Qwairy review 2026: pricing, engine coverage and what the data shows

Qwairy is one of the more visible names in European generative engine optimization, and one of the least documented in English. Its platform promises to show how ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini and other assistants describe your brand, and to supply the content and link work needed to change those answers. This review looks at what Qwairy publishes about itself, what its measurable footprint says, and where the offer sits in the category.

One disclosure first, because it changes how you should read everything below. Citeme is a direct competitor. We sell AI visibility tracking and we run GEO as an agency. We have not bought a Qwairy licence and we have not run the product. What follows is an assessment of a public offer, its published claims and its measurable signals, not a hands-on test. Where a judgement would require months of daily use, we say so instead of guessing.

What Qwairy is, in the vendor's own words

Qwairy positions itself as a GEO platform: software that measures, analyses and improves how a brand appears inside AI-generated answers. Per the vendor's own site, the product is organised around six named surfaces. Cockpit is the dashboard, carrying performance scores, a GEO matrix and competitor benchmarking with alerting. Monitor tracks mentions across assistants. Act turns findings into content briefs and backlink opportunities. Analyze covers sentiment and brand perception. Optimize holds a page inventory with health diagnostics. Measure handles crawler analytics, referrer analysis and what the vendor calls AI revenue tracking.

That last cluster is worth pausing on. A lot of tools in this category stop at mention counting. Qwairy's materials describe a chain running from measurement through to attribution, including log-level crawler analytics and a revenue view. Whether that revenue view is a genuine attribution model or a labelled traffic report is the kind of question a demo answers and a website does not.

Engine coverage is stated precisely, which is more than most vendors manage. Qwairy lists ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini and Grok via both API and interface, Copilot, Google AI Overview and Google AI Mode via interface only, and Claude, Mistral and DeepSeek via API only. That distinction matters and few buyers ask about it. An API answer and a logged-in interface answer to the same prompt are not the same artefact. The interface version carries personalisation, memory and live retrieval that the API does not, so it is closer to what your customer actually sees. The API is cleaner, but less representative. Claiming both for the four biggest engines is a real technical position, not marketing filler.

In short : Qwairy publishes an unusually specific engine list, including the API versus interface distinction that most competitors leave vague, and its feature map extends past mention counting into crawler logs and attribution.

Pricing is public, in euros, and that is a point in its favour

Much of this category hides pricing behind a sales call. Qwairy does not. The plans below are the vendor's published figures as of 27 August 2026.

Plan	Monthly	Annual	Prompts per month	Credits per month	Workspaces
Starter	65 EUR (list 79 EUR)	790 EUR	100	1,300	1
Growth	165 EUR (list 199 EUR)	1,990 EUR	300	3,900	5
Business	374 EUR (list 449 EUR)	4,490 EUR	800	10,400	20
Enterprise	On request	On request	Unlimited, per vendor	Custom	Unlimited, per vendor

All paid tiers advertise the same breadth: 10 or more engines, 240 or more countries, 45 or more languages. A free plan carries 120 credits with no card required, annual billing is presented as two months free, and payment runs on cards and SEPA direct debit.

Two things deserve scrutiny before you sign. First, the discounted monthly prices sit next to permanently displayed list prices. A discount that never expires is a price, so treat 65, 165 and 374 EUR as the real numbers rather than assume you caught a promotion.

Second, and more consequentially, the pricing runs on two meters at once. You get a prompt allowance and a credit allowance. Anything that consumes credits outside your tracked prompts, and a crawler analytics module or an on-demand audit plausibly does, eats into the same pool. The published ratio is a clean 13 credits per prompt at every tier, which suggests credits are the primitive and prompts a derived comfort number. Ask the vendor what a single prompt check across ten engines costs in credits, and what happens when the pool empties mid-month. That answer determines whether Starter tracks a hundred prompts or a hundred prompts once.

At the low end the pricing is competitive: a hundred tracked prompts for 65 EUR a month is entry-level money here, and the free tier with no card is a low-friction way to see the interface. It gets less obviously cheap in the middle, because Growth triples the prompt count and triples the price, so there is no volume discount until you are talking to sales. If you are comparing across the field, our roundup of the best AI visibility tools in 2026 sets these numbers against the rest of the market.

