the most expensive entry here, and the paid plans' prompt allowances are not stated.
Attensira wins published response volume, and only that. We publish 6,000 monthly responses on Starter, 67,500 on Growth and 157,500 on Business, next to a sampling depth, because a price tells you what a plan costs and a response budget tells you what it buys. We do not win on price: at $129 the Starter plan is more expensive than Otterly's, Writesonic's and Profound's entry tiers, and Athena's free tier undercuts all of them. We have no free tier and no trial, so the published price is the only way in.
Who is missing, and why that is the finding
Two products that belong in any serious survey of this category are absent from this page for one reason: they publish no self-serve price.
Peec AI names four plans on its pricing page — Starter, Pro, Advanced and Enterprise — with a feature matrix covering models, projects, countries per project, tracking frequency and support, and no currency amount against any of them. The matrix is genuinely informative; the absence of a number means a team cannot shortlist it without signing up first.
PromptWatch publishes no plan prices at all, offering a free trial and a demo booking instead. Its positioning around agencies managing multiple brands is clear and specific, which makes the missing number more conspicuous rather than less: an agency modelling retainer margin needs a figure before the demo, not after it.
Neither absence is evidence of a bad product. Both are evidence about who the vendor expects to sell to. If your evaluation has to start with a budget line, that difference decides your shortlist for you, and it decides it before you have compared a single feature.
There is a third category worth flagging rather than listing. Roundups in this space circulate names of AI visibility products that could not be confirmed as live and self-serve from their own sites. Rather than describe a product nobody opened, this page carries only tools whose pricing page was fetched, on the date shown in each row. If a tool you expected is missing, the likeliest reason is that its price is not public, and the second likeliest is that we could not verify it.
What a published price still does not tell you
Three things decide the real cost of an AI visibility subscription, and none of them appear on any pricing page read for this list.
How many model calls a plan actually makes. Prompts times sampling depth times assistants is the quantity you are buying. Most pages publish the first number, almost none publish the second, and the third is often split across tiers. Two plans at the same price can differ by an order of magnitude in evidence collected, and the pricing page will not show it.
What counts as a hit. A brand named in prose, a brand linked as a source, and a brand named inside a third-party page the assistant cited are three different events with three different values. Vendors count them differently and none disclose which on a pricing page. This is the largest single reason two tools disagree about the same brand in the same week.
What happens when the number drops. Every product here reports a state. Few say what they do next. Whether the tool surfaces the pages cited instead of yours, or stops at the chart, is the difference between a subscription that generates work and one that generates a screenshot — and it costs the same either way.
What to do with a shortlist of published numbers
Convert every plan into the same unit before comparing. The useful denominator is not prompts, it is responses: prompts multiplied by how often each is asked, multiplied by how many assistants are covered. Two of those three factors are missing from most pricing pages, which means for several vendors the calculation cannot be done from public information at all. That is a finding, not a failure of the exercise.
Then add the add-ons before you compare. A $29 plan plus two assistants you actually need is a different number from $29, and a $79 plan whose real coverage starts at an unpriced Enterprise tier is not a $79 plan. The published number is the beginning of the calculation.
Then ask the two questions no pricing page here answers. How many times is each prompt asked, and what counts as a mention. Between them they explain almost every disagreement between two tools measuring the same brand, and neither is visible in a price.
Then decide how much the missing information is worth to you. A vendor that publishes a price but not a response volume is asking you to take the amount of measurement on trust, and for a small pilot that is a reasonable thing to do. It stops being reasonable at the point where the number leaves your team and gets quoted to somebody who will ask how it was produced. Buy for the pilot now, and re-run this comparison before the number becomes a board slide.
Finally, treat this page as perishable. Every figure was read from a vendor page on 3 September 2026. In a category this young, tiers get re-cut, add-ons get folded in, and free tiers appear and disappear inside a single quarter. Open the vendor's page before you act on anything here.
Questions people ask
- Which AI visibility tools publish their prices?
- Of the tools examined for this family, Athena, Otterly.AI, Writesonic, Profound, Scrunch and Attensira all put currency amounts, or an explicitly free tier, against self-serve plans on their own pricing pages as of 3 September 2026. Peec AI and PromptWatch name plans without publishing amounts, which is why neither appears on this page.
- Why do some vendors hide pricing?
- Usually because the plan is negotiated rather than fixed, or because the product is sold with onboarding attached. That is a legitimate model. It is also a cost to the buyer, because a shortlist cannot be built without numbers, and it tends to correlate with a longer sales cycle than a small team can absorb.
