citepath vs Peec AI

Peec AI is the mid-market pick with the category's best-reviewed prompt workflow and source analysis — but its Actions feature stops at a ranked list of opportunities, and citepath goes past measurement: generating the fix, applying it, and verifying it landed by re-crawl.

FeaturecitepathPeec AI
Getting startedFree instant scan, no signup — then self-serve plans from $49/mo with a 14-day trialSelf-serve plans from ~$95/mo — no free scan
Engines trackedChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity, and Grok on every planPick 3 of 6 engines on self-serve plans; more via paid add-ons
Source & citation analysisSource-clustered opportunities grouped as editorial/UGC/reference/owned with opportunity scoresBest-in-class — URL-level citation data reviewers rank above Otterly, plus prompt-volume estimates
Fix generationFix feed generates the artifact — llms.txt, JSON-LD, robots.txt diffs — with per-item instructionsActions clusters opportunities into owned/editorial/reference/UGC — a ranked list, no generated artifact
Applying the fixOne-click GitHub fix PRs, or a shareable instructions link for a developerNot offered — the Actions list stays inside the platform
Verifying it workedRe-crawls the published artifact server-side and rescans to show the delta — pending → applied → verifiedNot offered — no action→result attribution
Agency / multi-clientNot offered — single-team brands todayUnlimited seats and agency pitch workspaces
Reporting & exportPublic report links, CSV/PDF export, REST API + per-brand MCP endpoint on every planCleanest reporting in the category (G2 4.9) — Looker Studio, CSV, API, MCP

The verdict

Pick Peec AI if prompt-workflow depth and agency workspaces matter most and you're comfortable acting on a ranked list yourself. Pick citepath if you want to close the loop: not just see the gap, but generate the fix, ship it, and watch the rescan prove it worked.

See for yourself — every plan starts with a 14-day free trial.