Peec AI ↗
Peec AI · Dashboard-led AI search analytics and recurring prompt reporting · More conventional analytics and prompt-tracking framing; compare project, prompt, model, and API limits
← All tools
Another direction / 01 Another direction / 02 Another direction / 03 Another direction / 04
The selection guideSource-backed research ↗
AI Search Monitoring / AI visibility & analytics
Gumshoe AI
Persona-driven AI search visibility audits across major answer engines
AI answer monitoring
Why it stands out
Persona and topic segmentation makes the measurement question more realistic than a single generic prompt.
Source review: · Public-source research, not a hands-on test
↗ Best for
B2B marketing teams that need to understand different buyer roles’ AI recommendations
! Know before you buy
Each project represents one brand, focus, location, and language, so multi-market or multi-product programs can multiply the subscription cost.
01 / Editorial assessment
Is Gumshoe AI for you?
The AICiteKit take
Gumshoe’s clearest differentiator is not simply the number of models it names. It is the attempt to measure what different buyers see. A software category page may appear highly visible to a technical persona while disappearing for a finance buyer; a single aggregate prompt score can hide that difference. Gumshoe’s persona reports and heatmaps are designed to expose it. Gumshoe is worth testing when persona context is central to the measurement question and a team can begin with one project. Before rolling it out across clients, products, or countries, price the project multiplication, confirm model/version and geography behavior, inspect raw transcripts and citation URLs, and verify the reporting/API path.
A good fit if you are…
- B2B marketing teams that need to understand different buyer roles’ AI recommendations
- Agencies running structured GEO audits for individual client brands
- Content and digital-PR teams looking for the third-party domains answer engines cite
- Teams that prefer auditable transcripts over a single unexplained visibility score
- Brands that want to connect a visibility gap to a technical audit or content brief
Consider another option if…
- Agencies that need one account-wide plan for many unrelated clients
- Teams requiring native GA4, CRM, pipeline, or revenue attribution
- Buyers who need white-label client portals as a core requirement
- Organizations that require fixed costs for daily monitoring across many markets
- Teams that want every named model in every audit or a permanently pinned model version
02 / Scope, not promises
Features & coverage
- Core method
Buyer personas, topics, prompts, and model-specific conversations
Archived research · Research dated 2026-10-03; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · Quick facts- Starter cadence
Monthly Visibility Audit and weekly Snapshot Audit
Archived research · Research dated 2026-10-03; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · Quick facts- Pro cadence
Monthly Visibility Audit and daily Snapshot Audit
Archived research · Research dated 2026-10-03; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · Quick facts- Main use case
Measure and improve brand visibility in AI recommendations
Archived research · Research dated 2026-10-03; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · Quick facts- Current public plans
Free sample, Starter, Pro, and Enterprise
Archived research · Research dated 2026-10-03; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · Quick facts- Starter price
$99/month per project
Archived research · Research dated 2026-10-03; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · Quick facts
Persona-driven visibility analysis
Gumshoe says it runs conversations as buyer personas rather than scraping anonymous sessions. The persona approach can reveal that visibility varies by role, goals, pain points, and decision criteria. It is useful for prioritization, but the persona is still a modeled representation of a buyer, not a panel of real customer sessions. The official platform reference defines Brand Visibility as the percentage of report answers that mention the brand. That is a share-of-answers measure. It is not market share, search volume, traffic, or conversion rate.
Model and competitor visibility
The platform reference lists 11 model families across OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Google Search, Perplexity, xAI, and DeepSeek. It distinguishes Google AI Overviews from Gemini and separates pretrained-style responses from web-search surfaces. The public product page says paid audits run six models from the larger tracked set; buyers should confirm which models can be selected on each plan. A report can compare up to 30 competitors against the same prompt population. That controlled denominator is more useful than comparing unrelated runs, but model updates, live retrieval, competitor publishing, and finite-sample variation still affect the result.
