10 AI-Visibility Vendor Facts That Changed Since We Last Checked

Every listing in this index carries a last_verified date, and we re-check the number behind it before republishing anything that cites it — not on a fixed calendar, but whenever a listing comes up for a refresh or a page is about to restate one of its facts. Over the past few weeks that habit caught ten real drifts across nine different AI-visibility and GEO tools: a usage metric that had quietly dropped, a feature that moved to a cheaper tier, a pricing model that went from fully custom to partly self-serve, an engine-count headline that quietly disagreed with the vendor’s own FAQ, an undercounted tracked-engine list, a tier-gating detail we ourselves got backwards on a first pass, and more. None of the ten involve a vendor being dishonest. All ten are proof that a SaaS product’s pricing page, feature-gating and self-reported numbers — and our own first read of them — move faster than any secondary source, including our own past self, reliably tracks them.

That’s the point of this piece: not to call out any one vendor, but to show buyers exactly how much a “current” fact can drift in a few weeks, with ten concrete, dated examples, and what to do about it.

What changed

Tool	What we had on file	What’s true now	Kind of drift
Knowatoa	A 7-day free trial (sourced from a third-party review)	No time-boxed trial of the paid product — a free, one-time, no-card AI-visibility audit instead	Secondary-source error, not a vendor claim
GeoRankers	Grow tier: “2,100+ AI answers analyzed”	Grow tier ($129/mo): “1,100+ AI answers analyzed”	Self-reported usage metric
Frase	AI Visibility tracking gated to the $103/mo Professional tier	Included starting on the $39/mo Starter tier	Feature-tier gating
Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit	Engine coverage stated without a tier boundary	Confirmed base tier ($99/mo): ChatGPT, Google AI, Gemini, Perplexity — Claude and Grok require Enterprise	Engine-coverage precision
Profound	No published pricing, fully sales-led	Self-serve Starter ($99/mo) and Growth ($399/mo) tiers now published; Enterprise stays custom	Pricing-model change
Otterly AI	API access unavailable	API and MCP access included from the $189/mo Standard tier up	Feature-availability claim
Peec AI	Enterprise pricing and API access fully unpublished	A custom Enterprise tier (with API access) now sits alongside three published self-serve EUR tiers	Pricing-structure transparency
Profound	Enterprise tier: “up to 10 answer engines”	Enterprise tier: up to 9 answer engines — matching the 9 Profound names by name (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini, Grok, Microsoft Copilot, Meta AI, DeepSeek, Google AI Overviews) in its own FAQ	Our own data error, not a vendor claim
Promptwatch	Tracked ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Perplexity, Copilot and Google AI Overviews — 6 engines; no MCP server listed	Tracks 8 engines (adds Grok and DeepSeek) and ships an MCP server so Claude, Cursor and other MCP-compatible AI assistants can query its visibility, citation and mention data directly	Undercounted engine list + a missing feature
Trakkr	REST API gated to Scale as a paid add-on; MCP access gated to Scale (from our own earlier same-day check)	REST API bundled into Scale at no extra cost; MCP access ships from the Growth tier up — only white-label agency branding is a separate Scale add-on	Our own correction, made hours earlier the same day, was itself backwards

Three failure modes are mixed together here, worth separating. Knowatoa and Profound are two of them: both errors were ours, made once. Knowatoa’s was inherited from a third-party review that described a trial Knowatoa’s own site has never advertised. Profound’s was an internal inconsistency that predates this correction — our listing headlined “10” answer engines on Enterprise while our own FAQ entry for the same listing already named exactly 9 of them, and the live pricing page confirms 9 is correct. Neither is a vendor moving the goalposts; both are a reminder that a secondary source (including our own past self) can be wrong even when nothing about the underlying product changed. Trakkr is a third, more uncomfortable case: we checked trakkr.ai/pricing, corrected the listing, and got the correction itself backwards — REST API and MCP tier-gating reversed — discovered only when a second, unrelated task (drafting a new comparison page) sent us back to re-read the same live page a few hours later and four independently-worded fetches all disagreed with our first pass. A single live check is not automatically ground truth, even a same-day one; it’s one read of a page that can itself be misread. The other seven are the more common case: the vendor’s own product genuinely changed. A tier got a new feature, a usage cap moved, a pricing page that used to say “contact sales” now has real numbers on it, or — Promptwatch’s case — the product quietly added engine coverage and a whole new integration surface that our copy hadn’t caught up to yet.

