Otterly.AI vs Seenby

Two tools can both be described as AI search monitoring and still be answering different questions. So before the table, the ground rules we hold ourselves to on this page.

We describe Seenby only from what it is built to do. Seenby is a platform for brand managers and SEO leads who need to know how AI search engines represent them: a scheduled query engine runs a frozen prompt set every week, a parser extracts brand and competitor mentions, and one headline number, Share of AI Voice, is computed per brand per week with its methodology caveat stored on every record.

We describe Otterly.AI only from material we have quoted from their own pages. We have quoted none. Our internal notes on the product were recall, not retrieval, and recall is not evidence. Rather than publish a feature list or a price for someone else's product that we cannot stand behind, the third column of the table below points you at otterly.ai. Read their product and pricing material, then read ours, and compare like for like.

That is less satisfying than a tidy win column. It is also consistent: a number we cannot evidence does not get published here, whether it is theirs or ours.

The decision underneath the comparison

Most people landing on this query are not really choosing between two vendors yet. Three weeks ago someone in a meeting asked how ChatGPT describes the company. You typed a few prompts by hand and screenshotted the answers into a deck. Then you asked again, and the answers had changed. The real choice is between a repeatable weekly measurement and another quarter of spot checks. Pick either tool over the spreadsheet before you agonise over which tool.

Seenby is deliberately narrow, and it is worth knowing the shape of that narrowness before you compare anything.

At setup you give a brand name, a description and up to three competitor names. From those, 50 to 100 prompt templates are generated, with a curated fallback set if generation returns too few. The set is then frozen. The same prompts run every week, because a trend only means something if the questions stop moving.

The query engine hits exactly two providers: OpenAI and Perplexity. They sit behind a provider adapter interface that degrades gracefully if one provider is disabled, which matters in a category where access policies can change without notice. Two providers is not every assistant your buyers use, and we would rather say that plainly than imply coverage we do not have.

Each stored response is tagged with its model version. Each mention is classified positive, neutral, negative or absent, with the brand's ranking position inside that response. The dashboard carries 30-day trend lines for Share of AI Voice, a sentiment breakdown, the prompts where you are named and the prompts where you are not, and a competitor benchmarking view against the names you chose. A weekly email digest carries the top insights, drift alerts tied to model-version changes where applicable, and the methodology caveat.

A fair answer here depends on which of these sentences is yours.

Seenby fits when

You have one brand, a named competitive set of no more than three, and a recurring reporting obligation. You need one defensible number you can put in a monthly deck, with the evidence underneath it: the prompt, the provider, the model version, the sentiment, the position. You care more about continuity than breadth, and you would rather have two providers measured the same way every week than a wider sweep you cannot compare across weeks. You are the person who will be asked why the number moved, and you want the answer in the tool rather than in a follow-up email.

Look elsewhere, including at Otterly.AI, when

Your requirements include something Seenby does not do. Several are worth listing because they are the common reasons to walk: more than one brand under one subscription, coverage beyond OpenAI and Perplexity, citation or source-level analytics showing which URLs a model cites, AI crawler and agent traffic reporting, white-labelled client reporting, single sign-on, a signed data processing agreement, an independent security certification, or self-serve export into your own warehouse. None of those are in Seenby today. Take that list to Otterly.AI and to anyone else on your shortlist and ask them to answer it line by line, then compare their answers against ours.

The two alternatives most teams actually weigh

Manual spot-checking in ChatGPT or Perplexity plus a spreadsheet costs nothing and produces no trend, because the questions and the models both move between checks. An in-house cron job firing your prompt list at model APIs is cheap in licence terms and real in engineering terms, and it leaves you to invent a benchmarking methodology and a way of telling model drift from market movement. Both are legitimate. Both are what a paid tool has to beat, and either vendor you are comparing has to beat them too.

Seenby has not launched. Joining the waitlist gets you the build notes and a place in the first cohort, not a login, and nothing on this page is a customer result, because there are no customers yet. We would rather say that than dress intent up as traction.

What we can commit to is scope. The product is built to do the things listed above and nothing more: two providers, one brand, three competitors, one weekly number with its caveat attached. If that is narrower than your shortlist requires, Otterly.AI and the rest of the category deserve the look, and we would rather you found the right fit than the fastest yes.

For the plan, its limits and what sits outside it, see the pricing page. If you are evaluating this for a client rather than an employer, the agencies page explains how one brand per subscription plays out across a client roster.