Otterly vs Mentionable: Budget AI Visibility Trackers Compared

Small marketing teams that want to know whether AI engines name their brand rarely start with an enterprise platform. They start with a budget AI visibility tracker, and two names come up more than any others. The Otterly vs Mentionable decision looks like a simple price question at first glance, because Otterly publishes a $29 entry plan and Mentionable publishes a €79 one. The published plans do not line up that cleanly. Otterly's entry price covers four AI engines and 15 tracked prompts. Mentionable's covers seven engines and up to 115 prompts, with no per-engine surcharge. One product is cheaper per month; the other includes more monitoring before any add-on appears.

This comparison works through the published plans, the engines each tool covers, how often each one checks, and where the documentation of each product is inconsistent enough that a buyer should confirm before paying.

Otterly vs Mentionable at a glance

Two cautions belong with the table. Otterly publishes in US dollars and Mentionable publishes in euros excluding tax, so the two entry prices should not be converted into a single ranking without a dated exchange rate. And Mentionable's scan-credit allowance sits alongside its prompt allowance as a second constraint, which the next sections examine.

What a budget AI visibility tracker actually does

Both products do the same underlying job. Each one takes a defined set of prompts, sends them to AI answer engines on a schedule, and records what came back: whether the brand was named, how it was described, which pages or domains were cited as sources, and how competitors performed on the same questions.

The distinction that matters most in the reports is between a mention and a citation. A mention means the answer named or discussed the brand. A citation means the answer linked to a page or domain as a source. The two move independently, and a program can accumulate mentions without earning a single citation. Anyone learning how to measure brand visibility in AI answers runs into that gap early.

The second thing to understand is that the output is directional monitoring data rather than a fixed ranking. AI answers shift by engine, location, prompt wording, time, personalization and search context. Otterly states this openly, warning that a manual check in ChatGPT or Perplexity can return a different result because the manual experience is shaped by memory, search history and location. Both tools are therefore measuring a moving surface, and a single day's reading carries less information than a trend across several weeks.

Neither product writes content. Both surface recommendations, audits and opportunities, and neither one turns a visibility gap into a finished article. That boundary matters for the buying decision and the closing sections return to it.

Otterly: the lower entry price and the deeper prompt view

Otterly publishes four plans. Lite is $29 per month and includes 15 tracked prompts, one workspace, unlimited team members, unlimited brand reports, three recommendations per week and 1,000 GEO audits per month. Standard is $189 per month for 100 prompts, unlimited workspaces, 5,000 URL audits, 2,000 API requests and 2,000 MCP requests. Premium is $489 per month for 400 prompts, 10,000 URL audits and 5,000 API and MCP requests. An Enterprise tier is custom and stated as starting from $1,000 per month. Annual billing is advertised at 15% off, which brings the three published plans to $25, $160 and $422 per month.

The base plans cover four engines: ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity and Microsoft Copilot. Otterly's wider product pages describe a seven-engine scope, and the pricing page explains the difference. Google AI Mode, Gemini and Claude are paid add-ons. On Lite they cost $9, $9 and $29 per month. On Standard they cost $59, $59 and $109. On Premium they cost $149, $149 and $439. The $29 entry price is real, and it does not represent seven-engine coverage.

Monitoring runs daily on every listed plan, across whichever engines the account holds. The prompt-level view is the strongest part of the published product. It can show the exact prompt text, brand coverage, sentiment score, intent volume, brand mentions and total mentions, domain citations and total citations, ads and shopping cards, competitors, tags, response-by-response detail and engine-by-engine performance. For a team that already knows its priority buyer questions, that level of detail supports a real diagnosis rather than a headline number.

Around the tracking sits an optimization layer: AI Prompt Research from a keyword, brand name or URL, query fan-out research, crawlability checks for AI bots, content audits covering structured data and AI readiness, content briefs, and prioritized GEO recommendations. Otterly also states coverage of more than 65 countries and languages, which is a vendor-published figure rather than an audited benchmark.

Data access is where Otterly separates itself most clearly in the published material. The public API is available on Standard, Premium and Custom plans, with a documented rate limit of 2,000 requests per rolling five-minute window, and it exposes brand mentions, coverage, domain citations, share of voice, sentiment, prompt-level results, reports, prompts, citations and workspace data. The MCP server uses OAuth 2.0 and streamable HTTP, with named client support including Claude, Claude Code, Cursor, ChatGPT and n8n, and write tools that can create prompts and tags, trigger audits and run query fan-out. A Looker Studio connector is available from Standard upward, and the API documentation describes routes into Tableau, Power BI, BigQuery, Snowflake, Zapier, Make and Slack.

