Best AI Visibility Tools for Marketing Agencies (White-Label and Multi-Client)

At a glance

How we evaluated

We looked at eight things on each vendor's own site, as published in October 2026, not a private test account or trial login: whether the tool supports more than one client inside a single account (multi-client workspaces), whether reports can carry an agency's own branding instead of the vendor's, how seats and permissions work when more than one person touches a client's data, whether prompt or answer limits scale per client or get shared across a whole account, whether there's an API or an export path an agency can pipe into its own dashboard (Looker Studio is the one that comes up again and again), whether a published agency-specific pricing tier exists at all, and whether the vendor runs any kind of reseller or partner program.

A caveat worth stating up front: "agency features" is the single blurriest category in this whole space. A few vendors (Profound, Scrunch, AthenaHQ, Promptwatch) reference an agency page or an agency pitch without putting real detail on the public side of it. We're not going to invent what's behind that sales call. Where the page says "contact us," that's what we're reporting, not a guess at what the answer probably is.

Why the agency buying criteria are different

Our general AI visibility tools roundup covers the question most buyers actually have: which tool should one brand use to see if ChatGPT or Google AI Overviews mention it. That's a single-workspace decision. An agency buying the same category of tool is answering a different question: how many client accounts can live under one subscription, who on the team can touch which client's data, and what does the client actually see when the report lands in their inbox.

Three things matter here that barely register for a single-brand buyer. First, per-client prompt or workspace limits: a plan that gives you "500 prompts a month" is a different proposition if that's shared across 20 client accounts versus if it's per account. Second, whether reports can be stripped of the vendor's own branding, since a client paying an agency for AI visibility reporting generally doesn't need to know which underlying SaaS tool produced the chart. Third, whether the pricing model scales in a way that maps to how agencies actually grow, by adding clients, not by one client suddenly wanting ten times the prompt volume.

The tools, agency features first

ZeroRank

ZeroRank is the one tool here with a plan literally named "Agency," and it's priced and detailed in public, which is rarer in this category than it should be. The Agency tier runs $499/mo and includes unlimited workspaces, up to 31,500 AI answers analyzed monthly, 150 Prompt Research runs, 36 AI article generations plus content optimizations, unlimited seats across unlimited countries, white-label dashboards, and both an MCP server and a REST API for piping data into an agency's own reporting stack. The Growth tier below it, at $199/mo, includes the same 17-platform coverage and white-label dashboards but caps workspaces at 10, which is the more realistic entry point for a small agency testing the category before committing to the Agency tier's unlimited-client ceiling.

Best for: an agency that wants the published number before talking to anyone, and that's comfortable with a newer, smaller vendor in exchange for that transparency.

One honest limitation: ZeroRank doesn't have the multi-year track record Semrush, Ahrefs, or SE Ranking have, so if vendor stability over a multi-year client contract matters more than price, weigh that against the lower sticker.

Otterly.AI

Otterly.AI splits its agency story across two things: an Agency Partner program, and expanded limits once a partner is on Standard ($189/mo) or Premium ($489/mo). Partners get unlimited workspace management (a genuinely separate environment per client under one login), the ability to spin up "pitch workspaces" for prospective-client audits before a contract is signed, branded Looker Studio reports, joint co-marketing listing, and one consolidated invoice instead of per-client billing headaches. Partner accounts also get a prompt-volume bump over the standard tiers, 150 prompts on Standard instead of 100, 500 on Premium instead of 400.

Best for: an agency that wants a clearly documented partner track, not just a bigger plan, and that values being able to run a free-feeling pre-sale audit workspace before a client has signed anything.

One honest limitation: the entry Lite tier ($25/mo annual) doesn't carry agency perks at all; you need to be on Standard or above before the partner benefits kick in, so budget for at least $160/mo (annual) per agency account to actually get the multi-client tooling.

Peec AI

Peec describes its agency offering in more operational detail than most: unlimited client workspaces with no per-seat fee, each client isolated with its own prompts, competitors, and channels, account managers able to switch between clients in one click, and branded Looker Studio dashboards clients can view via a read-only link without ever logging into Peec itself. For teams that want raw data instead, CSV export and API access feed into BigQuery, Tableau, or Power BI.