- Is the cheapest published price the real cost?
- Not always. Otterly.AI's $29 plan covers four assistants and prices three more as add-ons that cost more on higher tiers, and Writesonic's ten-platform coverage sits at an Enterprise tier with no published price. Read the add-on column before treating a headline as a budget figure.
- What should I compare instead of price?
- Compare what a plan buys per dollar in evidence rather than in allowances. That means the monthly volume of AI responses, the number of times each prompt is sampled, and whether the assistants you actually care about are included rather than added. Two of those three are published by very few vendors, which is itself informative.
- When were these prices checked?
- Every amount on this page was read from the named vendor's own pricing page on 3 September 2026. This is the most perishable page in this family, so open the vendor's page before acting on any figure here.
Sources
Every cell above, with the page it came from and the date that page was read.
Athena's pricing page lists Essential as free with a $25 free credit covering 300 credits, Starter at $295/month with 3,600 credits, and Enterprise at custom pricing, defining the unit as one credit equals one AI response.
athenahq.ai · retrieved · changes often, check the source
“1 credit = 1 AI response”
Athena's pricing page splits monitored systems by plan — the free Essential plan names ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, Gemini and Copilot; Starter states visibility across 10 models, adding Claude, Grok, DeepSeek and Meta AI, with additional models available on request; Enterprise carries the same model coverage as Starter with custom configuration.
athenahq.ai · retrieved · changes often, check the source
Athena's pricing page lists API access and extra credits for the Starter plan as paid add-ons billed separately.
athenahq.ai · retrieved · changes often, check the source
Otterly.AI's pricing page lists Lite at $29/month with 15 search prompts, Standard at $189/month with 100, Premium at $489/month with 400 and Enterprise from $1,000/month, without publishing a monthly response volume.
otterly.ai · retrieved · changes often, check the source
“$29/month”
Otterly.AI's pricing page includes ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity and Microsoft Copilot on all plans, and prices Claude, Google AI Mode and Google Gemini as add-ons that cost more on higher tiers.
otterly.ai · retrieved · changes often, check the source
“ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity, MS Copilot”
Writesonic's pricing page lists Starter at $79/month billed annually with 50 prompts and 50 answers tracked daily, Basic at $199 with 100 prompts and 300 answers, and Growth at $399 with 200 prompts and 600 answers.
writesonic.com · retrieved · changes often, check the source
“50 prompts, 50 answers tracked daily”
Writesonic's pricing page places all ten tracked AI platforms and custom prompts, regions and languages at the Enterprise tier, which is priced as custom.
writesonic.com · retrieved · changes often, check the source
“Custom prompts, regions, languages”
Profound's pricing page lists Starter at $99/month with 50 prompts, ChatGPT tracking only, 100 agent credits and 3 seats; Growth at $399/month with 3 answer engines, 100 prompts, 400 credits and 3 seats; and Enterprise with up to 9 answer engines.
tryprofound.com · retrieved · changes often, check the source
“3 Answer Engines tracked”
Scrunch's pricing page lists Starter at $250 per month billed annually or $300 month-to-month and Growth at $417 billed annually or $500 month-to-month, with Enterprise at custom pricing.
scrunch.com · retrieved · changes often, check the source
“$250 per month (billed annually) or $300 month-to-month”
Scrunch's site names ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini and Copilot as the platforms it monitors, and its pricing page prices no assistant separately as an add-on.
scrunch.com · retrieved · changes often, check the source
Scrunch's pricing page itemises a 7-day free trial of the Starter plan as 350 custom prompts, 3 personas, 5 page audits and 3 user licences, without stating the paid plans' prompt allowances.
scrunch.com · retrieved · changes often, check the source
“350 custom prompts”
Attensira's pricing page lists Starter at $129/month, Growth at $349/month and Business at $699/month, with no free tier and no trial stated.
attensira.com · retrieved · changes often, check the source
Attensira's pricing page lists 4 models on Starter (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude and Google) and 5 on Growth and Business, with no assistant priced as a separate add-on.
attensira.com · retrieved · changes often, check the source
Attensira's pricing page publishes a monthly response budget of 6,000 on Starter, 67,500 on Growth and 157,500 on Business, alongside a sampling depth of once per reading on Starter and three times per reading above it.
attensira.com · retrieved · changes often, check the source
“Sampled 3x per reading (n=3)”