Standing vs Peec AI
A European pure-play with a strong agency motion and clean, fast reporting.
We make Standing, so read this accordingly. Every claim about Peec 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 Peec AI is better
- Genuinely good agency tooling and multi-client workflows, which we do not have yet.
- More prompts at every price point, and unlimited on Enterprise.
- Faster, cleaner reporting UI with a longer track record than ours.
The prompt basket
Peec AI: Starter $95/mo for 50 prompts, Pro $245 for 150, Advanced $495 for 350, Enterprise unlimited. Agency tiers sold in credits.
Prompts are the pricing unit, same shape as Profound and for the same reason: user-defined baskets entered manually or by CSV.
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
Peec AI: Not published as a method. Across 45+ documentation pages there is no run count and no discussion of repetition or averaging. Their own credit formula pins it to one run per prompt per model per day, but that is method derived from billing, not method they have stated and would defend.
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
Peec AI: None published. No error bar, confidence interval, variance figure or significance threshold anywhere. They concede instability qualitatively, noting that a source might appear one day and be absent the next, then assert elsewhere that similar intents produce consistent results over time, without evidence for either.
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
- Our sampling is published and defensible: 5 runs per prompt per engine on paid scans, 3 on the free check.
- We publish a confidence band and gate alerts on it. Peec publishes the visibility formula but never the denominator size or when a delta is real.
- Per-domain pricing rather than per-prompt, because our basket is shared.
- Stated policy for engine failure and for absent AI Overviews.
Which to pick
Choose Peec AI if
You are an agency managing many clients today and workflow matters more than methodology.
Choose Standing if
You want to know how much of this week's movement was real before you report it to a client.