

MaxAEO is an answer engine optimisation platform from HIII PTE. LTD. It tracks how ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Perplexity, Copilot, Grok and Google's AI surfaces mention a brand, with sentiment, competitor benchmarking and citation tracing.
Business & Marketing Review
Peec AI is an AI-search analytics platform for marketing teams: it tracks a brand's visibility, position and sentiment across AI models, with prompt setup, competitor comparison, source and citation tracking, reports, a Looker Studio connector and an API. A direct peer to Otterly in the emerging AEO/GEO category.

Good
Peec AI earns 3.8 as a capable, workflow-friendly AI-search analytics platform: it tracks a brand's visibility, position and sentiment across AI models, with prompt research, competitor comparison, source-level citation tracking and integrations like Looker Studio and an API. It is a strong fit for brands and agencies that will benchmark against competitors and act on source-level citation data. The category is young, so its metrics are directional rather than settled, its sample dashboards are illustrative, its brand-count and G2 figures are vendor-stated, and the explicit operator jurisdiction is not stated on the page we read. AInexfinder Editor Score: 3.8/5.
Best for: AI-search analytics; Brand visibility tracking
The visit link goes to peec.ai, the official site. Paid placements on AInexfinder are always labelled. How we make money
Brands increasingly want to know how AI models talk about them: are they mentioned, where do they rank in an answer, and is the sentiment positive? Peec AI is an analytics platform built to measure that.
It tracks visibility, position and sentiment across AI models, sets up prompts (with AI suggestions), compares competitors, tracks which sources are used versus cited, and exports to reports, Looker Studio and an API. It is a direct peer to Otterly AI in the emerging AEO/GEO category.
This review covers how Peec AI measures visibility, which teams it suits, how its free and paid plans work, and why this young category's metrics need context.
| What it is | An AI-search analytics (AEO/GEO) platform |
|---|---|
| Operator | Peec AI (EU, per an Imprint link) |
| Metrics | Visibility, position, sentiment |
| Prompts | Setup plus AI-suggested prompts |
| Competitors | Competitor brand comparison |
| Sources | 'Used' vs 'cited' at domain/URL level |
| Integrations | Reports, CSV, Looker Studio, REST API, MCP |
| Access | Freemium (free trial) plus sales |
Peec AI's purpose is to give marketing teams metrics for AI search the way they have them for traditional SEO. Its core measures are Visibility (how often a brand is mentioned), Position (where it ranks in AI results) and Sentiment.
It helps set up the prompts that matter, with AI suggestions and search-volume context, tracks competitor brands alongside yours, and distinguishes sources that are merely used from those that are cited, at domain and URL level.
It is built to fit real workflows: reports and CSV export, a Looker Studio connector, a REST API, an MCP server for use from tools like Claude, and daily data refresh, with filtering by model and country.
The honest framing is that Peec AI is a capable, workflow-friendly entrant in a young category. AI-search metrics are new and still settling, so read Visibility, Position and Sentiment as directional signals rather than precise truth; sample dashboards are illustrative demo data; and its '3,500+ brands' and G2 rating are vendor-stated.
Peec AI gives marketing teams AI-search metrics in a workflow-friendly form, but the category is young, so treat the numbers as directional.
Peec AI pairs visibility metrics with competitor and source tracking.
It tracks Visibility, Position and Sentiment across AI models, with prompt setup and AI-suggested prompts, and compares your brand against competitors over time.
Its direct peer Otterly AI measures similar AI-search visibility; the two are worth comparing on prompt coverage, engines and reporting depth.
Source and citation tracking shows which domains and URLs are used versus cited, and integrations, reports, CSV, Looker Studio, a REST API and MCP, fit it into existing analytics.
For LLM-citation tracking specifically, a tool such as LLMrefs focuses there, and a content-and-visibility tool like Rankability approaches the same goal from the optimisation side; the AEO/GEO category is new and tools differ in coverage and depth.
Peec AI suits marketing teams, brands and agencies that want to measure and improve how AI models represent them, and that value workflow integrations like Looker Studio and an API.
It suits teams already doing SEO who are extending into AI search, and those wanting competitor benchmarking and source-level citation tracking.
It fits less well businesses with no search-marketing function, and anyone expecting AI-search metrics to be as mature and precise as established SEO analytics.
The practical test for Peec is whether you will act on what it shows. Its strength is granular detail, position, competitor share and which sources get cited, so it rewards a team that will change content and prompts in response and then watch the numbers move. If no one owns that follow-through, you are buying a dashboard you will glance at and ignore, so the honest call is to wait until AI search genuinely drives decisions in your market before you subscribe.
Peec AI runs on a freemium model, a free trial then paid tiers, with a sales route for larger teams. We do not publish prices, which change; check the site for current tiers.
The value question for Peec is narrower: do its competitor benchmarks and source-level citation data change what your team actually publishes, enough to justify the subscription while the category's commercial payoff is still unproven?
The pragmatic approach is to track your brand on real prompts during the trial, see whether the metrics and source tracking are actionable, and commit only if AI search matters to your audience.
With the field still settling, put Peec AI to work on your own brand and prompt set.
Visibility, Position, Sentiment metrics
Prompt setup with AI suggestions
Competitor comparison
Source and citation tracking
Reports and CSV export
Looker Studio connector
REST API and MCP
Daily data refresh
Set it against other AI-search analytics tools.
| Tool | Tool | Approach | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|
| Peec AI | AI-search analytics | Visibility, position, sentiment | Marketing teams |
| Otterly AI | AI-search visibility | Tracking and audits | SEO/GEO teams |
| LLMrefs | LLM citation tracking | How LLMs cite you | AI citation |
| Rankability | AI-search optimisation | Content and visibility | Agencies |
Last checked . Read from peec.ai during this check, with the screenshot above captured at the same time.
AI-search visibility is an emerging category, so treat Visibility, Position and Sentiment as directional signals rather than precise truth. Sample dashboards are illustrative demo data, and '3,500+ brands' and G2 ratings are vendor-stated. The Imprint link hints at an EU operator, but the explicit jurisdiction is not stated on the page we read.
An AI-search visibility tool, an LLM-citation tracker and an optimisation tool are the closest peers.
AInexfinder does not list plan prices or billing details. For current pricing, plans, and trials, visit the official Peec AI website.
Visit official website for pricingVendor pricing, credits, and billing policies change over time. Always confirm on the official site before you buy.
Peec AI earns an AInexfinder Editor Score of 3.8/5 (good). Best for: AI-search analytics; Brand visibility tracking; Competitor benchmarking.
Visit Peec AILog in to write a review.
No reviews yet. Be the first to share your experience with Peec AI.
Assigned reviewer
Daniel ReedSenior AI Tools Reviewer
Daniel leads AInexfinder's tool reviews. He researches each tool from its own pricing, documentation and policies, checks its claims against independent sources, and writes up what it does well, where it falls short and who it genuinely suits.
Daniel and the AInexfinder editorial team research Peec AI from its own website, pricing, documentation and policies, checked against independent sources. This review is research-based: unless its method note says otherwise, we have not bought a plan or run hands-on tests. The Editor Score is our editorial judgement, and payment never changes it.
Related Pages