Trackers follow your share of AI answers. CitePack shows how AI chose.
On this page
How CitePack reaches 60 observations of one decision.
CitePack maps how AI engines choose in a defined buying decision: one offering, the buying category it’s bought in, and the market its buyers are in. The category and the buyer’s situation shape which companies an engine puts forward, so the decision is defined before anything is asked.
CitePack frames the questions. Each is drafted for your offering, its buying category and your buyers’ market, one for every real buying situation across the whole decision: a buyer just starting to look, one with a job to get done, one with a condition they won’t bend on, one weighing what matters most, and one moving away from what they use now. Each carries the buyer specifics that matter, like the work to be done, a must-have or what they use today. None of it is a fixed prompt from a library. You read every question, change any wording you like and approve all five. The final go is yours. Then every engine gets them exactly as written.
- 5buying situations, framed by CitePack
- × 4engines: ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity
- × 3clean repeats on each engine
- = 60observations of one decision, every answer kept
Each question goes to ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Perplexity, three times on each engine, and every repeat is clean. Five situations, four engines, three repeats: 60 observations of one defined decision. Every answer is kept word for word, with the searches the engine ran and the pages it read. So the pattern shows which names an engine keeps putting forward, which turn up once, and how each engine chose.
The Work Plan turns those answers into ranked work. Each item names the answers and pages behind it, who does it and what to check when you measure again.
Map each offering, category and market you sell into, and each map adds to the picture of where your company stands in its market.
The two methods.
| What is compared | CitePack | Profound, Peec AI, Otterly |
|---|---|---|
| Built to show | How each engine chose who to put forward in a defined decision: your offering, its buying category, your buyers’ market. | How AI engines mention and cite your brand, tracked over time |
| How it’s built | Five buying situations framed for your decision, four engines, three clean repeats each: 60 observations of one decision. | Tracked over time to show movement |
| The result | A Decision Map and a ranked Work Plan. No single score. | A visibility score or share, by platform |
What the trackers say they do.
Profound calls itself “The AI marketing platform to win in”, with a “Visibility Score by Platform” and a feature that “Rewrites pages with citation decay and stages them in your CMS.”
Peec AI describes “AI search analytics for marketing teams” that “Track, analyze, and improve brand performance on AI search platforms”, and shows “the share of chats where your brand is mentioned”.
Otterly says it will “Analyze how AI search engines mention, and cite your brand - across ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Claude, Perplexity, Google AI Mode, Gemini, and Copilot.”
Who each fits.
A tracker fits a team that wants to watch its share of AI answers move. CitePack fits a team that wants to see, for each offering, category and market it sells into, who the engines put forward, what they said, which pages they read, and what work those answers point to.
Sources.
Every sentence about Profound, Peec AI and Otterly on this page is quoted or summarised from these pages, read on 22 October 2026.