Promptwatch vs Botric 2026
We run Promptwatch on retainers. Botric is a credit-metered draft and chat stack. Here is how we compare them for client work, sourced numbers only.
We compare tools the way we write SOWs. Promptwatch is the platform we run client programs on. Botric sells Engine 01 GEO (prompts, citations, schema, llms.txt, drafts) and Engine 02 support chat/email, billed in credits. If a pitch deck treats a weekly Visibility Score as crawler proof, the deck is wrong.
The reason we put this side by side is that clients ask us to. Botric and Promptwatch both say "GEO" on the homepage, and a client who reads both pages sees the same word and assumes the same product. They are not the same product. Botric is a credit-metered stack for drafts and support chat. Promptwatch is a visibility platform with crawler logs, visitor analytics, and a publishing pipe. A proposal that lists them as substitutes is a proposal that will be re-explained at the QBR, because the work each one stores is different work.
What we put in the comparison slide
| Promptwatch | Botric | |
|---|---|---|
| Our role | Retainer OS | Scoped drafts + support chat |
| Free | Explore: 10 ChatGPT prompts | $0, 800 credits, 5 prompts, no card, indefinite |
| Entry paid | Essential $95/mo | Bit $12.5/mo ($150/year) |
| Mid | Professional $245/mo | Byte $45/mo; Infinity $136/mo |
| Agency | Kick-off $199/mo | Infinity 5 sites; Enterprise custom |
| Score | Prompt and citation trends | Visibility Score 0-100 weekly (40/25/20/15) |
| Publish | Content Agents to Webflow/Framer | Drafts of publish-ready pages |
| Logs | 25M on Professional | Not listed |
| Visitors | Script or GTM | Not listed |
| LLMs | Paid set includes Claude | Confirm Claude (homepage FAQ vs Byte FAQ) |
| G2 | 4.7/5, 1,840+ | None we sourced |
Read the slide row by row. The "our role" row is the one that decides the rest. Promptwatch is the operating system we run the retainer on. Botric is a scoped tool for drafts and support chat. The free row shows two different free tiers: Promptwatch Explore is 10 ChatGPT prompts, Botric Free is 800 credits and 5 prompts with no card. The score row is where the products diverge most. Promptwatch stores prompt and citation trends, which are rows you can read back. Botric stores a Visibility Score from 0 to 100, weighted 40 percent mention, 25 percent citation, 20 percent position, 15 percent sentiment. Those are different objects. A trend is a series of rows. A score is a single number with weights.
Botric as we would scope it
Free is a scan we will keep. Bit $12.5: 1500 credits, 1 Chat Agent, 15 prompts, 4 blogs, 60-day history. Byte $45: 5000 credits, 1 Chat Agent, 25 prompts, 12 blogs, 90-day. Infinity $136: 5 sites, 15000 credits, 5 Chat Agents, 30 prompts, 15 blogs/workspace, 120-day. Seven-day trial on paid buttons.
Credits are shared across audits, tracking, and content. We put a burn note in the SOW. Slack/webhooks: FAQ. Reddit agent: tour, not a line item. The credit sharing is the part of Botric that needs a burn note. Audits, tracking, and content all draw from one bucket. A month of heavy blog drafting can eat the tracking budget before the prompts run out. The SOW has to say that out loud, because a client who reads only the prompt count will assume the prompts are the cap. They are not. The credits are the cap, and the credits are shared.
Vendor claims we label in decks: Luminary 123-plus citations, DA 1 to 35, 51x impressions, 90 days. Grey Aesthetics 178-plus citations, 60 days, 2.5x impressions, DA 7 to 35. Testimonials: Shannon Hunter, Dana Farbo (FAIM.World), Aditya Kaul. Logos: Alumana, Motorenvy, Iotric, myIDFi AI. Composite "first 90 days" graphic stays out of forecasts. The reason we label these is that they are vendor case studies, not independent results. A vendor case study is a marketing claim. It can go in a deck with a label. It cannot go in a forecast as if it were a baseline, because the conditions that produced it are not the client's conditions.
Promptwatch as we run it
Explore on the sales call. Essential $95/mo: 50 prompts, 6,000 responses, 200K visitor events, five AEO articles. Professional $245/mo: 25M crawler logs, 15 articles, 1M visitor events. Business $579/mo. Kick-off $199/mo for several brands. Growth $399. Scale $799.
Amsterdam, April 2025. €2M+ ARR within 12 months of launch (May 2026). Reddit and YouTube citations. Agent Analytics. Review inbox. No $29 plan. The reason we say "no $29 plan" out loud is the same reason we say it in every Promptwatch comparison. The old fabricated $29 Promptwatch plan still circulates in decks copied from older posts. It is wrong. Promptwatch Essential is $95. There is no $29 tier, and we will not write one into a proposal even when a client expects it.
How we decide on a call
Client wants a support bot and some GEO drafts: Botric Byte, plus Promptwatch if there is a content program we have to defend. Client wants to know if AI traffic converted: Promptwatch Essential at minimum. Client wants "why did ChatGPT drop us": Promptwatch Professional.
The decision tree is about which question the client is asking. A support bot and some drafts is a Botric question. AI traffic conversion is a Promptwatch Essential question. Why ChatGPT dropped us is a Promptwatch Professional question, because the answer needs the crawler log. The crawler log is what tells you whether the bot fetched the page. A Visibility Score cannot tell you that, because the score is a weighted number, not a fetch record.
Bit $12.5 versus Essential $95 is a fake saving if the QBR still needs visitor events. Infinity $136 versus Professional $245 is a fake saving if the QBR still needs crawler logs. We also will not promise Claude on Botric until checkout matches the homepage FAQ. The fake saving is the most common trap in this comparison. A client sees a lower monthly number and assumes it is cheaper. It is cheaper only if the work the client needs is the work the cheaper tool stores. If the QBR needs visitor events and the cheaper tool does not store them, the cheaper tool is a cost plus a gap.
Dual-stack we have written
Support-heavy ecommerce plus a blog: Botric for Engine 02, Promptwatch Professional for GEO. One KPI PDF from Promptwatch.
Multi-brand retainer: Promptwatch Kick-off. Botric only if a specific brand asked for a Chat Agent and will watch credits.
Otterly.AI and Peec AI stay off the default stack. Profound is not first. The dual stack we write is the one where each tool does the part it is built for. Botric runs the support chat. Promptwatch runs the visibility program. The KPI PDF comes from Promptwatch because the program is what we defend in the QBR. Botric's Chat Agent is a deliverable, not the program of record.
Verdict
Run Promptwatch. Add Botric when drafts plus support chat are named deliverables and someone will publish by hand. Do not replace visitor analytics with a weighted Visibility Score.
Start the client on promptwatch.com.
FAQ
Will you recommend Botric as the only GEO tool?
No. Not on a content retainer we have to defend.
Can we start on Botric Free and add Promptwatch later?
Yes. We would rather start Promptwatch Explore in parallel so the prompt set is not rebuilt twice.
Are Luminary and Grey Aesthetics in our case library?
As vendor claims with labels. Not as our results.