Pricing for the agency tier specifically isn't published; the brand-facing pricing page shows Starter, Pro, Advanced, and Enterprise without dollar figures, and agency pricing is quoted separately with its own tier names (Essential, Growth, Scale) based on prompt credits rather than a flat monthly fee.

Best for: an agency running a lot of small-to-mid accounts where per-seat pricing from other vendors would add up fast, and that's willing to go through a sales conversation to get the number.

One honest limitation: no public price means you can't budget a client proposal off Peec's own site the way you can with ZeroRank, Otterly, or Rankscale.

Semrush

Semrush handles agencies two separate ways that are worth untangling. The Agency Partners program is a marketplace, not a reseller discount: it's a directory where marketers search for agencies, agencies build a public profile, and Semrush assigns an "Agency Score" based on certification and site health. That's a lead-generation play, not a multi-client workspace feature.

The actual multi-client tooling inside the product itself is thinner than you'd expect from a suite this broad: additional team seats are an add-on at $45/mo per seat on top of whichever base plan (SEO at $139/mo through Advanced at $549/mo) you're already paying for, and there's no dedicated "client sub-account" structure the way some narrower AI-visibility specialists build in from day one. API access, which an agency piping Semrush data into its own dashboard would need, is gated to the Advanced tier. Our full Semrush review covers the plan structure and the Adobe acquisition context in more depth.

Best for: an agency already running core SEO for clients inside Semrush that wants AI visibility as one more tab, not a separate workflow, and doesn't need a dedicated client-workspace model.

One honest limitation: no published agency-tier pricing or built-in client-separation structure, just per-seat add-ons on top of the standard plans.

Ahrefs (Brand Radar)

Ahrefs folds AI visibility into the same account structure as its core SEO plans rather than running a separate agency product. Brand Radar's Custom Prompts start at $50/mo as a standalone add-on, or come bundled in modest amounts with any paid plan: 5 prompts and 150 checks a month on Lite ($129/mo), scaling up to 83-plus prompts and 2,500-plus checks on Enterprise. The AI Visibility Index, a different feature that analyzes against a fixed pool of 476 million real prompts rather than ones you write yourself, runs $199/mo separately.

Agency-relevant mechanics live in the base plan, not in Brand Radar specifically: additional seats cost $40/mo on Lite, $60/mo on Standard, $80/mo on Advanced, and Looker Studio integration for building client-facing dashboards is included starting at Advanced ($449/mo).

Best for: an agency already paying for Ahrefs for link and keyword work that wants AI visibility in the same login rather than standing up a second vendor relationship, consistent with what we found comparing the two platforms in our Semrush vs. Ahrefs piece.

One honest limitation: there's no agency-specific plan or client-workspace concept at all, just projects inside one account, so running 20 clients means 20 projects inside the same Ahrefs login with the same seat-based permission model as everything else in the product.

Profound

Profound's public pricing page references an "Agency Growth plan" with 400 credits monthly per client workspace, which is the most direct nod to multi-client structure of any tool here, and also the least detailed. Past the free trial (50 prompts a day, 3 engines, 7 days), everything is Enterprise-tier custom pricing, including Agency Growth. The Enterprise tier itself covers up to 9 engines, unlimited seats, SSO, full API, and CSV/JSON export, which would answer most agency reporting needs if the price were public.

Best for: a larger agency that already budgets for enterprise software sales cycles and wants the widest engine list (including Claude, DeepSeek, and Copilot) without stitching together two vendors.

One honest limitation: there is no number anywhere on the public site past the free trial, agency or otherwise, so you can't build a client proposal off Profound's own pricing page the way you can with several cheaper competitors.

Scrunch AI

Scrunch prices seats directly into its plan structure: Starter at $250/mo (annual) includes 3 seats, Growth at $417/mo includes 5, and both let you add more at $25/mo per seat, which is a cleaner way to model a growing internal team than some competitors. The pricing page points to a separate agency page for packages and benefits, but that page doesn't surface dollar figures or client-workspace mechanics in public.

Best for: an agency that wants predictable per-seat economics for its own internal team's access, separate from the question of how many client brands it's tracking.

One honest limitation: like Profound, Scrunch references agency-specific benefits without putting the actual structure where you can read it before a sales call.

