Qwairy

Overview

Qwairy is a Generative Engine Optimization platform that combines answer-level AI visibility monitoring with recommendations, content opportunities, competitor analysis, AI crawler analytics, and AI-referral measurement. Its public product pages group the workflow into six areas: Cockpit, Monitor, Act, Analyze, Optimize, and Measure.

This is a broader proposition than a simple prompt tracker. Qwairy says it monitors ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini, Copilot, Grok, Google AI Overview, Google AI Mode, Mistral, and DeepSeek, while also connecting Google Search Console, analytics products, Looker Studio, Slack, API, and MCP. These are vendor-described capabilities; buyers should verify the exact surface, model, market, and export available on their plan.

• Best for: Agencies and brand teams that want monitoring connected to content and reporting actions.
• Not ideal for: Buyers seeking only a small, low-cost prompt panel, a fully documented public API, or proof that an AI-visibility score causes revenue.
• Pricing: Starter is shown at €790 billed annually (equivalent to €79/month); Growth €1,990/year; Business €4,490/year; Enterprise starts at €990/month.
• Free access: The homepage advertises 120 free credits and a free audit without a credit card; confirm what the audit and credits include.
• Primary strength: Broad multi-engine coverage paired with citation, content, crawler, and agency workflows.
• Primary limitation: The public comparison shows feature availability but not every plan-to-feature mapping in an easily machine-readable way; sampling, model, retention, and overage rules need confirmation.

Who should use Qwairy?

Best for

• Agencies managing several client brands and recurring GEO reports
• B2B and ecommerce teams tracking recommendations, citations, perception, and competitors
• SEO and content teams that want a visibility finding to become a content or backlink task
• Organizations that need AI crawler and referral signals alongside answer monitoring
• Buyers willing to maintain a fixed prompt panel and validate the underlying answers

Not ideal for

• Small teams that need only a handful of prompts at the lowest possible cost
• Buyers who require raw-answer retention, API schemas, and model versions before a demo
• Teams expecting a GEO score to substitute for analytics, experiments, or conversion tracking
• Organizations that cannot review AI-generated content or backlink recommendations
• Buyers who need a completely vendor-neutral comparison: the public comparison page is Qwairy-authored

Quick facts

Fact	Publicly stated detail
Main use case	AI visibility monitoring, citation analysis, optimization, and reporting
Category	Analytics / GEO
Starting price	€790 annually for Starter, equivalent to €79/month before tax
Other public plans	Growth €1,990/year; Business €4,490/year; Enterprise from €990/month
Free access	120 free credits and a free audit are advertised; scope requires confirmation
Prompts tracked	100 Starter, 300 Growth, 800 Business, Unlimited Enterprise
Monitoring credits	1,300 Starter, 3,900 Growth, 10,400 Business, Custom Enterprise
Workspaces	1 Starter, 5 Growth, 20 Business, Unlimited Enterprise
Monitoring cadence	Daily, weekly, or monthly according to the pricing comparison
AI providers named	ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity, Copilot, Grok, Google AI Overview, AI Mode, Mistral, DeepSeek
Integrations named	Google Search Console, Google/Bing Webmaster tools, analytics, Looker Studio, Slack, API, and MCP
Last reviewed	August 28, 2026

AICiteKit editorial verdict

Qwairy is a credible shortlist candidate when the job is to connect what answer engines say with what a marketing team should investigate next. The public pricing page exposes prompt and credit allowances, and the product homepage describes a workflow that reaches beyond mentions into citation sources, content opportunities, site diagnostics, AI crawler activity, and referral analytics.

The strongest evidence supports the existence of the product, its published commercial terms, and a broad feature direction. It does not independently establish that Qwairy tracks every named provider identically, that its scores are representative of the market, or that its recommendations improve citations, traffic, or revenue. Its comparison page is useful for feature discovery but is a vendor-authored source and should not be treated as neutral competitor research.

Consider Qwairy for a multi-engine monitoring and action workflow; buy only after validating answer evidence, credit accounting, and the exact plan matrix.