The limits are as clear as the strengths. Lite holds 15 prompts and one workspace, and the step to Standard is a jump from $29 to $189 per month. Lite carries three recommendations per week and no published API or MCP allowance. The manual prompt workflow asks more of a team at setup than a product that proposes prompts from a URL. Export formats, retention and several alert details are not clearly specified in the public material, and current Otterly pages advertise both a seven day and a 14 day trial, so the duration should be confirmed at signup.

Mentionable: broader included coverage and a faster first run

Mentionable publishes three plans, all with unlimited team members. Growth is €79 per month excluding tax for one project, up to 115 tracked prompts and 1,500 scan credits. Pro is €149 for three projects, up to 231 prompts, 3,000 credits, MCP integration and priority support. Agency is €299 for unlimited client projects, up to 385 prompts, 5,000 credits, white-label reports and shareable client-ready audits, with usage beyond the allowance charged at €0.02 per scan equivalent under a monthly spending cap. The trial is four days with no credit card, and there is no permanent free plan.

The engine list on the current official pricing page and homepage runs to seven: ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity, Microsoft Copilot, Google AI Mode and Google AI Overview. All seven are included on every paid plan, with no per-engine add-ons and nothing locked behind a higher tier. That is the single clearest advantage in the comparison, and it is the reason a Mentionable alternative comparison that stops at the monthly price reaches the wrong answer.

The advantage carries one documentation caveat. Mentionable's features page and its own Otterly alternative page describe eight engines and add Grok, and a third-party review repeats the eight-engine count. Seven is what the current official pricing and homepage evidence shows, so seven is the number this comparison uses, and a buyer who needs Grok specifically should confirm it is active on the selected plan before paying.

Setup is the other real advantage. A website URL can be scanned to generate a market-specific prompt set, reported on Mentionable's own alternative page as 15 to 20 relevant prompts drawn from site content, category and competitive landscape, after which the user chooses which ones to track. A team without an existing prompt library gets to a working dashboard faster than a manual workflow allows.

The analytics cover per-prompt share of voice against competitors, competitor visibility across the listed engines, identification of competitors cited instead of the brand, source-domain tracking showing which websites the engines reuse, ranking of cited domains with outreach opportunities, sentiment as positive, neutral or negative per prompt and engine, page audits covering SEO, schema markup and GEO readiness, AI-powered recommendations, and email alerts. Mentionable also offers GA4-oriented AI traffic attribution, identifying visits from AI platforms that would otherwise register as direct traffic, though attribution is estimated when a platform passes no referrer. Supporting utilities include audience personas, a backlink checker, an llms.txt generator and a schema markup generator. The Agency audit is a one-shot client-ready deliverable with a competitor podium, prompt-coverage heatmap, top citation sources, backlink information, a diagnostic and a recommended content plan, which is a different artifact from a continuously maintained dashboard.

Three constraints deserve attention before purchase. The first is the scan-credit pool, which the official pricing page allocates but does not define. A third-party review describes one credit as one prompt queried on one engine for one persona, and gives an example in which 1,500 credits cover 45 prompts across eight engines four times per month. Treated as an illustration rather than an official definition, it still makes the point: a prompt allowance and a credit allowance are two different ceilings, and page audits draw on the same pool. The second is cadence. The current pricing page describes refresh as configurable and gives Agency daily or three times weekly options, while other Mentionable copy describes twice-weekly tracking and the homepage describes daily monitoring, so the setting for a specific plan should be confirmed. The third is project structure: Growth allows one project and Pro allows three, and team seats being unlimited does not relax that limit. Annual prices are also not displayed in the current official evidence, so the third-party annual figures circulating in reviews should not be treated as confirmed pricing.

Otterly or Mentionable on the criteria that decide it

Entry price. Otterly wins the nominal comparison at $29 against €79. The allowance behind that price is 15 prompts and four engines. Mentionable Growth carries up to 115 prompts, seven engines, competitor and source analysis, email alerts and one project. Otterly is cheaper for a narrow prompt set. Mentionable includes more monitoring before add-ons appear. The currencies and tax treatment prevent a clean ranking either way.

Engine breadth. The Mentionable vs Otterly gap here is real on the current pricing baseline, with all seven engines at every Mentionable tier. Otterly's four base engines plus separately priced Gemini, Google AI Mode and Claude is the more expensive route to the same coverage. The counterweight is that Otterly's add-on structure is explicit and its cadence is unambiguous, while Mentionable's advantage sits against an unresolved seven-versus-eight documentation conflict.

Prompt volume. Growth's 115 prompts against Lite's 15 is the widest gap in the comparison at entry level. It narrows above that: Otterly Standard carries 100 and Premium carries 400, against 231 on Pro and 385 on Agency. Mentionable's credit model complicates the reading, because 115 prompts does not necessarily mean 115 full cross-engine scans per refresh.

