Peec AI vs Seenby

Seenby tracks one brand across two AI answer providers, OpenAI and Perplexity, using a prompt set frozen at setup, and reduces the week to a single number: Share of AI Voice, benchmarked against up to three competitors you name. Seenby is on a waitlist today, so everything here is what the product is built to do, not a report from customers.

Peec AI is another tool in the same category. Our research on it is recall, not retrieval: we have not fetched its live product or pricing pages, and we will not print a price, a model list or a feature set we cannot quote. So this page does not tell you what Peec AI costs or covers. For that, read peec.ai and ask their team directly.

That sounds like an odd way to write a comparison page. It is the only honest one we have. What we can do is describe Seenby precisely enough that you can hold any other tool, Peec AI included, to the same set of questions, and know what a straight answer looks like when you get one.

The decision underneath the search

Most people arriving at a query like this are not really choosing between two logos. They were asked how ChatGPT describes the company, they checked by hand a few times, got a different answer each time, and concluded that spot-checking is not a measurement. The real decision is what kind of instrument you want: a broad one that watches many surfaces at a shallow depth, or a narrow one that measures a small number of surfaces the same way every week so the trend line means something. Seenby is deliberately the second kind.

Scope first, because scope is where comparison pages usually go soft.

Two providers, named. The scheduled query engine hits exactly two providers, OpenAI and Perplexity, behind a provider adapter interface that degrades gracefully if one provider is disabled. Not four. If your board deck needs Gemini coverage this quarter, that is a real reason to look elsewhere, and we would rather you learn it here than on a call.

One headline metric. Share of AI Voice is computed once per brand per week, and every computed record is stored with its methodology caveat text attached. The caveat is not a footnote we can quietly drop later; it travels with the number.

Methodology in the open. The disclosure is surfaced in-product on every score display and on a dedicated methodology page. You can read how the score is built before you believe it, and so can the colleague who challenges it in the monthly review.

Drift you can tell apart. Every stored response is tagged with its model version, so a movement caused by a model update can be distinguished from a movement caused by the market. This matters because the strongest objection to this whole category is that the results change every time you ask. That objection is correct. Model updates move scores. A tool that hides this is selling you confidence, not measurement.

Evidence under the number. The response parser extracts brand and competitor mentions, classifies sentiment as positive, neutral, negative or absent, and records ranking position within each response. The dashboard shows 30-day trend lines, a sentiment breakdown, the prompts where you are and are not named, and a competitor benchmarking view.

Limits, stated. One brand per subscription, up to three named competitors, 50 to 100 prompts per week, OpenAI and Perplexity. Sign-in is email and password. There is no SAML or OIDC, no SOC 2 or ISO 27001, and no choice of hosting region.

Reasons to look closely at Peec AI

If you need more than one brand in a single account, you are an agency reporting across a client roster, or you require coverage of assistants beyond OpenAI and Perplexity, those are concrete requirements Seenby does not meet today, and you should evaluate tools that state they do. We are not going to describe who Peec AI is built for, or what it covers, from memory: read peec.ai and put the questions above to their team. European buyers with data residency requirements should also ask both vendors where data is stored; Seenby runs in a single Amazon Web Services region and does not offer a choice of region.

Reasons to look closely at Seenby

Choose Seenby if you are measuring one brand seriously and the credibility of the number matters more than the breadth of the dashboard. The design decisions all point the same way: a frozen prompt set so the trend measures the market rather than changing questions, model-version tagging so drift is attributable, one score a week rather than a figure that twitches hourly, and the methodology visible on every score display so the number survives a sceptical colleague. If you have to put AI search in a board deck and then defend it, that is the trade we optimised for.

Choose it also if you want the price on the page. No demo gate to find out.

An honest limit on both

Neither tool can promise a stable number, and you should distrust one that implies otherwise. Large language models are non-deterministic and their outputs shift with every model update. A week-over-week change in any AI visibility score may reflect a model update rather than a real competitive change. The useful question is not whether a tool eliminates that noise, which none can, but whether it shows you the noise and helps you name it.