Conversation transcripts and citation sources
The official reference says each conversation stores the prompt, persona, responding model, answer text, brand mentions, ranked order, and cited URLs. This is an important evidence feature: a reviewer can open the underlying observation instead of trusting only an aggregate chart. Citations are available only on web-search surfaces that return sources. A cited page is evidence of what the model used in that answer; it is not proof that the page caused the answer or that a user clicked it.
Page audits and AIO score
Gumshoe’s page audit reports an AI Optimization score and recommendations involving content structure, metadata, and structured data. Treat the score as a vendor-defined diagnostic. Validate each recommendation against the visible page, technical requirements, accessibility, and the actual evidence in the model answers. Adding JSON-LD or changing headings can improve machine readability in some contexts, but the tool’s audit score does not establish that a fix will increase citations. Keep a change log and use a stable follow-up sample.
Content generation
The platform links content generation to a persona and topic gap rather than offering only a generic article prompt. The official reference says Starter includes three pieces per billing period and Pro includes ten, with extra pieces at $25 each; generated content exports to DOCX. This can shorten briefing and drafting, but the output still requires subject-matter review, source checking, legal review where relevant, and a decision about whether the proposed content genuinely answers the buyer question. Generated content is not independent evidence of future visibility.
A focused evaluation workflow
- Use the free sample for one brand, one market, and one language.
- Record the exact personas, topics, prompts, selected models, and date.
- Open several favorable and unfavorable answers and verify mentions, ranks, and citations manually.
- Compare the same prompt population in the target geographic market where possible.
- Calculate the monthly cost for the desired cadence before adding a second product or country.
- Export raw evidence and test whether it is sufficient for the team’s reporting and governance needs.
- Apply one clearly documented content or technical change, then rerun the unchanged population after a suitable interval.
03 / Commercial boundaries
Pricing & limits
Terms below reflect the 2026-10-03 source review, not a new live quote. Confirm currency, billing term, tax and required scope with the provider.
- Pricing at a glance
Current public starting price: Starter is shown at $99/month per project; Pro is shown at $299/month per project. Enterprise is custom.
Archived research · Research dated 2026-10-03; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · Overview
- Free sample
Public price: $0 · Included measurement: One limited sample audit · Other visible allowances: No card required; enough to inspect the basic persona workflow
Archived research · Research dated 2026-10-03; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · Pricing, plans, and usage limits- Starter
Public price: $99/month per project · Included measurement: Monthly Visibility Audit; weekly Snapshot Audit; 6 personas, 8 prompts/persona, 4 models of choice · Other visible allowances: Technical audits, 3 content pieces per billing period, paid extras beyond allowance
Archived research · Research dated 2026-10-03; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · Pricing, plans, and usage limits- Pro
Public price: $299/month per project · Included measurement: Monthly Visibility Audit; daily Snapshot Audit; 8 personas, 10 prompts/persona, 6 models of choice · Other visible allowances: Sentiment, citation, content, and technical audits; 10 content pieces per billing period
Archived research · Research dated 2026-10-03; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · Pricing, plans, and usage limits- Enterprise
Public price: Custom · Included measurement: Tailored personas, prompts, models, and deeper tracking · Other visible allowances: Volume, support, integrations, and contract terms require sales confirmation
Archived research · Research dated 2026-10-03; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · Pricing, plans, and usage limits
- Free access & trial
One free sample audit; no card is required for the sample
Archived research · Research dated 2026-10-03; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · Quick facts
Additional costs & usage boundaries
- Model coverage
Six models per audit from 11 tracked model families; exact selection and plan rules must be confirmed
Archived research · Research dated 2026-10-03; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · Quick facts- Billing unit
One subscription per project; a project combines brand, focus, location, and language
Archived research · Research dated 2026-10-03; confirm current termsResearch excerpt · Quick facts
Pricing context & qualifications
The official pricing page is a dynamic page that exposes the current subscription structure; the platform reference and support documentation provide the clearest numeric plan details. Prices below are the public figures checked October 3, 2026.