Monitoring cadence. Otterly has the clearer commitment, with daily monitoring documented across the engines in the account. Mentionable's cadence varies by page and by plan, which is a documentation problem rather than a product one, but it is unresolved in the public material and a buyer should settle it before purchase.

Setup effort. Mentionable generates prompts from a URL, which shortens the first run considerably. Otterly's AI Prompt Research can also discover prompts from a keyword, brand name or URL, and its help material supports manual entry. The honest trade is automation against control: a team that already knows its question set loses little by entering prompts directly.

Competitor and citation intelligence. Both track competitors and cited sources. Mentionable's published positioning is sharper on normalized competitor and source intelligence, including cited-domain rankings and outreach opportunities. Otterly counters with deeper prompt-level fields and its audit and recommendation layer. Understanding why a competitor wins a given answer is the harder question, and both products approach it from different sides.

Audits and diagnostics. Otterly has the more clearly tiered recurring allowance at 1,000, 5,000 and 10,000 audits per month, with crawlability checks, structured-data analysis, predictions and briefs alongside. Mentionable's page audits are credit-based, and its Agency audit is packaged as a client deliverable. Otterly suits ongoing technical diagnostics. Mentionable suits a consultant who has to hand something over.

Data access. Otterly is the clear answer when API, BI, warehouse or workflow connectivity is a requirement, with a documented API, Looker Studio connector and MCP server. Mentionable documents MCP on Pro and Agency, and the reviewed sources do not establish a public REST API, an export format or a native BI connector, which is a gap in the public documentation rather than proof of absence.

Where both trackers stop

The mentionable vs otterly question is usually asked as a measurement question, and both products answer it. Neither answers what comes next. A tracker reports that a competitor holds the citation on a buying question and that no page on the brand's own site addresses it. Closing that gap means briefing, writing, linking, illustrating and publishing an article, and the reviewed evidence establishes no end-to-end publish-ready content workflow in either product. Recommendations, audits and content opportunities are the boundary. The article itself is somewhere else.

For a small team that boundary is a real cost. The gap list arrives faster than the team can write against it, and the tracker keeps producing gaps at the rate it was paid to produce them.

DeepSmith: tracking and production in one platform

DeepSmith is built for the other half of that loop. It tracks how AI engines answer questions about a brand, finds the gaps where the brand is invisible or losing, and produces the on-brand content that closes them, from the same data and inside one platform. AI Visibility reports mention rate, citation rate, share of voice, sentiment and visibility trend, with a per-engine breakdown, a competitor leaderboard and page-level attribution showing which pages earn the citations. Opportunity Agents read that data and return ideas with the evidence attached, naming the competitor page winning the citations and the gap on the brand's own site. Content Studio turns a chosen idea into a finished article, researched, internally and externally linked, with a cover image and publish-ready metadata, and Autowrite runs it on a scheduled date without anyone in the app.

Pricing is $99 per month for Pro, $199 for Grow and $399 for Scale, or $80, $160 and $299 per month billed annually, with a custom Enterprise tier. Engine coverage rises with the tier: Pro tracks ChatGPT, Grow adds Perplexity, Scale adds Gemini, and Enterprise and Custom cover all ten engines. That is a narrower net than Mentionable's seven included engines at entry, and it is a deliberate ordering rather than an accident, because ChatGPT is where most buyer research starts and a citation there is worth more than a wider net measured less usefully. A team whose only requirement is the broadest possible monitoring surface at the lowest price will be better served by a dedicated tracker. A team that has to act on what the tracking finds is buying a different thing.

DeepSmith offers a 7-day free trial with real data and real drafts, with no long-term contracts and no cancellation fees. Start a free trial and see the tracking and the finished articles in the same workspace.

Which tracker fits which team

Otterly Lite suits a team with a hard budget ceiling near $29 per month and a short list of prompts that genuinely matter. Fifteen prompts is enough to cover a category question, two competitor comparisons and a handful of buying queries. Daily monitoring and prompt-level detail then give that small set more depth than a wider, shallower net would.

Mentionable Growth suits a team that wants breadth included rather than assembled from add-ons. Seven engines and up to 115 prompts at one price, with prompts generated from the site URL, removes both the setup work and the per-engine arithmetic. Any Mentionable alternative comparison written from the price alone misses that.

Otterly Standard suits a team that has to move the data, into Looker Studio, a warehouse, a BI tool or an agent, and can carry $189 per month. The API, MCP and connector allowances are the reason to be on that tier, not the prompt count alone.

Mentionable Agency suits consultants and agencies that need unlimited client projects, white-label reports and a client-ready audit as a deliverable. Otterly's unlimited workspaces from Standard cover multi-brand tracking, but the packaged client audit is Mentionable's own answer.

A team whose bottleneck is publishing, not measuring, is choosing in the wrong category. Whether Otterly or Mentionable wins on engines and prompts matters less than whether anything gets written against what either one finds.