Achtung.app compared to Profound, Peec.ai, and Conductor

Meltwater, Brandwatch, Talkwalker, Awario, and Mention are media- and social-listening tools. They measure where your brand name appears once someone writes it. GEO tools like Achtung.app measure whether AI models recommend you when nobody has named you. Different question, different data, different category.

Semrush, Ahrefs, and SE Ranking are classical SEO suites. They have added GEO features, but the focus remains keyword data, backlinks, and SERP rankings for Google and Bing. Anyone running GEO as a primary discipline tends to compare Achtung.app with Profound, Peec.ai, or Conductor.

Profound publishes pricing on its pricing page: Starter from $99/month ($82.50 yearly), Growth from $399/month ($332.50 yearly), Enterprise on request. The Starter tier tracks ChatGPT only; three providers require Growth, and full coverage of up to ten providers requires Enterprise. Achtung.app, by contrast, tracks the same four search-grounded providers (ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity daily, Claude weekly) on every plan; the Pro tier (€999) does not expand the search-grounded provider list — it expands brands, keywords, brand portal, and API/MCP. Profound bundles editorial add-ons (e.g. six produced AEO articles per month on the Growth tier); Achtung.app focuses on measurement plus an agency portal and API/MCP from the Pro tier. The choice depends on whether you need editorial production or provider coverage at the entry tier.

Four: ChatGPT (OpenAI), Google Gemini, Perplexity, and Claude (Anthropic). These are the providers that answer search-grounded via API, meaning the model runs a live search of the open web per query instead of citing from training data. ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity are tracked daily; Claude runs weekly due to higher API cost. Achtung.app tracks all four on every plan. Additional models can be added on request.

Peec.ai is the closest European peer and covers seven "models" (ChatGPT, AI Mode, AI Overviews, Microsoft Copilot, Perplexity, Gemini, Grok), several of which are different surfaces of the same provider. On entry price Peec.ai sits at €85/month (€70 with annual billing), Achtung.app at €169/month (€154.92 with annual billing). The difference is metering model and measurement depth: Peec.ai counts prompts and projects (Starter: 50 prompts, 1 project, 3 selectable models); Achtung.app counts brands and keywords (Starter: 1 brand, 20 keywords, four fixed providers, two runs per keyword per day). Two runs cost twice as much but absorb the spread in live web search: two identical queries to the same platform on the same day often do not return the same cited sources. API access is Enterprise-only on Peec.ai; on Achtung.app it ships in the Pro plan (€999/month) along with MCP. Both are credible DACH options; the choice comes down to volume profile and whether entry price or measurement stability weighs more.

LLM Clicks shows up in Achtung.app's own AI data as the single most-cited AI-visibility peer, yet it is intentionally absent from the table above: LLM Clicks sells lifetime bundles ($159 one-time on Starter) rather than a recurring license. Comparing it on a pricing axis with monthly SaaS plans would be misleading, because every visibility check incurs real LLM API costs that a one-time price has to absorb differently. By category LLM Clicks belongs alongside Profound, Peec.ai, and Achtung.app; commercially it is a different shape of business.

This table was assembled in June 2026 from the public websites of Profound, Peec.ai, and Conductor. Corrections welcome at hello@achtung.app.

Search-grounded means the model performs a live web search on every query and cites the sources it finds. Closed-book means the model answers from training data, whose cutoff is months or years old. Achtung.app calls the providers' search-grounded APIs directly on every query, with deterministic sampling parameters (temperature 0, seeds where supported) and a citation with URL per response. On three providers the web search is forced; on one it is offered and the model decides, with each call logging whether it ran. Other tools end up on the same grounding via different paths: Profound and Peec.ai scrape the consumer-facing UIs, so they see whatever the platform routes for that user at that moment (Peec.ai's own docs say so explicitly: "the platform decides whether they perform a web search or not"). The difference is therefore not that no model ever decides at Achtung.app, but that the decision is controlled and logged rather than inherited and unobserved. Conductor uses APIs but does not publicly disclose whether it measures grounded or closed-book. The real difference is therefore less "grounded yes or no" than reproducibility, citation auditability, and independence from UI changes or anti-scraping measures.

Two reasons, one methodological and one legal. First, agents and downstream applications reach AI platforms through the official APIs, not through the consumer web UI. Scraping the UI measures a browser session whose answer can be shaped by account personalization, memory, plan tier (Free/Plus), and A/B test variants. Even with meticulously clean accounts, the result is still a statement about that specific session at that specific moment, not about agentic visibility. Second, the terms of service from OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Perplexity reserve the consumer interface for human users; the intended path for automated access is the API. For that reason Achtung.app uses the vendors' official search-grounded APIs across the board, with live web search enabled on every query, deterministic sampling parameters (temperature 0, seeds where supported), and a citation with URL per response. Methodology details at /en/methodology#search-grounded.