| Plan | Public price | Included measurement | Other visible allowances |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free sample | $0 | One limited sample audit | No card required; enough to inspect the basic persona workflow |
| Starter | $99/month per project | Monthly Visibility Audit; weekly Snapshot Audit; 6 personas, 8 prompts/persona, 4 models of choice | Technical audits, 3 content pieces per billing period, paid extras beyond allowance |
| Pro | $299/month per project | Monthly Visibility Audit; daily Snapshot Audit; 8 personas, 10 prompts/persona, 6 models of choice | Sentiment, citation, content, and technical audits; 10 content pieces per billing period |
| Enterprise | Custom | Tailored personas, prompts, models, and deeper tracking | Volume, support, integrations, and contract terms require sales confirmation |
The official support page says subscriptions attach to individual projects. Two product lines in two markets can therefore require four project subscriptions. That is the most important commercial constraint for multi-brand and international buyers.
The public pricing page and current platform reference support $99 and $299 as the present subscription signals. Older independent pages reported pay-as-you-go pricing at $0.10 per conversation and three free report runs. A September 30, 2026 comparison says the product moved to the per-project subscription model. Treat the older usage-based figures as historical context, not current pricing.
Before buying, confirm:
- Whether project scope includes one language and one country or can be changed without a new subscription
- Which six model families are available on Starter and Pro
- Whether daily Snapshot Audits on Pro are included in the headline price
- The exact transcript, citation, export, and retention limits
- Additional content-piece pricing and what counts as one piece
- API, SSO, permissions, white-label, and agency-partner terms
- Cancellation, annual discounts, taxes, and treatment of legacy recurring audits
04 / The tradeoffs
Strengths & weaknesses
Reasons to shortlist
- Persona and topic segmentation makes the measurement question more realistic than a single generic prompt.
- The documented conversation unit and full-answer approach improve auditability.
- Competitor comparisons use the same report population rather than unrelated samples.
- Citation-source analysis can inform digital-PR and content research.
- The product connects measurement to page audits and persona-specific content work.
Reasons to pause
- Per-project billing can become expensive across products, countries, and languages.
- The current six-model-per-audit rule is narrower than the headline 11-family coverage.
- Model families move as providers update; historical comparisons may not use pinned versions.
- Personas and prompts are modeled inputs, not observed customer panels.
- Visibility and rank are sampled AI-answer signals, not traffic, conversions, or revenue.
Each project represents one brand, focus, location, and language, so multi-market or multi-product programs can multiply the subscription cost.
05 / Choose by the job
Alternatives to consider
Editorial fit comparisons—not performance rankings or claims that one option always wins.
Otterly.AI ↗
Otterly.AI · Lower-cost focused prompt and citation monitoring · Simpler monitoring entry point; less persona-centered workflow
Profound ↗
Profound · Enterprise AI visibility, demand, and agent analytics · Broader enterprise scope and procurement model; typically less self-serve
Qwairy ↗
Qwairy · Broad engine, language, and market coverage · Better fit when coverage breadth and multi-workspace operations outweigh persona depth
06 / What we can substantiate
Reviews & evidence
Independent feedback is limited to the archived sources below. No hands-on test or outcome benchmark was performed as part of this layout migration.
AICiteKit assessment: public-source research, not a hands-on product test. Official materials establish stated scope; reviews are dated and may concern the broader platform. Neither establishes guaranteed citations, traffic or revenue.
Sources & original verification dates
| Source | Evidence type | Checked |
|---|---|---|
| Gumshoe homepage ↗ | Cited in archived research | See research context |
| Gumshoe pricing ↗ | Cited in archived research | See research context |
| Gumshoe platform reference ↗ | Cited in archived research | See research context |
| Gumshoe pricing support article ↗ | Cited in archived research | See research context |
| AI Peekaboo review ↗ | Cited in archived research | See research context |
| ContentMonk alternatives test ↗ | Cited in archived research | See research context |
| Generate More review ↗ | Cited in archived research | See research context |
| What happens after my free sample? ↗ | Cited in archived research | See research context |
Original review evidence & date context
Preserved from the published research. Dates, review counts and product-scope qualifications below have not been refreshed by this layout migration.
