Digraph vs Promptwatch pricing
| Plan detail | Digraph | Promptwatch |
|---|---|---|
| Lowest published price | Free for 14 days, then $99/mo | $95/mo |
| Plan and billing | Standard, billed monthly | Essential |
| Allowance | 30 prompts, 1 brand | 50 prompts, 6,000 responses |
| AI coverage | Supported AI models | 4 tracked models |
| Next plan | Pro $249/mo: 300 prompts, 3 brands | See Promptwatch’s pricing page |
Lowest published plan for each vendor; billing terms differ. See which AI systems Digraph checks and how.
Features compared
| Capability | Digraph | Promptwatch |
|---|---|---|
| Published entry pricing | Standard: $99/month for 30 tracked prompts and 1 brand. | Essential: $95/month for 1 project, 50 prompts, 6,000 responses, 4 tracked models, and 500 agent credits monthly. |
| Mid-tier coverage | Pro: $249/month for 300 prompts, 3 brands, with supported model APIs. | Professional: $245/month for 2 projects, 150 prompts, 18,000 responses, 4 tracked models, 1,500 agent credits, and 5 AEO articles monthly. |
| Model and response accounting | Plans publish prompt and brand limits across supported model APIs. | Promptwatch publishes prompt and response quotas separately, with each monitored prompt run across supported models; the pricing matrix lists ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews and AI Mode, Claude, Gemini, Meta Llama, and DeepSeek. |
| Competitor and citation evidence | Inspect full answers, recommendations, competitor mentions, cited URLs, source domains, and changes over time. | Promptwatch describes visibility, share of voice, position, sentiment, citations, competitor analysis, citation heatmaps, source types, and model-level filtering; verify the underlying answer and source exports. |
| Optimization and content | Route visibility gaps into audits, analysis, Signal, and agent workflows connected to prompt and source evidence. | Promptwatch offers agent chat, content gap analysis, content optimization, technical optimization, knowledge base, AEO articles on higher plans, and content agents built from citation data. |
| Integrations and access | Reports and exports are public-plan capabilities; API access is listed for Enterprise. | Promptwatch lists MCP and API access on published plans, plus Google Search Console, Slack, WordPress, Webflow, Framer, and Data Studio integrations depending on tier. |
Key differences between Digraph and Promptwatch
Promptwatch and Digraph both track how AI systems mention brands, position competitors, and cite sources. Promptwatch emphasizes large response quotas, daily monitoring, country or city tracking, agent credits, AEO articles, crawler logs, and MCP or API access. Digraph emphasizes a defined prompt portfolio, full answer evidence, cited URLs, source domains, competitor context, and connected audit or analysis workflows across supported model APIs. Their published quota units differ, so an answer-level pilot is more meaningful than comparing plan names.
Prompt quotas and response quotas answer different questions
Promptwatch publishes both prompt and response limits: Essential has 50 prompts and 6,000 responses, Professional has 150 prompts and 18,000 responses, and Business has 350 prompts and 42,000 responses. Digraph publishes 30 or 300 tracked prompts and brand limits. Ask how many model calls, locales, refreshes, and retained answers each quota represents before comparing apparent volume.
Compare monitoring volume with evidence depth
Promptwatch positions large-scale monitoring, citation heatmaps, source types, and model-level filtering alongside visibility, position, sentiment, and share of voice. Digraph emphasizes the prompt, full answer, recommendation context, cited URL, source domain, competitor framing, and follow-up analysis behind a finding. Use the same missed-citation example and record how quickly a reviewer can move from a metric to the exact source and action.
Agent credits and AEO articles need an outcome test
Promptwatch includes agent credits on every published tier and AEO articles on Professional and Business, with content agents informed by citation data. Digraph connects observed gaps to audits, analysis, Signal, and agent workflows. Test whether each generated recommendation or article is traceable to a prompt, competitor, cited source, and approval step, and whether the next measurement verifies the change.
Normalize model coverage, geography, and cadence
Promptwatch lists four tracked models on its published self-serve plans and separately names a broader supported-model set, with country and higher-tier city tracking. Digraph lists supported AI models on Standard and Pro. Compare the same engines, model modes, countries, prompts, daily refresh, and evidence retention rather than treating the model list as a single coverage number.
Run a controlled side-by-side pilot
Use the same brand, competitors, categories, markets, language, buyer questions, active engines, collection window, and reporting format. Record full answers, prompt and model context, brand position, competitor mentions, sentiment, citations, cited URLs, source domains, generated actions or content, refresh time, and resource consumed. Compare one recurring report and one verified follow-up action before choosing the operating model.
Need the work done, not another tool?
A tracking tool tells you where you stand in AI answers; it does not write the content, fix the site or earn the mentions that change them. Digraph is an AI marketing agency: we measure on our own platform and do that work for you, starting with a one-off audit.
See our AEO agency servicesHow to evaluate both
This documentation-based comparison was reviewed September 21, 2026; it is not a hands-on benchmark. Promptwatch publishes Essential at $95/month for one project, 50 prompts, 6,000 responses, and 4 tracked models; Professional at $245/month for two projects, 150 prompts, 18,000 responses, and 5 AEO articles per month; and Business at $579/month for five projects, 350 prompts, 42,000 responses, and 10 AEO articles. Digraph lists Standard at $99/month for 30 prompts and 1 brand and Pro at $249/month for 300 prompts and 3 brands across supported model APIs. Promptwatch packages prompt volume, response volume, model tracking, agent credits, and content outputs differently from Digraph. Normalize prompts, model runs, refresh, evidence, content ownership, and integrations before comparing value.
Sources reviewed
Promptwatch’s capabilities are summarized from the official sources below. This is a documentation-based comparison published by Digraph, not a hands-on benchmark.
Common questions
How does Digraph compare with Promptwatch?
Promptwatch and Digraph both track how AI systems mention brands, position competitors, and cite sources. Promptwatch emphasizes large response quotas, daily monitoring, country or city tracking, agent credits, AEO articles, crawler logs, and MCP or API access. Digraph emphasizes a defined prompt portfolio, full answer evidence, cited URLs, source domains, competitor context, and connected audit or analysis workflows across supported model APIs. Their published quota units differ, so an answer-level pilot is more meaningful than comparing plan names.
How does Promptwatch pricing compare with Digraph?
Promptwatch’s lowest published plan is $95/mo (Essential) with 50 prompts, 6,000 responses and 4 tracked models. Digraph starts with a 14-day free trial; Standard is then $99/mo billed monthly for 30 prompts, 1 brand across supported model APIs, and Pro is $249/mo for 300 prompts, 3 brands. Billing basis, collection surfaces, and plan units differ, so confirm current terms with both vendors.
Is Digraph a good Promptwatch alternative?
Digraph is a fit for teams and agencies comparing high-volume prompt and response monitoring with agentic content workflows against a prompt-centered evidence and investigation platform. Run the same buyer prompts in both products and compare the full answers, citations, and next actions before deciding.
Can Digraph complement an existing Promptwatch workflow?
Yes. Many teams use more than one research or measurement system. Digraph adds an evidence-led view of AI answers, prompts, citations, competitors, and follow-up work alongside the tools SEO, brand, and content teams already use.
How should I run a fair AI visibility evaluation?
Use the same prompt portfolio, competitors, markets, AI systems, and reporting period in each tool. Review the underlying answers and sources, not only aggregate scores, before choosing a workflow.