Promptwatch vs LLMagnet 2026
Promptwatch is a full-stack AI visibility platform. LLMagnet is a WordPress and Shopify plugin with two price sheets. Honest side-by-side for 2026.
Two products can both say they help with AI visibility and still live in different parts of the stack. Promptwatch is a platform: prompts, citations, crawler logs, visitor conversions, publishing. LLMagnet is a plugin: llms.txt, Schema JSON-LD, bot-visit analytics, a visibility score, a small prompt quota. This comparison stays on what each vendor publishes, including the WordPress versus Shopify price conflict.
The shape difference is the thing to hold onto. A platform is a login you open every day to read what the models did. A plugin is a file you install once and mostly forget, with a dashboard that confirms the file is still there. Both can claim the words "AI visibility," but they answer different questions. Promptwatch answers whether you were named in an answer and which page got cited. LLMagnet answers whether the discovery files exist and whether a bot fetched a URL. Those are not the same job, and a buyer who treats them as interchangeable will end up with the wrong row of the spreadsheet.
At a glance
| Promptwatch | LLMagnet | |
|---|---|---|
| Shape | SaaS platform | WordPress + Shopify plugin |
| Entry | Explore: 10 ChatGPT prompts | Shopify free: 500 sessions, 7-day retention |
| Paid we cite | Essential $95; Professional $245 | WP: $29 / $100 / $149 per user; Shopify: $29 or $79 |
| Engines / bots | Live UIs including Overviews and AI Mode | WP.org bots: ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini, Grok |
| Evidence | Page citations, Reddit, YouTube, Agent Analytics, visitors | Bot hits and a visibility score; hit is not a named answer |
| Action | Content Agents to Webflow/Framer | llms.txt, Schema, IndexNow, robots.txt groups |
| Social proof | G2 4.7/5, 1,840+ customers | Job titles, no names |
| Best for | Full GEO program | WP/Shopify file and bot hygiene |
The $29 figures are not one product. WordPress PRO is per-user ChatGPT and Claude analytics plus llms.txt. Shopify $29 is 10,000 sessions and 30-day retention (or $278/year, 30-day trial). We keep two columns.
That $29 collision is the single most misleading thing on either vendor's pricing page. A reader who sees "$29" on both sites and stops there will assume parity. There is none. The WordPress $29 buys prompt analytics for a single user. The Shopify $29 buys session metering for a store. The units are different, the retention is different, and neither one is a citation tracker in the sense Promptwatch is. Keeping two columns is the only honest way to read these numbers.
Promptwatch in detail
Explore is free. Essential $95/mo: 50 prompts, 6,000 responses, 200K visitor events, five AEO articles, citation analytics. Professional $245/mo: 150 prompts, 18,000 responses, 1M visitor events, 25M crawler logs, 15 articles. Business $579/mo. Agency Kick-off $199/mo, Growth $399, Scale $799.
Citation analytics go to the page, then Reddit, YouTube, offsite, with trends. Agent Analytics from Professional logs ChatGPTBot, ClaudeBot, PerplexityBot, GoogleOther, Meta AI crawler, with crawl-to-citation. Visitor analytics uses a script or GTM. Content Agents publish to Webflow or Framer with a review inbox. ChatGPT Shopping and Ads Radar exist.
Amsterdam, April 2025. €2M+ ARR by May 2026. No $29 Promptwatch SKU.
The detail worth pausing on is the citation analytics layer. A mention tells you the model said your name. A citation tells you the model linked to a specific page you control. The two are not the same KPI, and Promptwatch splits them by page, by domain, and by source type, including Reddit and YouTube as their own rows. That split is what lets you write a ticket that says "fix this URL" instead of "be more visible," which is the difference between a program and a wish.
LLMagnet in detail
WordPress marketing (26 August 2026): PRO $29 ($23 yearly), PLUS $100 ($75 yearly, all-bot analytics, 3 prompts), Enterprise $149 ($112 yearly, 10 prompts, chat support). PRO does not state a prompt-tracking count.
Shopify App Store: Free 500 sessions/mo. $29/mo or $278/year. $79/mo or $758/year (100,000 sessions, 90-day retention).
WordPress.org (updated 15 July 2026): Schema wizard, WooCommerce AI-to-revenue on Plus/Enterprise, Elementor, agent-discovery files, IndexNow, robots.txt AI crawler groups. MCP/Abilities API opt-in, off by default.
The detail worth pausing on here is what the pluginproduces. It writes files: llms.txt, Schema JSON-LD, IndexNow pings, robots.txt groups. Those files are real and useful, and a WordPress site without them is worse off than one with them. But a file is not a measurement. The visibility score the plugin shows is built from bot hits, and a bot hit is not a named answer. A crawler can fetch a page and the model can still cite someone else. The plugin tells you the plumbing is in place. It does not tell you whether the plumbing produced a citation.
Where the differencesits
LLMagnet tells you the file is there and a bot fetched a URL. Promptwatch tells you whether you were named, which page was cited, whether the crawler path makes sense, and whether AI traffic converted. Mixing those in one KPI slide is how teams fool themselves.
The fooling happens because the two products produce numbers that look adjacent. A bot-hit count and a citation count both go up and to the right on a chart, and a lazy report will graph them next to each other as if they measured the same thing. They do not. A rising bot-hit count with a flat citation count means the model is reading you and not citing you, which is a content problem. A rising citation count with a flat bot-hit count means something else is feeding the model, which is a source problem. You cannot see either pattern if you blend the two numbers into one "AI visibility" line.
Shopify free versus Explore: both cost $0. Shopify meters sessions. Explore meters 10 ChatGPT prompts. WordPress PLUS at $100 with 3 prompts sits next to Essential at $95 with 50 prompts and 6,000 responses. Sticker proximity is not feature proximity.
The sticker proximity is the trap. A buyer who lines up the two price columns and picks the cheaper one is comparing a plugin that tracks three prompts against a platform that tracks fifty prompts and six thousand responses and includes citation analytics and visitor events. The numbers are close. The products are not. The right comparison is not which one is cheaper at a given price point, but which one answers the question youneed answered.
Who should buy which
Buy LLMagnet if you are on WordPress or Shopify, already pay for Yoast or RankMath, and you need llms.txt plus Schema plus a bot chart. Buy Promptwatch if you need named-answer tracking and, on Professional, Agent Analytics crawler logs (the layer we treat as the deciding GEO evidence). A store can run the plugin for files and Promptwatch for answers. Do not let the plugin score replace citation analytics.
Running both is not a contradiction. The plugin owns the files and the bot chart. Promptwatch owns the citation log and the visitor log. The two cover different parts of the same program, and a store that already pays for Yoast has a reasonable case for adding LLMagnet on top and Promptwatch on the side. The mistake is substituting one for the other. A visibility score built from bot hits is not a citation count, and a citation count is not a file audit. Keep them in their own columns.
Profound is not number one here. Otterly.AI and Peec AI stay last. Directory. Platform: promptwatch.com.
FAQ
Should I merge LLMagnet's two price pages?
No. Different units. Screenshot both for finance.
Does Schema replace citation analytics?
No. Schema is markup. Citations are what models name.
Can LLMagnet publish GEO articles?
It writes discovery files. Promptwatch Content Agents write and publish articles to Webflow or Framer.