Evidence snapshot
| Source | Public signal | What it supports | Confidence and bias |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gumshoe homepage | Current product page describes persona analysis, model visibility, competitor leaderboards, citation sources, page audits, content generation, exports, and a free sample | Current product positioning and feature existence | High for the displayed vendor claims; not outcome evidence |
| Gumshoe pricing | Current page presents Free, Starter, Pro, and Custom sections; displayed comparison identifies $99/month entry and $299/month Pro | Current public pricing signal and plan structure | High for the live page; dynamic plan details can change |
| Gumshoe platform reference | Documents Brand Visibility, conversation-level records, 11 model families, 6-model audits, standard 480-conversation audit, and $99/$299 plans | Methodology, denominator, coverage, and billing mechanics | High for vendor documentation; not independent validation |
| Gumshoe pricing support article | Confirms subscriptions are per project and describes Free Trial, Starter, Pro, and Enterprise; older recurring audits can be grandfathered through 2026 | Current billing boundary and migration caveat | High for policy text; vendor-controlled |
| AI Peekaboo review | Reports persona-first workflow, 11-model coverage, missing sentiment/GA4/white-label, and a subscription shift; includes competitor and affiliate context | Directional hands-on feature gaps and cost-risk themes | Medium-low: commercial editorial review and competing product context |
| ContentMonk alternatives test | Dated September 30, 2026 comparison says Gumshoe is $99/$299 per project, daily tracking is on Pro, and project multiplication matters | Current-versus-legacy pricing context and buyer tradeoffs | Medium-low: competitor-authored, promotional comparison |
| Generate More review | October 2025 hands-on review praised UX, persona methodology, transcripts, and multi-model coverage; reported no sentiment or attribution and older pay-as-you-go economics | Earlier workflow observations and limitations | Medium-low: single tester and stale commercial snapshot |
| AICiteKit evidence boundary | No source reviewed here proves that Gumshoe visibility or content recommendations cause stable citation lift, rankings, traffic, leads, or revenue | What the evidence cannot establish | High |
Positive themes
The evidence supports cautious, recurring themes around a clean workflow, persona segmentation, transparent conversation-level inspection, and useful citation-source discovery. These are product usability and diagnostic themes. They should not be presented as proof that the platform improves a brand’s market performance.
Concerns and buyer risk
The strongest concerns are commercial and methodological: project-level billing, changing pricing models, model/version drift, no clear native attribution path, and the risk of treating a persona-generated sample as a census of buyers. A small visible customer quote or vendor case study can illustrate a workflow, but it cannot independently validate the reported 557% citation increase or generalize it to another brand.
AICiteKit interpretation
Gumshoe’s evidence maturity is stronger for its stated measurement design than for outcome claims. The product gives buyers more opportunity to inspect the underlying answers than a dashboard that exposes only a score. That is a meaningful advantage for an evidence-led GEO program, provided the team records the prompt population and does not confuse repeatable measurement with causal experimentation.
- Official product and pricing pages were checked October 3, 2026: Gumshoe, pricing, and platform reference.
- Billing and free-sample boundaries were checked in How does Gumshoe pricing work? and What happens after my free sample?.
- Independent and comparative evidence was checked against AI Peekaboo, ContentMonk, and Generate More.
- Older $0.10-per-conversation claims are retained only as historical evidence of pricing drift; the current page and support materials support the $99/$299 per-project subscription model.
- Evidence boundary: no reviewed source independently demonstrates causal, stable, cross-platform improvement in citations, traffic, leads, or revenue.
Research notes & unresolved discrepancies
- This page reorganizes previously published research. It is not a fresh price check or a hands-on test. Refer to source-specific dates and qualifications in the research context below.
Layout migration: October 4, 2026. The original MDX research is retained in the repository; this reorganization does not refresh its factual verification dates.