ChatGPT is the engine where the slot is usually already taken. Across 60 buyer questions in our own category on 17 September 2026, ChatGPT named a competitor instead of us on 36 of them, 60.0%. Perplexity did that on 6, 10.0%. That is roughly six times the displacement rate, and it changes what a tracker is worth before you buy one. Read the multiple as directional: Perplexity is sampled at about 2 runs per question against 6 to 7 for the other engines, so its 10.0% is the noisier of the two numbers.
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. Competitor prices are dated individually. The raw rows ship as CSV and JSON.
Does ChatGPT actually have rankings?
ChatGPT has no rankings in the search sense, and the phrase most people type is the wrong model for what the engine does. There is no position one. ChatGPT composes an answer and either names products or does not, so what a tracker records is presence, position within the named set, and which sources the answer leaned on. We use the search phrasing here because it is what buyers type, not because ranking is what the engine does.
The number that matters instead is displacement: how often the answer names somebody else. On our set that is 60.0% for ChatGPT against 10.0% for Perplexity, both from the same 60 questions on the same day.
What does ChatGPT do that the other engines do not?
ChatGPT recommends brands where the other engines mostly just mention them. That split is also the reason a monitoring tool's refresh cadence matters more than its engine count. That sounds like a distinction without a difference until you separate the two states in the data.
When ChatGPT named us at all, it recommended us 5 times out of 7. When Perplexity named us, it recommended us zero times out of 11. Perplexity mentioned us in passing eleven times and put us forward as an answer never. Google AI Overviews split 2 recommendations from 5 namings. Gemini never named us at all across the same 60 questions.
So a tracker that reports a single "visible" number is collapsing the most commercially important distinction on this engine. Being mentioned inside a ChatGPT answer and being the thing ChatGPT tells the buyer to use are different outcomes, and only one of them ends in a signup.
Which tools track ChatGPT, and what do they cost?
Seven tools track ChatGPT, ranked below, from $29 a month to enterprise-only. Every one covers ChatGPT in its base tier rather than behind an upsell, which is not true of the other engines they track.
| Tool | Entry price | What the entry tier tracks | ChatGPT gated? |
|---|---|---|---|
| GetIntel | $29/mo | 25 buyer questions, 4 engines daily | No |
| Otterly.AI | $29/mo | 15 prompts, 4 engines | No |
| Peec AI | $95/mo | 50 prompts, 3 engines chosen from 6 | Only if you spend a choice on it |
| SE Ranking | $129/mo | AI tracking bundled into the SEO platform | No |
| LLM Pulse | €49/mo | 5 surfaces including ChatGPT | No |
| Scrunch AI | $250/mo | 125 prompts, 4 LLMs | No |
| Profound | No public price | Enterprise only since September 2026 | n/a |
Entry prices read from each vendor's own page between 15 and 19 September 2026. "ChatGPT gated" means whether reaching ChatGPT costs more than the entry tier. Peec AI is the only yes, because its plans include three engines chosen from a pool of six rather than a fixed set.
1. GetIntel, from $29 a month
GetIntel runs ChatGPT daily on every paid plan alongside Perplexity, Gemini and Google AI Overviews, with Claude weekly on Growth. 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 into one score, which is the distinction the data above turns on. Each gap becomes a ranked task that ships through Claude Code or Cursor over MCP, with your approval.
Choose something else if you want a mature enterprise reporting suite. This is a young product and the proof offered is a public dogfooding page rather than a logo wall.
2. Otterly.AI, from $29 a month
Otterly.AI runs four engines on every tier with ChatGPT in the base set, so nothing about ChatGPT sits behind an upsell. 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. Extra prompts are $99 per 100, read 17 September 2026.
The genuinely ChatGPT-specific feature in this list is theirs: ChatGPT Ads tracking, included on every tier including the $29 Lite. Nobody else here surfaces the paid placements alongside the organic answer, and as OpenAI expands advertising that gap will matter more than it does today.
Choose Otterly when you want the simplest prompt-count ladder and do not need the fix drafted for you.
3. SE Ranking, from $129 a month
SE Ranking is worth checking first if you already pay for an SEO platform, because its AI tracking is bundled rather than sold separately. Core is $129 a month, or $103.20 billed annually, and includes 100 AI prompts tracked daily, re-verified 17 September 2026. Growth is $279 and Enterprise is custom, read the same day.
There is a separate AI Search add-on at $89 a month for 200 prompts, read the same day. SE Ranking's own page does not say whether those stack on the tier allowance, sit in a separate pool, or replace the ceiling, and we are not going to guess on your behalf.
