CoreCited · Compare
Otterly.AI vs Rank Prompt
Both track whether AI engines mention your brand. They differ sharply on price, engine coverage and whether they tell you what to do about it. Every figure below was read from each vendor's own pricing page on — blog roundups in this category get this wrong more often than they get it right.
Otterly.AI
Rank Prompt
Entry price
$29/mo
$39/mo
Free option
Free trial only. There is no free tier, despite what several blog roundups claim. Trial only
7-day trial with 50 credits. No free tier. Trial only
Engines
ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity, Copilot
ChatGPT, Google AI Mode, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini, Grok
Prompts
15 (Lite)
Credit-metered
Action layer
Limited — GEO audit, SWOT.
Yes — content generation, audits, WordPress publishing. This is their strength.
What the headline price hides
Otterly.AI: $29 Lite gets you 15 prompts. The API and MCP server only begin at the $189 Standard tier.
Rank Prompt: $39/mo billed annually ($49 monthly) for 150 credits and 10 brands. Credits meter everything: 10 per AI-generated article, 10 per brand audit, 5 per Lighthouse audit.
Otterly.AI
Strengths
- ✓The cheapest credible entry point in the category, and their ~5-minute onboarding is genuinely their most-praised feature.
- ✓Net Sentiment Score and a real GEO audit at a low price.
Gaps
- ✕15 prompts on the entry plan is very tight — most brands have more buyer questions than that.
- ✕A steep jump from $29 to $189 for the next tier.
- ✕No Claude tracking.
Rank Prompt
Strengths
- ✓Genuinely the most feature-dense budget tool we found. At $39 it already bundles AI article generation, brand + Lighthouse audits, one-click WordPress publishing, GA4/GSC, an MCP server, a public REST API and white-label PDFs.
- ✓6 engines on every plan.
- ✓If you want an action layer at a low price, this is the honest answer — and we'll say so rather than pretend otherwise.
Gaps
- ✕Everything is credit-metered, so heavy months cost more than the headline.
- ✕Like everyone else, it reports visibility as a single point estimate with no uncertainty — so it can't tell you whether a change is real or noise.
What neither of them will tell you
Both report AI visibility as a single confident number. But AI citations churn — SISTRIX measured 56% weekly source churn across 82,619 prompts. So a large share of the week-to-week movement in either dashboard is noise, and neither tool separates the noise from the signal, or tells you whether you hold a durable position or merely rotated through this week.
Where CoreCited is different
1. We tell you if you're in the core, or just the carousel
AI answers churn — SISTRIX measured 56% weekly source churn in Google AI Mode across 82,619 prompts. But the same study found that 86.5% of prompts keep a stable core of 1–5 names that persist week after week, while ~89% of everything else rotates. So "am I mentioned?" is close to a coin flip. The question that matters is whether you're in the durable core or the churn. No other tool distinguishes these.2. We show you the error bars, and grey out the noise
Share of voice is estimated from a finite sample, so it carries sampling error. On a realistic sample, brands sitting at 27%, 25% and 22% are statistically indistinguishable — their confidence ranges overlap completely. Every other dashboard renders that as a confident 1–2–3 ranking. We mark it as a tie and tell you not to act on it.3. We tell you when the fix didn't work
Mark a content brief published and we snapshot where you stand, then measure whether it actually moved you — and we'll say "no movement" or "you slipped" when that's the truth. A loop that can only report success is marketing, not measurement.Compare something else
How we sourced this: every price and limit above was read from the vendor's own pricing page in July 2026 — not from a roundup article. We checked, and blog roundups in this category get it wrong more often than not. Vendors change pricing frequently, so verify before you buy: otterly.ai · rankprompt.com. Spotted something out of date? Tell us and we'll fix it.