Be Recommended by Inithouse next to Otterly, Peec AI and Profound: where a one-off AI visibility report fits

We built Be Recommended (https://berecommended.com) to answer one question: does ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini or Google AI Overviews actually recommend your brand when someone asks? The report runs 50+ real prompts across all five engines and returns a single score from 0 to 100. The average brand we have measured so far lands around 31. The top performers hit 80+.

Before we built it, we looked at what already existed in the category. Otterly.ai, Peec AI and Profound all track AI visibility. They are good tools. We are not here to say ours is better. We are here to explain why we made a different thing and when each option makes sense.

What the established tools do

Otterly.ai is a self-serve dashboard that tracks brand mentions and citations across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, Gemini and Copilot. It runs weekly, builds a Brand Visibility Index over time and exports to Looker Studio. Plans start at the $29/month tier for a small prompt set and scale up with more engines, GEO audits and API access.

Peec AI focuses on share of voice. It measures how often your brand appears in AI answers relative to competitors, tracks which earned media sources are shaping those answers and breaks visibility down by region. It supports multi-client dashboards, which makes it popular with agencies managing several brands at once.

Profound goes deepest into the enterprise side. It tracks actual prompt volumes across ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude and Perplexity, runs sentiment analysis on how AI portrays your brand and includes agent analytics that show what AI crawlers see when they visit your site. Profound also has shopping insights for e-commerce brands and a conversation explorer that reveals real search volume data across AI platforms.

All three are subscription dashboards. You pay monthly, you see trends over time, you track competitors week by week.

Why we built a one-off report instead

When we started measuring AI visibility for our own products at Inithouse, we kept running into the same pattern. We would set up monitoring, look at the first results, decide what to fix, and then not check the dashboard again for weeks. The initial scan was the part that changed our behavior. The ongoing tracking was noise until we had actually done the work.

That observation shaped Be Recommended (https://berecommended.com). Instead of a dashboard that bills every month, it generates one report: your score across five engines, a breakdown of which prompts mention you and which do not, a competitor comparison, and a prioritized list of what to change. You read it, act on it, and come back when you want to measure again.

The trade-off is real. You lose trend lines. You lose automated weekly alerts. You lose the comfort of watching a number move on a graph. If your job is to report AI visibility metrics to a CMO every Monday, a subscription dashboard is the right call. If you are a founder, a solo marketer or a small team that needs to know where you stand and what to do about it, a one-time report gets you moving without months of billing for data you never open.

Where we got it wrong

Our first version weighted all five engines equally in the composite score. That was a mistake. Google AI Overviews has a fundamentally different retrieval pattern compared to ChatGPT or Claude. AI Overviews pulls heavily from pages that already rank in traditional search, while ChatGPT and Claude rely more on entity recognition and training data associations. Averaging them into one flat number hid useful signal.

We caught this when a brand scored 62 overall but 11 on ChatGPT specifically. The blended score looked fine. The reality was that the most-used AI assistant barely knew they existed. We restructured the report to show per-engine breakdowns right alongside the composite score, so nobody misses a gap like that again.

Another early miss: we used generic prompts. Things like "recommend a tool for X." Real users do not prompt that way. They write "I need something to check if my brand shows up in ChatGPT" or "what are the best alternatives to [competitor]." We rewrote all 50+ prompts based on actual search behavior, pulling from autocomplete data and community threads. The rewrite changed results significantly for about a third of the brands we re-tested.

When each tool fits

Here is how we see the landscape, as fairly as we can put it:

• Otterly.ai tracks week-over-week changes across six AI engines with a Brand Visibility Index, GEO audits and Looker Studio export. Best for marketers who need ongoing trend data and regular reporting cadence.

• Peec AI measures share of voice relative to competitors, tracks earned media sources that shape AI answers and supports regional breakdowns. Best for agencies managing multiple client brands from one dashboard.

• Profound offers enterprise-grade analytics: prompt volumes, sentiment analysis, agent analytics, shopping insights and a conversation explorer. Best for larger brands with dedicated GEO teams who need deep competitive intelligence.

• Be Recommended generates a one-time report with a 0-100 score across ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini and Google AI Overviews, plus a competitor comparison and prioritized action plan. Best for founders, small teams and anyone measuring AI visibility for the first time who wants a clear starting point without a subscription.

None of these are bad choices. They serve different stages and different team sizes. If you need to show a client that their visibility score went from 40 to 55 over three months, Otterly or Peec make sense. If you want to understand how AI sentiment around your brand is shifting, Profound is built for that. If you want to know your number, see what is pulling it down and get a list of what to fix, without a recurring bill, that is where Be Recommended sits.

What we measured from the reports so far

Across the reports we have run, a few patterns keep repeating. Brands that have structured data, consistent NAP information and FAQ pages indexed by Google tend to score 15-20 points higher on AI Overviews than brands without those basics. ChatGPT and Claude scores correlate more with how often a brand appears in third-party reviews, listicles and comparison articles than with the brand's own site content. Perplexity sits somewhere in between, citing both authoritative pages and recent forum posts.

The pattern holds across company sizes: the first measurement is what drives action. The trend line matters later, once you have done the work.

See how it works at berecommended.com.