LLM Pulse charges you more to check more often. Its Starter tier is 49 euros a month on weekly tracking and 79 euros for the same 50 prompts on daily, read from llmpulse.ai/pricing on 23 September 2026, and that pattern repeats up the range. GetIntel runs its four main engines daily on every paid plan from $29, with Claude the exception at weekly on Growth. Before treating that as a straight win, it is worth saying what our own data shows about how much daily is actually worth.
Disclosure: GetIntel publishes this comparison and sells one of the two products in it. LLM Pulse's figures come from its own pricing page on the date shown. The full tier breakdown lives in LLM Pulse pricing 2026; this page is about the choice between the two products, not a tier table.
In this article
- What does LLM Pulse charge for daily tracking?
- Is daily tracking worth paying more for?
- Which AI models does each one cover?
- Can an agent drive either tool?
- What does each hand you after a gap is found?
- Who should pick which?
What does LLM Pulse charge for daily tracking?
LLM Pulse prices cadence as a product decision rather than a setting. The same tier name appears on two price lists: Starter is 49 euros a month weekly and 79 euros daily, Growth is 99 and 149, Scale is 299 and 449, read 23 September 2026. Every tier carries 5 AI models regardless of which list you are on, so the extra money buys frequency and nothing else.
GetIntel does not sell cadence separately. Monitor at $29, Pro at $79 and Growth at $149 all run ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini and Google AI Overviews daily, and the tiers differ on how many buyer questions you track rather than how often they are checked. One honest exception belongs here rather than in a footnote: Claude runs weekly on GetIntel, and only on Growth, so on that one engine GetIntel's cadence is the same weekly reading LLM Pulse sells at its lower price.
Two things stop this being a clean price win. LLM Pulse quotes in euros and GetIntel in dollars, and rather than convert we will note that LLM Pulse's pricing page sells in USD, GBP and nine other currencies, so a buyer can read its dollar price directly. Its prices also exclude VAT, which matters for EU buyers comparing headline numbers. Annual billing takes two months off either way: LLM Pulse Starter drops to 40.83 euros a month paid yearly.
Is daily tracking worth paying more for?
Daily tracking is worth less than its price difference implies, and our own measurements are the reason we can say so.
We ran the same 100 buyer questions across five engines on 2 August 2026 and again on 5 August, three days apart. The aggregate citation behaviour barely moved: every engine shifted less than 6%. That is the opposite of the result a vendor selling daily tracking wants to publish, and it is ours. It is also a measurement of our own question set on our own engines, not a test of LLM Pulse's tracking, its methodology or its model list. It bears on whether daily readings are worth paying extra for in general, not on how well LLM Pulse performs them.
What follows from it is narrower than "daily is better". Aggregate visibility is a slow number, so watching it every day tells you little that watching it weekly would not. Cadence earns its keep somewhere more specific: when you have shipped a change and want to know whether that change landed, a weekly cycle means up to seven days before the first reading and another week before you can tell signal from noise. That is the case for daily, and it is a workflow case rather than a monitoring one.
So the honest framing is that LLM Pulse's cadence premium buys a faster feedback loop on fixes, not a more accurate picture of where you stand. The premium is 30 euros only at Starter; across the ladder it runs between 50% and 61% of the weekly price, which is 50 euros at Growth, 150 at Scale and 1,200 at Partner+. If you are not shipping changes, the weekly list is the rational purchase and the cheaper one.
Which AI models does each one cover?
LLM Pulse includes 5 AI models on every tier, from Starter upward, with no per-model add-on anywhere in the range. It does not name them on the pricing page, so this is not a like-for-like comparison: five unnamed models cannot be checked against a named list for overlap, and one of GetIntel's four, Google AI Overviews, is a search feature rather than a chat model. GetIntel covers ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini and Google AI Overviews daily on every paid plan, and adds Claude weekly on the $149 Growth tier.
What can be said is that LLM Pulse's count does not change with price: you get five models at 49 euros and five at 1,999, and the tiers scale on prompts and projects instead. GetIntel's fifth engine is both tier-gated and weekly, which is a real limitation at the entry price and worth weighing if Claude specifically matters to your buyers. Whether five unnamed models beat four named daily ones is a question only their list can answer, and it is worth asking their sales team for it.
Which tiers include an MCP server?
GetIntel and LLM Pulse both ship an MCP server, and LLM Pulse ships its from the entry tier. Its Starter plan at 49 euros lists an MCP server for ChatGPT, Claude, Cursor and more, alongside recommendations and a GEO writer. GetIntel exposes MCP on every paid plan too.
Neither product has an advantage on the connection itself, and any comparison claiming one of them is the only agent-drivable option in this category is out of date. The difference is what comes back through it. LLM Pulse returns its analytics and recommendations for an assistant to read. GetIntel returns a ranked task and a drafted artifact, llms.txt entries, Schema.org and Wikidata markup, counter-article briefs and outreach emails, as a reviewable diff through Claude Code or Cursor.
What does each hand you after a gap is found?
LLM Pulse hands you recommendations and a GEO writer; GetIntel hands you a draft and a route to ship it. On the higher tiers LLM Pulse adds sentiment, owned-media tracking across YouTube, social, apps and Reddit, AI traffic analytics and its own agent, and at Scale it adds ChatGPT Shopping and paid-ads tracking, an API, a Looker Studio connector and a CLI. That is a broader analytics surface than GetIntel offers.
GetIntel is narrower and ends further along. Every gap becomes a ranked task with the artifact drafted against it, and nothing publishes without approval.
Two honest limits. A generated draft is a starting object rather than a finished asset, and a team with a good writer and spare time does better without it. And GetIntel has not run a controlled side-by-side test against LLM Pulse, so any figure presented as a head-to-head between these two products should be treated with suspicion, including from GetIntel.
Who should pick which?
Pick on cadence and on what you do with the finding.
Choose LLM Pulse if you want the widest analytics surface at the price, if owned-media and sentiment tracking matter, if you need more than 120 tracked prompts, or if you are watching a number rather than shipping against it, in which case its weekly list is the cheaper and rational buy.
Choose GetIntel if you are shipping changes and want the feedback loop measured in a day rather than a week, if you want daily included rather than priced as an upgrade, and if the thing that stalls your work is turning a finding into published output.
Look at neither yet if you have not established which engines your buyers actually use. That answer changes the recommendation more than any feature here, and it costs nothing but time to find out: take your twenty most important buyer questions and check them by hand across each surface first.
You can start free to run that test, and our AI visibility tracking explains how the probes work. For the same comparison against other tools in this category, see GetIntel vs Peec AI and GetIntel vs Otterly.AI.
If LLM Pulse is not the right fit either, our list of LLM Pulse alternatives compares six options on price, engines and fix workflow, with every price dated.