Notes · Note
Peec AI Moved Perplexity Behind Enterprise and Swapped Naver AI Into Self-Serve
Peec AI's self-serve engine catalog changed between September and October 2026 captures with no price change; Scrunch narrowed Core quotas the same way. What buyers should recheck.
Between two captures of Peec AI’s public pricing pages seven weeks apart, every dollar amount stayed identical while the engine catalog moved. This brief records what changed, what did not, and the same pattern seen on Scrunch in the same window. It is based on Geolyze’s dated captures of official vendor pages, not on vendor announcements.
What changed on Peec AI
The Peec AI profile records both capture states. The self-serve rule was “choose 3 models” in both captures; the catalog behind that rule is what moved.
| Matrix row | 2026-09-07 capture | 2026-10-26 capture |
|---|---|---|
| Self-serve engine catalog | ChatGPT, AI Mode, AI Overviews, Microsoft Copilot, Perplexity, Gemini | ChatGPT, AI Mode, AI Overviews, Microsoft Copilot, Gemini, Naver AI |
| Perplexity | Self-serve, choose-3 eligible | Enterprise column only |
| Meta Spark | Not named | Enterprise, API-only |
| Enterprise model claim | Up to 12 LLM models tracked | Up to 13 LLM models tracked |
| Brand and agency prices | Starter $80 to Scale $675 annual | Identical |
The agency default engine list followed the brand matrix, and month-to-month prices, captured for the first time on 2026-10-26, showed the same stability from the other direction.
The same pattern on Scrunch
The Scrunch recapture on the same day found the same shape of change: Core and Agency Core prices identical, but a responses-collected quota row (5,000 / 10,000 monthly) that the September matrix did not show, and Core persona and language counts narrowed from three personas and two languages to one and one.
Vendor packaging drifts in quota and tier placement while the headline price holds. A screenshot of a price card is therefore weaker evidence than a dated capture of the whole matrix.
What these changes are not
They are not price changes, and no vendor announced them to Geolyze. They are not evidence that any engine got harder to track in general, only that a specific vendor moved it behind a specific tier. They say nothing about measurement methodology, answer sampling, or dashboard quality, which remain untested. Naver AI appearing on Peec’s self-serve rows is a vendor catalog fact, not a market-share claim about Naver AI.
What operators should do
- If a Peec AI self-serve plan was chosen because Perplexity sat in the choose-3 set, re-check before renewal: after the 2026-10-26 capture, Perplexity tracking sits in the Enterprise column.
- Re-read the full engine matrix, not the price card, at purchase and renewal. Tier placement and quota rows moved twice in seven weeks across two vendors without any price change.
- Keep a dated capture of the matrix you bought against. If coverage was the reason for the purchase, the dated capture is the renewal argument.
- When comparing tools, use tables that carry capture dates, like the packaging-facts table in Best AI Visibility Tools. Treat any engine or quota claim older than a few weeks as stale.
- Do not rewrite prompt tracking sets or AI visibility workflows because a catalog moved. Re-map which vendor covers which engine, then decide.
Counterexample: canceling a working Peec workspace the day the catalog changes. If the tracked three engines still include the commercial priorities, nothing broke; only buyers whose three included Perplexity are affected.
Why this belongs in a brief
Notes exist to date a source change and name the operator move. This one is: two AI visibility vendors changed engine tier placement and quota rows under stable prices inside seven weeks, and the operator move is to re-read the live matrix at purchase and renewal with a dated capture in hand.
If the job is choosing between vendors rather than tracking one, start from How to Measure AI Visibility and the verified profiles under AI visibility tools.