vs Peec AI
Looking for a Peec AI alternative
Peec and BeenCited collect the same way — fire the prompt, read the answer. The difference is what happens to the number afterwards: whether you are handed a figure, or a figure with its uncertainty and the evidence behind it.
Run the free scan →| BeenCited | Peec AI | |
|---|---|---|
| Collection | Live sampling, N≥5 per prompt × engine | Live sampling |
| Confidence intervals | Wilson 95% CI + n on every rate | Point estimates |
| Locked baseline | Immutable from onboarding | Not offered |
| AI-referral attribution | Referrer-based session detection | Not offered |
| White-label | From €149/mo | Limited |
When Peec AI is the better choice
Peec is a clean, well-priced tracker and if all you need is to watch your own brand's mentions move, it does that job without extra machinery.
When BeenCited is
The moment you are charging someone else for the improvement, the reporting bar changes: you need a frozen starting point, a delta measured against it, and an interval that survives a sceptical client asking how sure you are.
Questions
What is Share of Voice here?
The share of sampled answers to a prompt in which your brand is named, versus the competitors you are tracking. It is a mention metric, not a citation metric — being named in the answer is what the engines mostly do, and pretending otherwise would flatter the numbers.
How many prompts should I track?
Fewer than people expect. Ten to thirty prompts that your buyers would actually type beats a hundred vanity prompts, and a smaller set means more samples per prompt, which tightens every interval.