Promptwatch vs LLMboost 2026
We operate Promptwatch on retainers. LLMboost enters SOWs only as a weekly PDF sidecar. Two loops, EUR versus USD.
Clients paste both logos into one spreadsheet row. We un-merge before we quote. The un-merge is the whole job. A spreadsheet that lists two logos in one row treats them as substitutes, and they are not substitutes. They are two different products that answer two different questions, and pricing them against each other without naming the question is how a finance team ends up buying the cheaper one and then asking it to do the job it was never built to do.
Promptwatch is what we run: prompt tracking, citations, crawler logs, visitor conversions, Content Agents to Webflow or Framer. LLMboost is what we might scope when the client wants a branded weekly PDF of prompt runs and will not let us publish. Same vs-query, different owners inside the account: reporting versus program. The owner split is the cleanest way to explain the two to a client. One person owns the report. Another person owns the program. When the same person owns both, the report tends to drift toward whatever the program needs to look good, and the weekly PDF stops being a check on the program.
What each platform automates
LLMboost: prompts (custom or generated), tags, competitors in the same answers, cited sources, recommendation views, stored runs, weekly reports, multi-client dashboard. No GEO writing. No CMS. Own copy versus LLM Pulse: no shopping, no bot analytics, no content gen, no API/BI. Comparison pages 18 July 2026. FAQ 26 August 2026. Five platforms. Essentials models include claude-3-haiku and grok-3-mini. White Label steps to claude-3.7-sonnet and grok-3.
The LLMboost feature list is a reporting list. Every item on it is about storing what ran and showing it back. Prompts, tags, competitors, cited sources, recommendation views, stored runs, weekly reports, multi-client dashboard. None of those items write a page or publish it. None of them connect a CDN log to a citation. The list is complete for the reporting job and empty for the program job, which is exactly why it fits as a sidecar and not as a replacement.
Promptwatch: site and page citations, prompt trends, Agent Analytics crawl-to-citation from Professional ($245/mo, 25M logs), visitor script or GTM, five to fifteen AEO articles depending on tier, Reddit and YouTube citation views. G2 4.7/5, 1,840+ brands. Amsterdam April 2025, €2M+ ARR within 12 months (May 2026).
LLMboost reports. Promptwatch acts. We do not ask one tool to do both jobs in a single line item. The reason is not preference. A reporting tool that is also asked to act will have its reporting shaped by its actions, and the numbers stop being an independent check. The two-loop structure keeps the report honest because the report does not depend on the program looking good.
Pricing we put in the estimate
|| | LLMboost | Promptwatch | | --- | --- | --- | | Free | Not published | Explore, 10 ChatGPT prompts | | Cheap paid | Essentials €24.95/mo (vendor-branded reports) | Essential $95/mo | | Next paid | White Label €49.95/mo (agency PDFs) | Professional $245/mo | | Agency | Same two SKUs | Kick-off $199, Growth $399, Scale $799 | | Caps | Prompt/seat/client unpublished; 15 in a demo is not a cap | Essential 50 prompts, 6,000 responses; Kick-off unlimited prompts |
Read the table by column, not by row. The LLMboost column has two published SKUs and an unpublished cap structure. The Promptwatch column has a free tier, a brand ladder, and an agency ladder with published limits. The caps row is the one that changes the comparison most. A demo that shows 15 prompts is not a published cap, so it cannot be quoted as one. The Essential row on the Promptwatch side has hard published limits, which is what makes it quotable in an SOW.
Do not convert. Screenshot both checkouts. Logos on llmboost.ai (Unicorn.io, Careers.sh, HDT, JobHawk.io, Rocket Sales) stay off our case-study slides. The screenshot rule exists because a currency conversion hides which checkout the number came from. A EUR number converted to USD and compared to a USD number is a number that has been processed, and processed numbers are where procurement arguments start. The raw screenshot is the evidence.
Hour interval unpublished. Stored fields: prompt, model, timestamp, latency, answer text. We label those "prompt runs" in the SOW. The stored fields are what the report is built from, and naming them in the SOW keeps the client from expecting fields the product does not store.
When we quote LLMboost
Reporting-only addendum. Client legal will not approve CMS OAuth. They still want a PDF with our logo (White Label) or they accept vendor branding (Essentials, which we rarely sell). Five engines match the brief. Nobody has asked for Overviews, AI Mode, or shopping. The addendum structure is what keeps the scope clean. LLMboost is scoped as an addendum to a Promptwatch program, not as a standalone line. That way the client never reads it as a replacement, and the report owner and the program owner stay separate.
When we refuse the swap
Any retainer where we already promised citations, crawlers, or publishing. Essential already includes visitor events and five AEO articles. Professional is the log SLA. Kick-off is how we hold several brands. There is no $29 Promptwatch plan; anyone lining €24.95 against "$29 Promptwatch" is quoting a number that does not exist. The refusal is not stubbornness. A swap on a retainer that promised crawlers means we promised a deliverable the new tool cannot produce, and the right move is to renegotiate the scope, not to silently drop the deliverable.
Dual-stack we actually run
Default: Promptwatch only. Sidecar: White Label PDF as an appendix, Promptwatch numbers in the body of the QBR. Two tabs, one truth. The failure mode is two monthly PDFs that disagree. We kill the sidecar if that starts. The two tabs one truth rule is what prevents the disagreement. The PDF is the appendix. The Promptwatch numbers are the body. When the appendix and the body start to diverge, the appendix is the one that goes, because the body is the system of record.
Onboarding: write "not crawler logs" next to LLMboost. Connect GTM or the visitor script on Promptwatch Essential. Connect CDN logs on Professional. Assign Content Agents inbox owner. Assign PDF owner separately so the reporter is not also the publisher. The onboarding labels are what keep the two loops from collapsing into one. "Not crawler logs" written next to LLMboost is the sentence that stops a future analyst from asking LLMboost for a crawl report it cannot produce.
Verdict
We operate Promptwatch. LLMboost is a scoped reporting SKU. The feature we name when a client asks why a mention moved is Agent Analytics, not a weekly cover sheet. Agent Analytics is the one that says whether the bot fetched the page. The weekly cover sheet is the one that says the prompt ran. The client's question is usually about the fetch, not the run.
Otterly.AI and Peec AI stay off the default stack. Profound is a different procurement track, not the winner of this vs. Each of those has a job, and none of them is the job this vs is about.
FAQ
Can LLMboost replace Promptwatch on a retainer?
No. PDF versus program. A retainer that promised citations, crawlers, or publishing cannot be moved to a reporting SKU.
Should finance treat White Label as cheaper than Kick-off?
Only if the deliverable is a PDF. Kick-off is $199 with unlimited projects and 10M crawler logs. Different job. The price comparison only works when the deliverable is named.
Is 15 prompts the limit?
No. Unpublished. Do not put it in the contract as a cap. A demo number is not a published limit and it will not hold up in a scope dispute.