Choose SE Ranking when rank tracking, audits and AI answers should arrive on one invoice.
4. Peec AI, from $95 a month
Peec AI runs a dedicated per-engine tracker page for ChatGPT, which is a reasonable signal of how seriously the engine is treated. 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 throughout.
The constraint to price in: each plan covers three models chosen from a pool of six, so ChatGPT competes for a slot against Gemini, AI Overviews, AI Mode and Copilot. A fourth model is an add-on at $30, $70 or $140 a month by tier, from the same August read.
Choose Peec when you want strong reporting and unlimited seats and are comfortable picking three engines.
5. LLM Pulse, from 49 euros a month
LLM Pulse offers the widest engine coverage at the cheapest entry point here. Starter is 49 euros a month and already covers five surfaces including ChatGPT, with Growth at 99 euros and Scale at 299, from our 15 September 2026 capture of their pricing page.
The limitation is cadence rather than coverage. LLM Pulse refreshes prompts weekly, and on an engine where 60% of answers name somebody else, a weekly reading tells you the field moved without telling you what moved it.
Choose LLM Pulse when budget binds and you want more than three engines at the entry tier.
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. Its pricing page names the four outright and ChatGPT is one, alongside Perplexity, Google AI Overviews and Copilot. Enterprise adds five more.
That works out at $2.00 per prompt per month. For comparison from the same reading, Otterly's $489 Premium covers 400 prompts at $1.22 and our own $149 Growth covers 120 at $1.24. SE Ranking's annual Core works out cheapest of all at $1.03, though its prompts are capped daily rather than pooled monthly, so it is not quite like for like. Scrunch is not badly priced per prompt, it simply has no floor beneath $250.
Choose Scrunch when you are buying for a brand team and want Copilot covered alongside ChatGPT.
7. Profound, enterprise only
Profound is worth knowing rather than worth ranking, because you can no longer buy it self-serve. Profound published $99 and $399 tiers earlier in 2026 and withdrew both. As of 17 September 2026 its pricing page offers a free trial and a custom Enterprise plan, detail in Profound pricing 2026.
The trial is the ChatGPT-relevant part: 10 prompts, run once, against ChatGPT only. One run on an engine whose answers are non-deterministic is an anecdote, so treat it as a product tour rather than a measurement.
What should a ChatGPT tracker actually show you?
A ChatGPT tracker should show four things: whether you are named, which competitor is named instead, which sources the answer pulled from, and how often that holds across reruns. The second is the one most tools collapse.
- Whether you were named, and in what position. The floor. Everything here does it.
- Whether you were recommended or merely mentioned. On our data these diverge sharply by engine, 5 of 7 on ChatGPT against 0 of 11 on Perplexity. A tool that reports one "visibility" number hides it.
- Who was named instead. On 60% of ChatGPT answers in our set somebody else was. The competitor list is the actionable part.
- Which sources the answer used. ChatGPT cites less legibly than Perplexity, so this is harder here and more valuable.
How do you check this yourself before buying anything?
Run ten buyer questions through ChatGPT logged out, five times each, and record three columns: were you named, was anyone named, and were you recommended or just mentioned.
Logged out matters more on ChatGPT than anywhere else, because a signed-in session carries memory and personalisation and will describe your account back to you rather than the market. Five runs matter because answers are non-deterministic, which is exactly why a ten-prompt single-run trial tells you very little.
If most answers name a competitor, you have a displacement problem, and on ChatGPT that is the common case rather than the exception. The free check covers 20 buyer questions across 3 engines in about two minutes with no signup.
What this measurement can and cannot support
This measurement supports claims about our own tracked set and nothing wider. Every engine figure is GetIntel's own tracked buyer-question set, read from our product on 17 September 2026 over a 7-day trailing window, with the per-question rows published above so the percentages can be recomputed. It is one category and one brand's prompt set, so treat it as a strong signal about this market rather than a general claim about ChatGPT.
The caveat that bears on the headline number: Perplexity is sampled at about 2 runs per question in our set against 6 to 7 for the other engines. ChatGPT's 60.0% rests on the denser sampling and Perplexity's 10.0% on the thinner, so the gap between the engines is real and the exact multiple is not something we would defend to a decimal place.
Competitor prices were read from each vendor's own pricing page on the dates stated against each entry. Where a vendor's page leaves something genuinely ambiguous, such as what SE Ranking's $89 add-on buys, we say so rather than picking the reading that makes the comparison tidier.
If you want the engine where the opposite problem applies, Perplexity named nobody at all on 71.7% of the same questions, and Gemini named us zero times in this same 60-question set, though it did name us once on 10 August 2026, which is the only time on record.