Otterly tracks a long list of prompts across six AI engines, priced by prompt volume. misquoted.ai goes deeper on fewer questions and reports accuracy, not just visibility. Pick the one that matches the job.
Otterly's pricing is prompt-volume tiered. misquoted's is flat by frequency. Different shapes.
Visibility and accuracy are not the same metric. The difference shows up in the deliverable.
We send 50–80 questions about your brand through ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini in parallel. The score combines model agreement, factual correctness against your site, and the SEO-for-AI signals on your domain. The deliverable is a consensus matrix and a correction playbook.
The interesting failure mode for us is when models disagree. If ChatGPT says one price and Gemini says another, your brand is two different things to two different customers. We rank disagreements by severity.
"Visibility tells you they're talking. Accuracy tells you they're right."
Otterly lets you define a list of prompts — sometimes hundreds — and tracks which engines mention your brand in the response, how often, and in what position. Six engines as of April 2026: ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude, Mistral, and Microsoft Copilot.
It's a real strength: broader engine coverage than most, and prompt-level granularity for marketers who want to track many queries. The output is closer to a rank-tracker for AI search than a fact-checker.
"How often do we show up across the prompts we care about?"
Marked based on each vendor's public docs as of April 2026.
| Feature | misquoted.ai | Otterly |
|---|---|---|
| Scanning | ||
| AI engines coveredModels monitored per scan | 3ChatGPT · Claude · Gemini | 6+ Perplexity, Mistral, Copilot |
| Question / prompt count per scan | 50–80 generated | Per-tier prompt cap |
| Custom prompt entry | Roadmap | ✓ |
| Site crawl for ground truth | ✓ | ✗ |
| Reporting | ||
| Composite readiness score | ✓ | Visibility % |
| Per-claim consensus matrix | ✓ | ✗ |
| Position / mention rank tracking | ✗ | ✓ |
| Editorial PDF report | ✓ | Dashboard export |
| Accuracy | ||
| Fact-checked claim scoring | ✓ | ✗ |
| Correction playbook | ✓ | ✗ |
| Source verification per claim | ✓ | ✗ |
| Monitoring | ||
| Re-scan cadence | Monthly or weekly | Daily prompt polling |
| Email alerts | ✓ | ✓ |
| Competitor benchmarking | ✓$49 tier and above | ✓ |
| Multi-brand bundles | 3, 10, 20+ | Workspaces |
| Integrations | ||
| Slack / webhook alerts | Roadmap | ✓ |
| API access | Roadmap | Pro+ |
Otterly does more of what it does. We do something else.
Real strengths. If these are your priorities, Otterly is a thoughtful answer.
When the question is "what are the models getting wrong about us?"
Annual spend at the tier most buyers land on.
Correction playbook is a separate $199 one-time. Multi-brand bundles drop the per-brand cost ~25–50%.
Cheaper monthly. Different product. If you outgrow Pro, the next step is Business at $549/mo and Enterprise at $989/mo.
Otterly answers "how visible are we across the prompts our team cares about, across six engines." That is a real question for marketers who run AI search like a rank-tracking program. misquoted.ai answers "what are the models saying about us, are they right, and how do we fix the gaps." Different work.
If you need broad engine coverage and prompt-level granularity, Otterly is built for that. If you need a defensible answer to "the CEO asked ChatGPT a question and the answer was wrong — what now?", we built misquoted for exactly that conversation.
You can use both. Otterly for ongoing visibility tracking, misquoted for the one-time accuracy audit and the correction playbook. They don't overlap much.
Ninety seconds. Three models. Free. If you've never seen the consensus matrix, the free scan is the fastest way to understand what we mean by accuracy.