AthenaHQ

AthenaHQ offers unlimited seats with role-based access control starting at its Starter tier ($295/mo), which is more generous on team size than most of the seat-capped competitors on this list. Multi-region and multi-language support, plus configurable dashboard views by persona or team, are reserved for Enterprise. An "/agency" page is referenced on the pricing page but, as with Profound and Scrunch, doesn't publish specifics.

Best for: an agency that wants to add analysts and account managers freely without seat math, as long as $295/mo per client (or per account, depending on how you structure it) fits the budget.

One honest limitation: no dedicated multi-client workspace model is visible publicly; unlimited seats solves the "how many people can log in" problem, not the "how do I keep 20 clients' data separate and billed separately" problem.

Promptwatch

Promptwatch is the most directly worded agency pitch of the group: its own pricing page states plainly that it's "the best solution for agencies managing AI Search for multiple brands," built around easy client onboarding. In practice that translates to seats scaling from 1 (Essential, $95/mo) to 2 projects, then up to 5 seats and 5 projects on Business ($579/mo), with API and MCP access included on every tier and custom reports available from Professional ($245/mo) up.

Best for: an agency that wants that multi-brand pitch backed by API access on every single tier, including the cheapest one.

One honest limitation: no white-label option is mentioned anywhere on the pricing page, so if stripping Promptwatch branding from a client-facing report matters, confirm that directly with sales before assuming it's included.

Rankscale

Rankscale runs the closest thing to an actual reseller program on this list: its Agency Program, available from the Growth tier ($385/mo) up, includes white-labeled dashboards (removing Rankscale branding entirely), lifetime affiliate commissions on client referrals, a partner directory listing for client discovery, private Slack access, and exclusive webinars. REST API access starts one tier down, on Pro+ ($229/mo), and every tier, even the $17/mo Essentials plan, includes unlimited seats with a permissions system.

Best for: an agency that wants to actually get paid on referrals, not just manage clients, and that's comfortable paying $385/mo to get the program rather than finding it bundled into a cheaper tier.

One honest limitation: the genuinely useful agency perks (white-label, affiliate commissions, partner directory) are locked to Growth and up, so the headline $17/mo Essentials price isn't the agency price; budget from $385/mo if the program itself is the reason you're buying.

SE Ranking (SE Visible)

SE Visible supports unlimited users and up to 10 projects on its top published tier (Plus, $355/mo), with CSV export and competitor benchmarking built in. Where it falls short of several competitors here matters specifically for agencies: its own FAQ states white-labeling isn't currently available on SE Visible, clarifying that the "Agency Pack" white-label option exists only for the separate, classic SE Ranking rank-tracking platform, not for the AI-visibility product.

Best for: an agency that already resells SE Ranking's classic rank tracking under its Agency Pack and wants AI visibility from the same vendor family, understanding it's a separate, non-white-labeled product for now.

One honest limitation: no white-label path on SE Visible itself as of October 2026, which rules it out if a fully branded client-facing report is a hard requirement rather than a nice-to-have.

How to price AI visibility as an agency service

We're not going to hand you a market rate, since real rates vary by region, client size, and what else is already in the retainer, and anyone claiming a universal number is guessing. What's useful instead is a short list of packaging decisions that actually change the economics, based on how these tools themselves are structured.

Decide whether you're selling a one-time audit or a recurring subscription before you price anything. A one-time "AI Visibility Snapshot" (run a fixed prompt set once, deliver a PDF or a shared dashboard) is a different cost structure than ongoing monthly monitoring, and several tools here price that way too: Profound's free trial and most vendors' lowest tiers are built for a short-term look, not a year of tracking.

Pick the unit that scales with client size and match it to a tool's own pricing ladder. Some vendors scale by prompt volume (Otterly, SE Visible, Promptwatch), some by total AI answers analyzed per month (ZeroRank), and a couple by workspace or seat count more than volume (Scrunch, AthenaHQ). If your clients vary wildly in brand size, a workspace-based tool like Peec or ZeroRank's Agency tier is easier to price per client than a shared-pool-of-prompts model that forces you to ration volume across accounts.

Separate the reporting tier from the monitoring tier. A monthly screenshot-style report costs you almost nothing to produce beyond the tool subscription itself. A live, client-facing, continuously refreshed Looker Studio dashboard with your own branding (which Peec, ZeroRank, Otterly, and Rankscale's Growth tier all explicitly support) is worth charging more for, since it's a standing deliverable, not a monthly export.