Why vendor facts drift this fast

None of the seven product changes above came with anything resembling a changelog. That’s normal for this category, not a red flag on any one vendor:

• Tiers get renegotiated as a product matures. A feature that shipped as a Professional-only differentiator six months ago (Frase’s AI Visibility tracking) can migrate down to the entry tier once the vendor decides it’s now table stakes, not a premium hook.
• Self-reported usage numbers move with infrastructure cost, not marketing intent. GeoRankers’ “AI answers analyzed” cap on its Grow tier is exactly the kind of number that gets adjusted as LLM API pricing and rate limits shift underneath the product — up or down, with no announcement either way.
• “Contact sales” is a starting position, not a permanent one. Profound and Peec AI both moved from fully custom/opaque pricing toward a published self-serve floor while keeping a custom top tier — the more common direction for a vendor chasing self-serve volume once it has enough market validation to publish a number.
• Feature gating is invisible until someone checks the actual tier, not just whether the feature exists somewhere. Otterly AI’s API access was never absent from the product — it was gated to a tier a page-level glance (“does this tool have an API?”) answers wrong just as easily as right.
• “Which engines does it track” is a moving target, not a fixed spec. Promptwatch quietly added Grok and DeepSeek tracking, plus an entirely new MCP-server integration, without any of it showing up in a headline announcement — the only way to catch it was checking the product’s own docs page directly, not the marketing homepage.

What this means if you’re the one buying

A directory, a review site, or a comparison article is a snapshot, not a live feed — including this one. Three habits protect you regardless of which source you’re reading:

1. Check the live pricing page yourself before a purchase decision, not the page that convinced you to look. A review or a directory entry that’s a few months old is exactly old enough for one of the drifts above to have happened.
2. Ask which tier a feature lives on, not just whether the tool “has” it. “Does it have an API” and “does the tier I can afford have an API” are different questions, and vendor marketing copy tends to answer the first one loudly and the second one in the pricing table’s fine print.
3. Treat a vendor’s own usage/volume numbers (“N answers analyzed,” “N prompts tracked”) as a snapshot of today, not a spec. They’re the number most likely to move without any public notice, because they’re operational, not structural.

FAQ

Does this mean the vendors above were misrepresenting their products? No. Seven of the ten changes are the product genuinely evolving — a tier gaining a feature, a pricing page publishing a number that used to be custom-only, an engine list quietly growing. That’s normal SaaS iteration, not misrepresentation. The other three (Knowatoa’s trial claim, Profound’s engine count, Trakkr’s API/MCP tier gating) were our own errors — one inherited from an outdated third-party review, one an internal inconsistency between our own headline figure and our own FAQ, and one a same-day correction that got the tier gating backwards on its first pass — not anything any of the three vendors themselves claimed.

How often do you re-check a listing’s facts? Not on a fixed schedule — whenever a listing is due for a refresh, or before any other page on the index restates one of its numbers. Every correction above carries a dated source and updates the listing’s own last_verified field, which you can see on each tool’s page.

What do you do when you can’t confirm a claim? We leave it out, or say plainly that we couldn’t verify it, rather than publish a number we can’t currently trace to a live, primary source. That standard is documented on our methodology page.

Is any AI-visibility directory’s data ever fully current? No single source is — that’s the actual argument of this piece. The realistic goal isn’t a permanently correct snapshot; it’s a short gap between when a fact changes and when the next check catches it, plus giving the reader the tools to verify the number that actually matters to their decision.

Methodology & sources

Every figure above is drawn directly from the listed tool’s own live pricing or product page, re-verified between 2026-07-21 and 2026-07-24 and reflected in that tool’s listing on this index — see each linked listing for the full source citation and verification date. This is the same live-source standard applied to every fact in this index; see our methodology for how listings are researched and gated before publishing.

Primary sources checked directly: Knowatoa — pricing & onboarding · GeoRankers — pricing · Frase — pricing · Semrush — AI visibility pricing · Profound — pricing · Otterly AI — plan details · Peec AI — pricing, Enterprise-tier detail via OMR Reviews · Promptwatch — prompt tracking and MCP server docs · Trakkr — pricing, re-checked four separate times the same day before the tier-gating detail was confirmed correct.

To see current, dated pricing and feature facts for any tool in this index, start with the index or best AI-visibility tools.