What the practical workflow looks like

1. Define brand, product, category, comparison, competitor, and factual-accuracy prompts.
2. Freeze the prompt-set version, provider, model where available, country, language, date, and refresh cadence.
3. Record the full answer, brand position, sentiment or perception label, competitor mentions, and every cited URL.
4. Separate answer visibility from AI crawler requests, referrer visits, organic rankings, and conversions.
5. Use source gaps, page diagnostics, content opportunities, and backlink opportunities as hypotheses for action.
6. Review and fact-check any generated brief or content before publication.
7. Re-run the same panel after a defined observation period and report the denominator and volatility.
8. Export a client or executive report with the sample, dates, limitations, and raw-evidence path.

A mention is not a citation, a citation is not a click, and a click is not a conversion. Qwairy’s breadth is useful only when those evidence layers remain separate.

Core features and practical use

Cockpit and GEO Matrix

Qwairy describes a central cockpit with global visibility scores, provider performance, competitor benchmarking, alerts, and a GEO Matrix. These views can help a team prioritize investigation, but a score should be treated as a directional index. Ask for the denominator, weighting, treatment of empty answers, and rules for duplicate or volatile responses.

Multi-provider monitoring

The homepage names ten AI surfaces, while the pricing page says all plans include access to major AI engines. This is a meaningful breadth claim, but the public pages do not fully specify the underlying model or interface used for each surface. During evaluation, export a sample from each important provider and confirm the available geography, language, schedule, and retention.

Response, citation, and competitor analysis

Qwairy says it records brand mentions, cited sources, competitor movements, and perception. The useful unit is not a single score but an auditable record containing the prompt, answer, provider, timestamp, cited URL, and classification rule. Buyers should test whether the interface opens the complete answer or only an extracted summary.

Content and backlink opportunities

The Act area is positioned around citation-ready briefs, content gaps, and backlink opportunities. These recommendations can turn an observation into a work queue, but they remain editorial hypotheses. Verify the source selection, factual claims, intended audience, and whether a suggested backlink is appropriate and obtainable.

Content Studio

Qwairy advertises a content studio and optimization workflow. Generated material should be reviewed for accuracy, originality, accessibility, brand claims, and source quality. An AI-written article or “citation-ready” brief is not evidence that an answer engine will cite it.

Site readiness and page performance

The Optimize area includes page inventory, AI citation data, health diagnostics, GEO optimization, and pages discovered by LLMs according to the homepage. Confirm whether “discovered” means a crawler request, a source citation, or another event; those signals have different meanings.

AI crawler and referral analytics

The Measure area claims support for 15+ AI crawlers, including GPTBot, ClaudeBot, and PerplexityBot, plus traffic from ChatGPT and Perplexity referrers. Log activity can show automated access, while analytics can show a referral request. Neither proves that a page was used as a source in an answer. Ask how bots are identified, how spoofing is handled, and what attribution window is used.

Agency reporting and integrations

The platform advertises exports, shareable reports, Looker Studio, Slack, API, MCP, and an agency program. These are useful workflow signals, but the public pages do not establish raw-data fields, permissions, rate limits, OAuth scopes, or client data isolation. Test a client workspace and export before committing to white-label reporting.

AI engine, region, and language coverage

Area	Public evidence	What remains to verify
Providers	Ten named surfaces on the homepage	Exact model, endpoint, browsing state, and plan access
Prompt volume	100/300/800/Unlimited by plan	How credits are consumed for retries, empty answers, and refreshes
Geography	Pricing page says 240+ countries	Country-level availability, cities, localization, and language behavior
Content languages	Pricing page says 45+ languages	Which modules support each language and whether answer collection is localized
Monitoring cadence	Daily, weekly, or monthly	Scheduling controls, time zone, and historical retention
AI crawlers	15+ named or implied crawlers	Detection logic, spoofing controls, log fields, and raw-log retention

Do not interpret broad provider coverage as equivalent measurement quality across every surface. Record model, location, language, prompt version, and timestamp for comparisons.

Pricing and plan limits

The official pricing page checked August 28, 2026 shows annual billing for the first three plans and a monthly starting price for Enterprise. Prices exclude applicable taxes.

