Monitoring implies something runs while you are not watching. Several tools sold as AI search monitoring refresh weekly, and two of the seven below only refresh daily once you leave the entry tier. Cadence is the thing to check first, because a weekly reading cannot tell you which change moved the number.
Disclosure: GetIntel sells an AI visibility tool and ranks itself first here, which is what 16 of 17 vendor roundups do. Read the order as a vendor's order. Every competitor figure carries the date it was read.
Why does refresh cadence decide what monitoring is worth?
Answer engines are non-deterministic. The same buyer question returns a different answer on different runs, so a single reading is an anecdote and the value of a monitor is in the sequence, not the snapshot.
A weekly refresh tells you the field moved at some point in the last seven days. It cannot tell you whether the page you shipped on Tuesday caused it, because between two readings you have also published, a competitor has published, and the model may have been updated. Daily readings narrow that window to something you can reason about.
This matters more on some engines than others. On our own tracked set, read 17 September 2026, ChatGPT named a competitor instead of us on 60.0% of 60 buyer questions while Perplexity did so on 10.0%. Where displacement is common the field moves constantly, and a weekly sample misses most of the motion.
What should an AI search monitor report that most do not?
An AI search monitor should tell you whether you were recommended or merely mentioned. Most collapse both into one visibility number, and the two outcomes are not close in value.
On our own data, read 17 September 2026: when ChatGPT named us it recommended us in 5 of 7 answers. When Perplexity named us it recommended us in 0 of 11, mentioning us in passing every time. Google AI Overviews split 2 recommendations across 5 namings. Gemini never named us at all across the same 60 questions.
A monitor reporting one blended score across those engines would have shown a number going up while the commercially useful half of it, being recommended, stayed at zero on one engine and near-total on another. The per-question rows are published as CSV and JSON.
Which AI search monitoring tools refresh daily, and what do they cost?
Seven tools are ranked below, each with the refresh cadence its vendor states and the price on the date it was read. Three refresh daily at entry, one is weekly throughout, and one is weekly free and daily from $79.
| Tool | Refresh cadence | Entry price | Page read |
|---|---|---|---|
| GetIntel | Daily, every paid plan | $29/mo | 17 Sep 2026 |
| Otterly.AI | Daily, from the entry tier | $29/mo | 19 Sep 2026 |
| Peec AI | Daily | $95/mo | 15 Sep 2026 |
| Siftly | Weekly on free, daily from Starter | $0 free, $79 Starter | 17 Sep 2026 |
| LLM Pulse | Weekly, or daily on a separate price list | €49/mo weekly, €79/mo daily | 26 Aug 2026 |
| Scrunch AI | Not captured | $250/mo | 15 Sep 2026 |
| Profound | No self-serve plan to refresh | No public price | 17 Sep 2026 |
Cadence is what each vendor states on its own page. LLM Pulse sells cadence explicitly: its weekly and daily tiers are two separate price lists, detailed in LLM Pulse pricing 2026. Scrunch AI reads "not captured" rather than guessing, because our read recorded its price and engine coverage but not its refresh frequency. Treat that one as unknown rather than as slow.
1. GetIntel, from $29 a month
GetIntel refreshes daily on every paid plan, including the $29 entry tier, across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini and Google AI Overviews, with Claude weekly on the $149 Growth tier. Monitor is $29 for 25 buyer questions, Pro $79 for 60, Growth $149 for 120, verified on our own pricing page on 17 September 2026. The 7-day trial takes a card and charges on day 8.
It separates recommended from mentioned rather than merging them, which is the distinction the section above turns on, and each gap becomes a ranked task that ships through Claude Code or Cursor with your approval.
Choose something else if you want a mature enterprise reporting suite. This is a young product whose proof is a public dogfooding page rather than a logo wall.
2. Otterly.AI, from $29 a month
Otterly.AI states daily tracking from its $29 Lite tier, which is the cheapest daily refresh in this list alongside ours. Lite is $29 for 15 prompts, Standard $189 for 100, Premium $489 for 400, Enterprise from $1,000, read 22 August 2026 and re-checked 17 September 2026.
One distinction worth reading carefully: tracking is daily, but recommendations are delivered three times a week on Lite. The data refreshes faster than the advice built on it.
Choose Otterly when you want the simplest prompt-count ladder with daily data at the entry price.
3. Peec AI, from $95 a month
Peec AI refreshes daily across its engine set. Brand plans are $95, $245 and $495 a month, read from their pricing page on 26 August 2026 and detailed in Peec AI pricing 2026. Their page renders figures in JavaScript, so we re-confirmed the tier structure on 19 September 2026 but could not re-read the numbers themselves. Unlimited seats on every tier.
