AI visibility tools for agencies with several clients

Bee LLM is ours. Every figure below links to the vendor's own pricing page, and the section on where we lose is not decorative.

Agency pricing comparisons in this category tend to line up the €19 and €29 and €85 plans and declare a winner. That comparison is useless to you, because all of those plans track one brand.

The moment you have a second client you are on a different tier everywhere, and the tiers are not proportional.

What the second and third project cost

From each vendor's public pricing page on 1 August 2026, excluding VAT. "Not published" means the pricing page states no figure, not that the option does not exist: for those, ask the vendor. Prices change often.

The gap that matters is the one between €39 for three projects and €205 for two. Both are real published numbers, and they describe two different views of who the customer is.

The real cost is prompts per client, not clients

The arithmetic an agency should do before buying anything is this: questions per client × markets per client × number of clients. Projects are the container, prompts are what you actually consume.

Ten well chosen questions per brand is usually right. Checked daily across four engines that is 1,200 answers a month, or 120 observations per question, which is well past the point where a trend separates from noise. What breaks the estimate is markets: a client selling in Spanish and English needs two sets of ten, because the same question in each language returns different brands and different sources. Two languages is not ten questions, it is twenty.

So six clients in one market each is sixty prompts. Six clients in two markets each is a hundred and twenty, and a different tier on every platform here.

Why frequency is an agency problem specifically

An in-house team can live with a weekly reading. An agency usually cannot, because the agency has to answer a harder question: did the thing we did last month move anything?

Ask a generative engine the same question twice and it returns a substantially different set of sources. Researchers repeating identical queries found only three to five of every ten pages repeated between runs, and the margin of error narrows by roughly 29% each time you double the measurements. A weekly tool gathers about a seventh of the observations, so it needs far longer before a change can be separated from noise, and "far longer" is often longer than your client's patience.

That does not make weekly useless. If your deliverable is a monthly state-of-play across 50 questions, LLM Pulse at €49 is the cheapest way to produce it. If your deliverable is attribution, it is not enough. The numbers are in how we measure.

Client reporting, without the marketing gloss

Ours does not do white label. What it does is read-only links you can share with a client, so they see the dashboard without an account and without being able to change anything.

The other vendors do not publish white label terms on their pricing pages, so anyone telling you which of them white labels, including a comparison page, is guessing. Ask each one directly. If a client-branded PDF is a hard requirement of your retainer, make it a question you ask before the trial, not after.

The connector, which changes how the work feels

For an agency this is more useful than it sounds. A connector plugs the tool into ChatGPT, Claude or Cursor, so instead of opening six dashboards on a Monday you ask, in the chat, which questions each client lost last week and what to write about it.

Ours is on every paid plan and it writes as well as reads, so the assistant can create or pause questions and mark actions done across projects. LLM Pulse includes MCP without an API at entry level. Otterly puts it behind the €189 plan, and Peec and Profound keep the API for Enterprise.

Where we are not the right answer

Two places, plainly.

• Competitor tracking. LLM Pulse gives ten competitors, we give five. For an agency whose whole pitch is competitive share of voice in a crowded market, that is a real point against us.
• High volume at daily frequency. If a single client needs fifty questions checked every day, Peec is better arithmetic per prompt than we are, and it lets you pick which three engines matter for that client.

So which should an agency buy?

What to tell the client it cannot do

Worth being straight about before it becomes an awkward conversation on month three. A tracker tells you whether the client was named and what the answer was built from. It does not make them named.

A review of 45 studies found that what has been demonstrated with rigour is share of an answer once a page has already been retrieved; reliably making an engine find you more often is not proven yet. An audit of 37,000 AI answers found about half of small and regional brands never appeared at all. Selling guaranteed AI visibility on a retainer is selling ahead of the evidence, whichever tool sits behind it.

Questions people ask

Which tool is cheapest for an agency?

Compare multi-project tiers, not entry prices. €39 for three projects with us, €205 for two with Peec. Otterly and LLM Pulse do not publish a multi-project tier; Profound publishes no prices.

How many prompts per client?

About ten per brand per market. Daily across four engines that is 1,200 answers a month per client. Two languages doubles it.

Do these do white label reports?

We do not; we give read-only client links. The others do not publish white label terms, so ask them.

Does daily really matter for reporting?

For attribution, yes. Weekly is fine for a monthly state-of-play and too coarse to prove last week's work moved something.

Are you biased?

Yes. Bee LLM is ours, which is why this page names LLM Pulse, Peec and Profound for three of the four cases above.

Pricing verified on the vendors' own pages on 1 August 2026. Read next: the full five-tool comparison · Peec AI alternatives · our pricing · partners.