KIME

Plan	Published price	Prompt and response allowance	Engine and execution allowance	Practical fit
Explorer	€99/month	50 unique prompts; 3,000 AI responses/month	2 engines; 10 AWX executions/month; 5 seats	A bounded baseline for one marketer or a small pilot
Core	€399/month	200 unique prompts; 18,000 AI responses/month	3 engines; 30 AWX executions/month; 10 seats; onboarding support	A recurring program with a larger prompt panel and team workflow
Enterprise	Custom	Custom prompts and all available models	40–100 AWX executions/month; 30–50 seats; expanded support	Larger organizations needing scope, services, and access negotiation

The official pricing page says plans can be billed monthly, quarterly, or annually, with advertised discounts of 5% for quarterly and 15% for annual billing. It also says there are no per-seat or per-model fees. Buyers should still confirm taxes, currency conversion, response overages, data-retention terms, and what happens when an execution or response allowance is exhausted.

Capterra’s current listing adds a conflicting legacy/provider-data observation: it displayed €127/month for a Lite plan and €339/month for Pro, with 25 and 100 unique prompts respectively. The listing also reported a free trial but no user reviews. Because those figures conflict with the current official pricing page and may represent older provider-supplied metadata, they should not be treated as current list pricing. Ask KIME to reconcile the plan names, allowances, and effective date in the contract or checkout flow.

Evidence snapshot

Source	Public signal	What it supports	Confidence and bias
KIME official pricing	Explorer €99/month and Core €399/month; plan allowances and 7-day trial are displayed	Current commercial packaging, prompt/response/engine/seat/execution boundaries	High for displayed vendor terms; vendor-controlled
KIME official product page	Current product scope includes prompt monitoring, competitor analysis, citations, action center, AWX, and MCP	Advertised workflow and feature direction	Medium-high for current positioning; does not prove efficacy
Farman Rind practitioner review	July 18, 2026 review describes clean measurement, citation tracking, and competitor benchmarking; it also calls the data directional and says strategy guidance was limited	Practical workflow observations and important sampling caveats	Medium-low; one practitioner review with author-affiliated consulting context
Capterra KIME listing	0.0 from 0 user reviews when checked September 16, 2026; provider-data pricing differs from the current official page	Evidence scarcity and a dated/conflicting commercial observation	High for the observed listing state; not a quality rating or customer consensus
KIME customer statements	Named testimonials from Saxo, THEMAGIC5, Superb, and VR Travel	Vendor-selected customer claims about perceived clarity and usefulness	Low-medium; vendor-selected, not independently audited

Recurring positive themes

The accessible practitioner review emphasizes a focused dashboard, multi-platform coverage, citation-frequency tracking, competitive share-of-voice views, and trend reporting. The official testimonials similarly describe clearer visibility into how brands perform across AI platforms. These are useful directional signals about the intended workflow, but they are not a statistically recurring theme across a large independent sample.

Recurring concerns and tradeoffs

The strongest documented concern is methodological rather than a complaint about interface quality: a configured prompt set cannot represent every real user query, and a citation-rate percentage can overstate precision if presented as absolute market share. The practitioner review also described KIME as a measurement layer that required a separate strategy layer; the current official AWX positioning may address part of that gap, but the newer execution workflow lacks comparable independent evaluation.

How much should buyers trust the evidence?

Official evidence is strong for the current displayed plans and advertised feature direction. Independent evidence is much thinner. Capterra’s zero-review state means there is no public product-specific review consensus to summarize; it should not be converted into a 0.0 quality judgment. The practitioner review is valuable for explaining sampling limits and workflow fit, but it is one dated perspective. Vendor testimonials are useful context about claimed use cases and should not be treated as neutral proof of citations, traffic, or revenue.

AICiteKit interpretation

KIME has enough current official evidence to justify a bounded trial, but not enough independent evidence to support a confident claim about the quality or outcomes of its newer agentic layer. Use it as an instrument for a defined experiment: document the prompt panel, compare repeated answers, inspect cited sources, and keep human approval over any AWX action.

What to verify during a trial

1. Export the same prompt set before and after a controlled content or technical change; record engine, country, language, date, and model context.
2. Confirm whether the selected Explorer/Core engines match the plan table and whether Google AI Mode and AI Overviews are available in the target market.
3. Inspect raw answer examples behind visibility, sentiment, position, and share-of-voice metrics rather than relying only on aggregate scores.
4. Test citation-source exports and determine whether URLs, answer snapshots, timestamps, and model metadata are retained.
5. Run one low-risk AWX task in a staging or draft workflow. Verify approval gates, source citations, factual review, permissions, rollback, and execution-unit consumption.
6. Compare the current official plan with any checkout or proposal and reconcile the Capterra legacy pricing observation before subscribing.

Review evidence sources

• KIME pricing — official plan matrix, allowances, trial, discounts, and customer-selected statements checked September 16, 2026.

• KIME homepage — official current positioning, named engines, workflow, AWX, MCP, and FAQ claims checked September 16, 2026.

• Kime AI review by Farman Rind — independent practitioner review dated July 18, 2026; used for workflow observations and sampling limitations, not as proof of outcomes.

• Capterra KIME profile — provider directory and review-platform listing checked September 16, 2026; used to document zero product reviews and conflicting dated pricing metadata.

• KIME official homepage — product scope, AI engines, workflow, AWX, MCP, and FAQ checked September 16, 2026.

• KIME official pricing — current Explorer/Core/Enterprise pricing, quotas, discounts, trial, and support terms checked September 16, 2026.

• Farman Rind’s KIME review — independent practitioner review published July 18, 2026; used with disclosed author and evidence limitations.

• Capterra KIME profile — review count, provider-data pricing, product description, and listing metadata checked September 16, 2026.

Last reviewed: September 16, 2026

Data confidence: Medium. Official pricing and advertised scope are directly documented; independent customer evidence for KIME and the current agentic layer remains limited.