The constraint is engine choice rather than cadence: each plan covers three models chosen from a pool of six, so you decide which three get monitored, and a fourth costs $30, $70 or $140 more by tier, from the same August read.
Choose Peec when unlimited seats matter and you are comfortable monitoring three engines properly rather than six thinly.
4. Siftly, free tier weekly, daily from $79
Siftly is the clearest example of cadence being tiered. Its free $0 plan refreshes weekly across 10 prompts and 2 engines, while Starter at $79 moves to daily across 50 prompts and 3 engines, read 17 September 2026. Growth is $249.
That makes the free tier a sampler rather than a monitor, which is an honest way to build it, but worth knowing before you judge the product on the free plan.
Choose Siftly when you want to try the shape before paying, then step up to daily deliberately.
5. LLM Pulse, from 49 euros a month
LLM Pulse covers the widest engine set at the lowest entry price, five surfaces from 49 euros a month, with Growth at 99 euros and Scale at 299, from our 15 September 2026 capture of their pricing page.
The trade is cadence. LLM Pulse refreshes prompts weekly at every tier we could read. On an engine like ChatGPT, where a competitor is named instead of you 60% of the time, a weekly sample will show you a trend across a quarter and will not attribute a change to anything you did.
Choose LLM Pulse when engine breadth matters more than attribution and budget is the binding constraint.
6. Scrunch AI, $250 a month
Scrunch AI sells one self-serve tier, Core at $250 for 125 prompts and four LLMs, read 15 September 2026, with Enterprise adding five more engines. Its pricing page names the four outright: ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews and Copilot.
At $250 for 125 prompts that is $2.00 per prompt per month. For comparison from the same readings, Otterly's $489 Premium covers 400 at $1.22 and our own $149 Growth covers 120 at $1.24. Scrunch is not badly priced per prompt; it simply has no tier beneath $250.
Choose Scrunch when you are buying for a brand team and need Copilot monitored alongside the others.
7. Profound, enterprise only
Profound belongs in the list for completeness rather than as something you can buy. It published $99 and $399 self-serve tiers earlier in 2026 and withdrew both; as of 17 September 2026 its pricing page shows a free trial and a custom Enterprise plan, detail in Profound pricing 2026.
The trial is ten prompts run once against ChatGPT only, which on a non-deterministic engine is a demonstration rather than a measurement.
What separates a monitor from a dashboard?
A monitor differs from a dashboard on four things: how often it refreshes, whether it alerts you without being opened, whether it keeps history, and whether it tells you what changed. Cadence is only the first. If you are also weighing the generators these tools ship, we tested llms.txt and schema and found nothing.
- How often it reads. Daily narrows attribution to a day. Weekly does not.
- Whether it tells you unprompted. A dashboard waits to be opened. A monitor reaches you when something changes, which is the difference between finding out on Tuesday and finding out next month.
- Whether it separates recommended from mentioned. Our data above shows those diverge from 5-in-7 to 0-in-11 depending on the engine.
- Whether it keeps the cited sources. A number tells you something moved. The cited URLs tell you what to do about it.
How can you test cadence before you buy?
Test cadence before you buy by asking the vendor one question: on the plan I am considering, how often does a tracked prompt re-run, and is that the same on every engine?
The answer is often tiered in ways pricing pages do not surface. Siftly is weekly free and daily from $79. Otterly tracks daily but delivers recommendations three times a week on Lite. GetIntel runs four engines daily and Claude weekly, and only on the top tier. None of that is hidden, but none of it is in the headline either.
Then run your own ten buyer questions through ChatGPT logged out, five times each, and see how much the answer moves between runs. That variance is what a weekly monitor is sampling once.
The limits of this comparison
This comparison is limited to published claims. Every cadence and price here is what each vendor states on its own page, on the date given in its entry. We have not run all seven products end to end, so this is a read of what is published rather than a hands-on test, and a vendor could refresh more often than it advertises.
The engine figures are GetIntel's own tracked buyer-question set, read 17 September 2026 over a 7-day trailing window, with the rows published so the percentages can be recomputed. One caveat carries: Perplexity is sampled at about 2 runs per question against 6 to 7 for the other engines, so the contrast between engines is solid and the exact ratios are not something we would defend to a decimal place.
For the engine-specific versions of this question, ChatGPT displaces on 60% of questions and Perplexity names nobody at all on 71.7%.