Perplexity citation tracker

No. Profound's Starter plan is $99/mo and covers ChatGPT only, with fifty tracked prompts and one seat, as published on Profound's own pricing page on 2 August 2026. Perplexity is not an add-on to that plan, the next tier is Growth at $399/mo, with three seats and a hundred prompts, whose three answer engines the pricing page names as ChatGPT, Perplexity and Google AI Overviews when read on 7 August 2026. So Perplexity does arrive at Growth, at four times the Starter price. Enterprise pricing is custom and lists nine answer engines, including Gemini, Copilot, Grok, DeepSeek, Claude and Google AI Mode.

That single fact reshapes the shortlist for anyone whose actual question is "am I cited in Perplexity". A buyer comparing headline prices sees $99 against $5 or $29 and assumes the expensive one must cover more engines. On the entry tiers, for Perplexity specifically, it covers fewer.

Nothing at all, if you only need to ask once. AthenaHQ's free Essential tier covers Perplexity alongside ChatGPT, AI Overviews, Gemini and Claude, metered by credit, $25 of free credit, 300 credits, which is enough to find out whether Perplexity cites you and not enough to watch it week after week. For ongoing tracking it is $5 to $29 a month at the low end, and around $80 in the middle. CiteRank's $5 Solo plan tracks ten buyer questions across ChatGPT, Perplexity and Google AI Overviews. Otterly.AI's $29 Lite plan tracks fifteen prompts across ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity and MS Copilot. Peec AI's $80 Starter plan gives fifty prompts and includes three chosen models on every tier below Enterprise, so including Perplexity means excluding something else, or paying $30/mo more for a fourth, which Peec sells as an add-on on every paid tier.

The number to compare is not the monthly price. It is the price divided by what the plan measures, questions multiplied by engines. Fifty prompts on one engine and fifteen prompts on four engines are sold at similar-looking prices and are not similar products. The full AEO tool comparison runs the same exercise across the whole category.

Perplexity leans harder on live retrieval than any other answer engine. ChatGPT answers through Bing, its own crawler index and a Google fallback; Gemini and Google AI Overviews answer through Google's index; Perplexity goes and reads pages at question time. The practical consequence is speed in both directions, a page published this week can be cited by Perplexity this week, long before it has settled into anyone's index, and a page that stops being retrievable falls out just as fast.

Perplexity is therefore the engine where publishing work shows up first, which makes it the early-warning signal for everything else. A tool that reports ChatGPT alone will show a flat line for weeks after a change that Perplexity already reflected.

Ask Perplexity the same question three times and the set of cited domains moves. Across three runs of an identical prompt, only about 2.2% of cited domains recur in all three. A one-shot check, the kind every free tool in this category offers, this product's included, tells you what one answer looked like once, and nothing at all about a trend.

This is the entire argument for a repeating, scheduled probe rather than an on-demand one, and it is also why weekly is a defensible cadence. Answer engines do not change their minds hourly, and sampling faster mostly buys noise. What matters far more than frequency is whether the report distinguishes "Perplexity did not cite you" from "the probe never ran", two very different facts that a rate-limited tool will happily print as the same zero. Every CiteRank report states asked-versus-answered per engine for exactly that reason.

A Perplexity citation tracker that returns one score is hiding the useful distinction. Being cited means Perplexity linked a page on your domain, and it is the only one of the three states that sends traffic. Being named means the answer typed your brand without linking you, which is usually the state you can fix. Absent means somebody else answered the question.

Named-but-not-cited is the most common and most actionable result, and a tool reporting a single percentage will average it away. The other half of the report that matters is the list of domains Perplexity cited instead of you, that list is a work queue, and what to do with it is here.

1. Is Perplexity on the plan you are actually buying? Read the engine list on the tier, not the marketing page. Entry tiers and headline feature lists routinely disagree.
2. How many of your own questions fit? Most single-product companies have eight to twenty questions a buyer would genuinely type. A plan sized at fifty prompts is not generous if it costs four times as much and you pad the list to fill it.
3. Does it report when it could not ask? A tool that renders a failed probe as a zero will have you fixing something that was never broken.
4. Does it show the competing domains? Your own score is the least useful number in the report.

If you are comparing against a specific tool, the Profound alternatives and Peec AI alternatives pages go deeper on each, and the same question for Google AI Overviews and AI Mode is answered separately. Or run one free check, on one real question, and compare the answer against whatever you use now, no account, and a result page you can share.