Plan	Published price	Selected limits
Starter	€790/year (€79/month equivalent)	100 prompts, 1,300 monitoring credits, 1 workspace
Growth	€1,990/year	300 prompts, 3,900 monitoring credits, 5 workspaces
Business	€4,490/year	800 prompts, 10,400 monitoring credits, 20 workspaces
Enterprise	From €990/month	Unlimited prompts and workspaces, custom credits, white-label dashboard, advanced integrations, dedicated support

The pricing table also lists daily/weekly/monthly monitoring, 10+ AI engines, 240+ countries, 45+ content languages, PDF/CSV export, shareable reports, competitor benchmarking, sentiment, content opportunities, site diagnostics, API, MCP, and other capabilities. Because the extracted comparison does not expose a clear checkmark for every feature and plan, confirm the exact entitlement in the order form.

For budgeting, estimate:

required credits = prompts × providers × refreshes × any provider-specific multiplier

Then ask whether credits are consumed by failed requests, reruns, manual refreshes, and competitor prompts. Confirm cancellation, annual renewal, taxes, overages, data retention, and the scope of the 120 free credits before relying on the free audit.

Strengths

• Public pricing includes concrete prompt, credit, and workspace allowances.
• Broad provider list can reduce single-engine blind spots.
• Connects answer monitoring to content, backlink, page, crawler, and referral workflows.
• Offers practical agency/reporting integrations, including exports and shareable reports.
• The credit model gives buyers a starting point for a reproducible measurement budget.
• Public product language emphasizes methodology and actionable recommendations rather than only a visibility score.

Tradeoffs and limitations

• Exact model, endpoint, regional, language, and retention coverage remain plan-level questions.
• Credits are not a statistically representative measure of all AI-search demand.
• The vendor-authored comparison page is not independent competitor evidence.
• AI crawler activity and AI referral traffic do not prove citations or influence on conversions.
• Generated content and backlink suggestions need human review.
• Broad feature packaging may be more than a small team needs for basic prompt monitoring.
• Public independent reviews are still a small sample and appear to cover the broader product.
• No reviewed source proves guaranteed visibility, citations, rankings, traffic, or revenue.

User reviews and market feedback

Evidence snapshot

Source	Public signal	What it supports	Confidence
Official pricing	€79/month equivalent Starter, annual Growth/Business prices, prompt and credit limits, workspaces, cadence, and enterprise starting price	Current commercial terms and displayed limits	High for displayed terms
Official product page	Six-module workflow, ten named providers, 120 free credits, integrations, crawler and referral positioning	Product existence and vendor-described scope	High for positioning; not efficacy proof
G2 Qwairy reviews	4.7/5 from 43 reviews when checked August 28, 2026; extracted agency review praises coverage, insights, integrations, usability, and support, while noting density and change frequency	Directional broader-product UX and satisfaction signal	Medium; vendor-hosted and limited sample
Stack Insight review	Independent commercial review describes multi-platform monitoring, dashboard, sentiment, competitor, and opportunity workflows; also repeats vendor case-study claims	Workflow context and product-boundary observations	Medium-low; affiliate/commercial review and vendor-claim dependence
Qwairy comparison	Vendor-authored comparison claims 10+ providers and 38+ models, MCP, backlink marketplace, and content studio	Feature-discovery lead, not neutral validation	Low-medium

Recurring positive themes

The current G2 sample supplies a directional positive signal for the broader product. The extracted agency review praises coverage across several engines, actionable source and content insights, integrations including analytics and MCP, a clear interface, quick setup, and responsive support. Stack Insight likewise emphasizes the breadth of monitoring and the move from measurement to recommended actions.

These themes support perceived usability and workflow breadth, not causal GEO outcomes. G2 also showed that the product is evolving quickly and can feel dense for new users; those are useful counterweights to the positive signal.

Recurring concerns and evidence limitations

• A small, vendor-hosted review sample cannot establish market-wide satisfaction.
• Broad coverage claims do not disclose equal sampling depth across providers.
• Rapid feature changes can require teams to revisit documentation and reporting definitions.
• Commercial reviews may repeat vendor case studies or marketing claims.
• Independent evidence specific to crawler attribution, citation accuracy, and ROI remains limited.

How much should buyers trust the evidence?

Trust the official pricing page for the displayed price and quotas, and treat the homepage as evidence of product positioning. Treat the G2 rating as a directional UX signal for the broader product, not proof of citation or revenue impact. Treat Stack Insight as useful workflow context with commercial bias. The vendor-authored comparison is useful for discovering claims to test, not for proving superiority.