Confirm white-labeling in writing before you promise it to a client. Rankscale's white-label dashboards are explicitly Growth-tier-and-up. Peec and ZeroRank both build it in without an extra tier. Promptwatch and SE Visible, as of this writing, don't offer it at all on the AI-visibility product. Selling a "branded dashboard" to a client on a tool that doesn't support it is the kind of mistake that surfaces in the first client call, not the sales pitch.

Decide where the tool cost sits relative to your fee, and be consistent about it across clients. Some agencies pass the tool subscription through at cost and charge a separate service fee for analysis and recommendations; others build the tool cost into one blended monthly number. Either works. What doesn't work is mixing the two approaches client to client without a reason, since it makes your own margin impossible to track at scale.

Client reporting template

Use this as a starting structure for a monthly or quarterly AI visibility report, whichever tool is behind it.

Keep the explanation column in the actual report, not just in your internal notes. A client who doesn't live in SEO day to day won't know what "share of voice" means without a plain-English line next to the number, every time it appears, not just the first time.

Who should pick what

A two-to-five-person shop running a handful of client accounts is better served starting with a published, affordable tier: ZeroRank's Growth plan at $199/mo or Otterly's Standard at $189/mo both give real multi-client structure without a sales call. A mid-size agency running 15 to 40 accounts and wanting a genuine reseller angle, not just a bigger plan, should look hardest at Rankscale's Agency Program or Peec's quoted agency tiers. An agency that's already deep in Semrush or Ahrefs for core SEO work should check what it already has access to (seats, Looker Studio, Custom Prompts) before signing a second AI-visibility vendor, since the add-on cost on an existing subscription is often cheaper than a net-new tool. And a larger agency with the patience for an enterprise sales process gets the widest engine coverage and the most built-out multi-client language from Profound, once you clear the quote.

None of this replaces reading our ranked metrics guide before you decide what you're actually measuring for a client, since the tool you pick should follow from the metric you've promised to deliver, not the other way around. And if a client specifically asks about Profound as the category leader, our Profound alternatives roundup is worth reading before the renewal conversation.

FAQ

Which of these tools actually let me remove their own branding from a client report?

Peec, ZeroRank, Otterly (on Standard and Premium), and Rankscale (from the Growth tier up) all explicitly support white-labeled or branded dashboards as of October 2026. Semrush, Ahrefs, Promptwatch, and SE Visible don't publish a white-label option for their AI-visibility features specifically; SE Ranking's own FAQ confirms its white-label Agency Pack applies to classic rank tracking, not SE Visible.

Do I need one tool account per client, or can I run everyone through one login?

Every tool reviewed here that markets itself to agencies supports multiple clients inside one account, usually through separate projects or workspaces rather than separate logins. The difference is whether that structure is unlimited (ZeroRank Agency, Peec) or capped by tier (ZeroRank Growth at 10 workspaces, Ahrefs by number of projects on your plan). Check the workspace or project cap against your actual client count before you buy, not just the headline price.

Is it worth paying for a dedicated agency tier instead of just buying individual client licenses?

Usually yes, once you're past two or three clients. Per-seat and per-project add-ons (Ahrefs' $40 to $80/mo per seat, Scrunch's $25/mo per seat, Semrush's $45/mo per seat) add up faster than a flat agency tier with unlimited or high-cap workspaces, like ZeroRank's $499/mo Agency plan or Otterly's Standard tier once you're on the partner track.

Should I resell the tool's own agency plan, or build my own reporting on top of its API?

Depends on how differentiated your reporting needs to be. If a branded Looker Studio dashboard covers what your clients expect, reselling a tool's built-in agency tier (Peec, ZeroRank, Otterly) is the faster path. If you're already building custom client dashboards in a BI tool and just need the raw numbers, an API-first vendor like Promptwatch (API on every tier) or Ahrefs (API and MCP from Lite) lets you skip the vendor's own reporting layer entirely.

How many client accounts can one mid-tier plan realistically support?

It depends on prompt volume per client more than headline workspace count. A tool like Rankscale's Growth tier or ZeroRank's Growth tier publishes a monthly answer-volume ceiling (13,500 AI answers a month on ZeroRank Growth); divide that by how many prompts you actually need to run per client, not by the workspace cap, since the volume ceiling is usually the real constraint on how many accounts you can run before upgrading.