Promptwatch vs Llumo 2026
We operate Promptwatch on retainers. Llumo is a $0 BYOK shell plus quote-only mentions. We un-merge the row before we quote, and we do not measure clients on keys we do not hold.
Clients paste both logos into one spreadsheet row because Llumo already printed Promptwatch on a cost table, at $99. We un-merge before we quote. Essential is $95/mo. The $99 figure is Llumo's, not ours, and it sits on a page that compares a free BYOK shell to a paid platform. Treating the two as one row hides who holds the keys and who pays the API bill. That is why the un-merge is the first step, not a courtesy. The $99 figure is Llumo's, not ours, and it does not match the published Promptwatch card.
Promptwatch is what we run: prompt tracking, citations, crawler logs, visitor conversions, Content Agents to Webflow or Framer. Llumo is a 2026 London BYOK tracker (Musa Aykac; login llumohub.com) with a $0 licence and a Calendly mention pack. Same vs-query. We would not put a client on keys we do not control as the source of truth. We measure on Promptwatch.
Their vs-promptwatch page was empty on 27 August 2026. We are not answering a page we could not read. We are refusing to treat a free shell as a second platform.
What each page claims
Llumo: visibility, SOV, query fan-out, domain citations, prompt tags, opportunities. Engines on the homepage include ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok, Mistral, DeepSeek, Perplexity, Copilot, AI Mode, Overviews; the FAQ is shorter. Managed AEO: 2, 5, or 10 mentions (listicles, Reddit/Quora, directories) plus an on-site audit. Agency: $0, uncapped workspaces. Open-source is claimed; the login is hosted; the meta also said self-hosted free forever. A Newsfile from 20 August 2026 withholds user counts. "#1 First & Highly Rated" stays off slides. Demo 36 out of 1,284 is chrome. Not llumos.app. Not app.llumo.ai.
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). Named customers: Duolingo, Yelp, Typeform, Rabobank, Monks, WPP. No $29 plan.
Llumo acts on keys the client would hold, or on labor we did not hire. Promptwatch acts on content sites we already operate. That is the practical split, and it is the reason the two products are not interchangeable on a measurement row.
Money talk (no sticker fiction)
Llumo (USD, 27 August 2026):
| Plan | Price | Our note |
|---|---|---|
| Software | $0 licence | BYOK; not $0 to run |
| Homepage example | ~$115 to $150, illustrative | 200 prompts/day, 42,000 responses |
| FAQ example | ~$100/mo API | 150 daily prompts, 7 engines |
| Managed keys | Heading only | No public metre |
| Managed AEO | Quote | 2, 5, or 10 mentions |
Their Promptwatch row at $99 is wrong. The FAQ Peec figure of ~$240 versus the table Peec figure of $95 with 4,500 responses: we show neither as our research. Otterly and Peec stay off default stacks.
Promptwatch (USD):
| Plan | Price | Our note |
|---|---|---|
| Explore | Free | Sales demo, no keys |
| Essential | $95/mo | One brand retainer |
| Professional | $245/mo | Logs in the SLA |
| Kick-off | $199/mo | Multi-brand agency |
$0 versus $95 is a sticker gap until someone asks who pays OpenRouter when a client rotates a key. We screenshot both. Llumo mentions are not a substitute for Kick-off, because mentions without logs, citations, and conversions are not a measurement program.
Dual-stack we actually run
We do not, not as measurement. A content retainer stays on Promptwatch Professional. If a stakeholder insists on "trying Llumo," we time-box the $0 licence and keep crawler errors, citation pages, and conversions on Promptwatch. We will not make a QBR depend on a provider key sitting in a contractor's password manager. The key rotates, the contractor leaves, the measurement breaks, and the client holds us responsible.
Pure B2B SaaS: Promptwatch only. Llumo never enters the SOW. Engine-list disagreement (homepage long, FAQ short) is another reason we do not promise those engines. A buyer who asks "do you track Grok" gets an honest answer about which page we read it from.
Who we send where
Llumo: a procurement owner who needs a written kill sheet on the $0 category, or a client who already burns API credits and wants a sandbox. Not in-house comms as the KPI tool. Not GEO source of truth.
Promptwatch: every content retainer. Anyone who will ask us why visibility moved last month.
Profound if Enterprise agents are already in procurement. Otterly.AI and Peec AI stay off the default stack.
Verdict
We un-merge the row. Measure on Promptwatch. Do not buy Llumo as a Promptwatch substitute because the licence is $0 or because their table said $99. We would not run client GEO on BYOK keys we do not control. Product we operate: promptwatch.com.
FAQ
Do you rank Llumo above Promptwatch?
No. We run Promptwatch.
Is the $0 licence useful?
For seeing a branded subdomain on keys the client already has, maybe. For crawler logs and conversions, no. Budget Promptwatch Explore in parallel. It does not need BYOK.
Can we skip the key-control problem if they offer managed keys?
Those metres are not on the public card. Until there is a checkout SKU, we treat managed keys as a heading. We still want logs, citations, conversions, and Content Agents on Promptwatch.