AICiteKit interpretation

Qwairy appears more operationally complete than a basic mention tracker, but buyers should validate the raw evidence chain and credit economics before treating its scores as a reporting standard.

What to verify during a trial or demo

1. Export a complete answer record with prompt, provider, model, date, country, language, response, and cited URLs.
2. Confirm whether each named provider is available on the selected plan and how credits are deducted.
3. Re-run a fixed prompt panel and document volatility, empty answers, retries, and denominator changes.
4. Compare Qwairy’s mention, citation, sentiment, and perception labels with a manual sample.
5. Test whether page citations, crawler events, and AI referrals are kept as separate records.
6. Review agency permissions, shareable links, white-label behavior, exports, API, MCP scopes, and data ownership.
7. Ask for retention, deletion, security, subprocessor, and regional data-processing terms.
8. Check a generated content or backlink recommendation for source quality, feasibility, and rollback or approval controls.

Review evidence sources

• Qwairy pricing — checked plan prices, credits, prompts, workspaces, and public limits.
• Qwairy platform — checked modules, named providers, integrations, free-credit offer, crawler and referral claims.
• G2 Qwairy — checked rating, review count, and available positive/negative themes.
• Stack Insight Qwairy review — independent commercial workflow review; vendor-claim dependence disclosed.
• Qwairy comparison — vendor-authored feature comparison, used only as a lower-confidence source.

Qwairy compared with other AICiteKit tools

Tool	Best fit	Main difference
Qwairy	Broad monitoring plus content, crawler, referral, and agency workflows	Public credits and wide feature set still require plan-level validation
Peec AI	Focused AI visibility analytics	Narrower operational scope; compare provider and raw-evidence coverage
Otterly.AI	Self-serve prompt and citation monitoring	More lightweight monitoring orientation
PromptWatch	Prompt, crawler, and referral-oriented analysis	Different packaging and coverage assumptions
Profound	Enterprise answer-engine intelligence	More enterprise and quote-led procurement orientation
Search Atlas	SEO automation plus an LLM visibility layer	Broader SEO execution bundle and separate credit model

FAQ

How much does Qwairy cost?

The public pricing page checked August 28, 2026 shows Starter at €790 billed annually (equivalent to €79/month), Growth at €1,990/year, Business at €4,490/year, and Enterprise from €990/month. Taxes are excluded. Confirm renewal, cancellation, overage, and exact feature terms.

Which AI platforms does Qwairy monitor?

The homepage names ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini, Copilot, Grok, Google AI Overview, Google AI Mode, Mistral, and DeepSeek. Confirm the exact model, surface, region, language, and plan access for your use case.

Does Qwairy guarantee AI citations or revenue?

No. Monitoring and recommendations can support investigation, but they cannot guarantee citations, rankings, traffic, conversions, or revenue.

Is Qwairy suitable for agencies?

The public site advertises agency workflows, shareable reports, exports, white-label Enterprise features, and an agency program. Test client permissions, data isolation, custom branding, exports, and report links before purchase.

What is the difference between a monitoring credit and a prompt?

The pricing page publishes separate prompt and monitoring-credit limits. The public table does not fully explain every deduction rule, so ask whether a credit represents a prompt-provider-refresh unit and how retries or failed requests are handled.

Sources and verification

• Qwairy official platform — checked August 28, 2026; modules, providers, integrations, free-credit offer, crawler and referral positioning.
• Qwairy pricing — checked August 28, 2026; current public prices, prompt limits, credits, workspaces, and cadence.
• G2 Qwairy reviews — checked August 28, 2026; 4.7/5 from 43 reviews and review themes.
• Stack Insight Qwairy review — checked August 28, 2026; independent commercial workflow context.
• Qwairy comparison — checked August 28, 2026; vendor-authored comparison and lower-confidence feature claims.

Evidence confidence: Medium for current public pricing and product positioning; medium for broader-product usability signals; low-to-medium for provider parity, citation accuracy, crawler attribution, and business outcomes.

AICiteKit interpretation: Evaluate Qwairy as a broad GEO operations platform. Keep prompt answers, citations, crawlers, referrals, rankings, and conversions in separate evidence layers, and validate the selected plan with a reproducible pilot.

Last reviewed: August 28, 2026