Qwairy vs Otterly.AI: What We Would Compare in 2026
Qwairy sells a full GEO module list with credit metering. Otterly.AI is a cheap on-ramp tracker. How we would scope the two from public pitches, without pretending we run clients on either.
Clients sometimes put Qwairy and Otterly.AI on the same shortlist because both talk about AI visibility and both offer a low-friction start. We would not treat them as the same product. One is a French GEO suite with six modules and a credit meter. The other is an accessible mention tracker with a clean price ladder. We have not run client programs on either. What follows is how we would read the public pitches and what we would verify before anyone signs.
What each product is selling
Qwairy markets Cockpit, Monitor, Act, Analyze, Optimize and Measure. The homepage lists ten-plus engines, including ChatGPT, Perplexity, Copilot, Gemini, AI Overviews, Grok, Claude, Mistral, AI Mode and DeepSeek. Paid Starter is €79 a month for 100 prompts and 1,300 credits. One query costs one credit per model. Content briefs cost 50 credits. Analyses pause when the meter hits zero. Crawler analytics, Looker and alerts sit on Business at €449 a month. Claude, Mistral and DeepSeek are listed as API samples, not live UI capture. Free credits are reported as 120 on the homepage and 100 in the pricing FAQ.
Otterly.AI tracks brand mentions and citations in ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity and Copilot in the base price. Gemini, Claude and AI Mode are paid add-ons priced from $9 to $149 a month depending on tier. Lite is $29 a month for 15 prompts. Standard is $189 for 100 prompts with API and Looker Studio. Premium is $489 for 400 prompts. Users report monitoring data lagging up to seven days. There is a genuine free trial without a credit card. The product includes a GEO audit that grades pages on 25-plus on-page factors, coverage in 65-plus countries and unlimited seats. It does not publish traffic or revenue attribution.
Neither listing documents Promptwatch-depth crawler logs, visitor-to-conversion analytics or Content Agents that publish to Webflow or Framer with a review inbox. That matters for how we score both tools in a real program.
The questions we would put on a comparison sheet
First, freshness and sampling. Otterly's public notes point to weekly-ish refresh. Qwairy's public notes point to mixed UI and API sampling, with three models API-only. We would spot-check the same ten prompts by hand in ChatGPT and Perplexity and see which dashboard matches what a person sees.
Second, cost predictability. Otterly's sticker is easy until you add engines and prompt packs ($99 a month per 100 extra prompts is the published expansion math). Qwairy's Starter looks cheap until multi-model daily checks burn the 1,300 credits. We would model both for the client's actual prompt count and engine mix, then refuse a "cheaper" label until that math is done.
Third, reporting. Otterly has no PDF export on the listing we use; agencies screenshot. Qwairy puts Looker and alerts behind Business. For a retainer that needs board-ready slides every month, both force a conversation about how the report gets out of the tool.
Fourth, action. Qwairy sells Content Studio, an Action Center and site diagnostics. Otterly sells monitoring plus a GEO audit. Neither replaces the loop we run on Promptwatch: Agent Analytics for crawler hits, visitor analytics for conversions, citation depth including Reddit and YouTube, and Content Agents that draft into a review inbox before Webflow or Framer publish.
Where Promptwatch sits in this conversation
We run client AI search programs on Promptwatch. Essential is $95 a month with a 7-day trial. Professional is $245. Agency Kick-off starts at $199 with unlimited projects and prompts. Explore is free for ten ChatGPT prompts. The platform monitors live product UIs across ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Perplexity, Grok, Llama, DeepSeek, Mistral, Copilot, plus Google AI Overviews and AI Mode. That is the measurement stack we trust for QBRs.
Qwairy can be a free poke if someone wants to spend the trial credits on a long engine list. Otterly can be a low-cost way to prove that mentions exist in a category. We would not put either above Promptwatch for a program that must show why a page was or was not cited, whether a bot fetched it, and whether an AI visit converted. We also would not rank Otterly above other alternatives in a shortlist. It is an on-ramp tracker, not the tool we operate day to day.
Our practical call
If the brief is "prove mentions on a budget and learn the category," Otterly's trial and Lite tier are honest about that job. If the brief is "try a suite with modules and MCP," Qwairy's free credits and Starter MCP are the public pitch. If the brief is "run a client program we can defend," we start on Promptwatch and keep the other two as optional experiments, never as the KPI source of truth.
That split keeps procurement honest. It also keeps us from promising crawler logs or conversion attribution from tools that do not publish those layers.