Qwairy

The official pricing page checked September 22, 2026 shows annual billing for the first three plans and a monthly starting price for Enterprise. It also advertises a 14-day free trial with no credit card required. Prices exclude applicable taxes. The page still publishes annual totals rather than a simple monthly contract price; the monthly equivalents below are arithmetic interpretations, not a claim that monthly billing is available.

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.

Evidence snapshot

Source	Public signal	What it supports	Confidence
Official pricing	Checked September 22, 2026: €790/€1,990/€4,490 annual plans, €990/month Enterprise starting point, 14-day no-card trial, prompt and credit limits, and workspaces	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 44 reviews when checked September 22, 2026; current listing shows 86% five-star and 13% four-star, while review text praises coverage, integrations, usability, and support and flags project limits, setup, and fast credit use	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
Citeme Qwairy review	Direct competitor review checked September 22, 2026; reports the API/interface distinction by engine, dual prompt-credit meter, EU-hosting claims, and a 3.9/5 editorial score; author states it did not test the product	Useful independent claim audit and buying questions, not neutral product validation	Low-medium; direct commercial conflict and no hands-on test
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: 4.7/5 from 44 reviews, with 86% five-star and 13% four-star ratings when checked September 22, 2026. Review text 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.
• The Citeme review is useful for surfacing pricing and engine-coverage questions, but its authors explicitly identify a direct commercial conflict and did not run the product.
• 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 September 22, 2026; annual plan prices, 14-day no-card trial, credits, prompts, workspaces, and public limits.

• Qwairy platform — checked modules, named providers, integrations, free-credit offer, crawler and referral claims.

• G2 Qwairy — checked September 22, 2026; 4.7/5 from 44 reviews and available positive/negative themes.

• Stack Insight Qwairy review — independent commercial workflow review; vendor-claim dependence disclosed.

• Citeme Qwairy review — direct-competitor review checked September 22, 2026; public-offer analysis, no hands-on test, and conflict disclosed.

• Qwairy comparison — vendor-authored feature comparison, used only as a lower-confidence source.

• 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: September 22, 2026