Standing vs Otterly AI
The cheapest serious entry point in the category, aimed at small teams and solo marketers.
We make Standing, so read this accordingly. Every claim about Otterly AI below comes from their own published pricing, documentation or help centre, verified August 6, 2026. Where they have not published something we say so rather than guessing, and the first section is where they beat us.
Where Otterly AI is better
- Price. $29/mo with 15 prompts is below anything we offer and below most of the category.
- More prompts per dollar at every tier.
- A large published blog and a longer history in the category.
The prompt basket
Otterly AI: Lite $29/mo for 15 prompts, Standard $189 for 100, Premium $489 for 400, with 100-prompt add-on packs at $99.
Prompts again, and the $29 tier carries more prompts than our paid scan does. If raw prompt count at low cost is the requirement, they win it outright.
Standing: a fixed basket built from your category, priced per domain rather than per prompt. It is the smallest basket in the category and the only fixed one, which is the trade: fewer questions, but the same questions every scan, so a change in the score is a change in the answers rather than a change in what we asked. It also means two customers in one category are directly comparable.
How many times each question is asked
Otterly AI: Not published. No run count, no averaging and no aggregation procedure anywhere. Their KPI documentation fixes the atomic unit as binary per day, prompt and engine, and their public API schema exposes a run id for a single response with no run-count or repetition field at all.
Standing: 5 runs per prompt per engine on paid scans, 3 on the free check, published. Roughly 300 responses per paid scan. This is the number that decides whether a score is a measurement or a single draw from a distribution.
What each publishes about uncertainty
Otterly AI: None found, and notably they wrote a blog post about the underlying problem and still declined to quantify it. They concede that ChatGPT is probabilistic and does not always produce the same output for identical inputs, then dismiss the impact with an unquantified claim of very similar results, backed by no sample size and no method.
Standing: a 95% confidence band on every score, shown in the product, with alerts gated on whether a move exceeds that domain's own historical drift. An engine that fails more than half its calls reports that it did not respond rather than a measured zero. Our own weakness, stated: the band covers within-scan sampling and does not cover platform drift between scans, which is why the model version is on the report.
Where Standing is better
- They have not published a run count; ours is 5 per prompt per engine and stated.
- We report a confidence band. Nothing in their product tells a user when a share-of-voice movement is real.
- Per-domain pricing, and a free check that needs no account.
Which to pick
Choose Otterly AI if
Budget is the binding constraint and you want the largest basket you can get for under $50.
Choose Standing if
You would rather have fewer questions asked properly than more questions asked once.