In short : Qwairy publishes real prices, which is worth credit in a category built on sales calls, but the dual prompt-and-credit meter is the thing to interrogate before you buy, because it decides what your allowance really buys.

The claims, and how much weight they can carry

Qwairy's site carries a set of performance figures. We list them as attributed vendor claims, because none can be independently verified.

Claim	Source per vendor	What it would take to verify
Plus 40 percent AI visibility in 45 days	Pysae case study	A defined visibility metric, a baseline, and a control for engine-side model updates in the same window
Three times more brand mentions in 60 days	Pysae case study	The prompt set used, and whether it was fixed across the period
Plus 145 percent AI search rankings	Webloom clients	A definition of what an AI search ranking is, which is not a settled concept
87 percent see results within 30 days	Qwairy	The population surveyed, the response rate, and the threshold for a result
2,000 or more brands	Qwairy	Whether free-tier accounts count as brands
4.8 out of 5 on G2	Qwairy site	G2 itself, which showed 4.7 across 43 reviews when we measured the SERP

The G2 gap is small and probably just a stale number on the website rather than anything sinister, but it is the one claim on the list we could check, and it did not match. The customer names are the more interesting signal: the about page cites Total and Match.com among its users, so the roster is not purely domestic. What a logo does not tell you is contract size or whether the relationship is a paid seat or a pilot.

The general problem here is not specific to Qwairy. Nobody in this category has a settled definition of visibility, share of voice or an AI ranking, which means every percentage improvement is measured against a metric the vendor invented. That is not dishonest, it is just early. It does mean cross-vendor comparison of headline results is close to meaningless, and you should benchmark on your own prompt set inside a trial instead. Our guide to winning visibility in AI search covers how to build that prompt set so the numbers mean something.

In short : every headline figure on the Qwairy site is a vendor claim against a vendor-defined metric, and the only one we could independently check, the G2 score, was slightly overstated on the site.

A French company, and why that matters to an English-speaking buyer

Qwairy is explicit about this. The footer reads Made in France and the entity is Qwairy SAS. The about page names three French co-founders: Luca Fancello as CMO, an SEO consultant formerly at Skyscanner, Nicolas Ilhe as CTO, and Aimé Dushimire as COO, previously a co-founder of CallDesk. The company states EU data hosting.

If you are buying from anywhere inside the European regulatory perimeter, this is good news. EU hosting and an EU legal entity remove a set of data transfer questions an American vendor forces you to answer with contractual clauses, which for a regulated buyer can shorten procurement by weeks. SEPA payment and euro invoicing also mean no currency exposure on a recurring bill.

If you are buying from North America, the calculation flips. Euro-denominated pricing means your real cost moves with the exchange rate. Support hours are more material: a Paris team overlaps with the US East Coast for the morning and with the West Coast barely at all, so a question raised at 2pm Pacific is generally a next-day answer. For a monitoring tool that mostly runs unattended that may be acceptable, but for an agency running client escalations it is a real operational cost, and worth asking about directly.

The least obvious point concerns the product's centre of gravity. A tool built primarily for French-language monitoring makes different choices than one built for English: how brand-name disambiguation works, how sentiment is scored in a language with different negation patterns. Qwairy claims 45 or more languages and 240 or more countries at every tier, and breadth claims of that shape are usually a function of engine capability rather than the vendor's own tuning. If your monitoring is English-first, ask to see the sentiment output on your own brand in English during a trial. Google, for its part, files Qwairy inside the French GEO cluster alongside Meteoria, GetMint, Goodie AI, Llmref and Promptmonitor, which is consistent with everything on the site.

In short : Qwairy's French base is an advantage for European buyers on hosting, billing and compliance, and a friction for North American ones on support hours and currency, and the language question is worth testing in a trial rather than reading off a feature list.

What the measurable signals say

We ran the domain data ourselves on 27 August 2026 with DataForSEO. Two findings cut against assumptions a buyer might make.

First, the domain. Qwairy's product sits on qwairy.co, not qwairy.com. That distinction is not cosmetic. The table below shows why. If you are evaluating this company by its domain footprint, measure the .co: the .com is a materially weaker and dirtier profile, and it is not where the product lives.

Metric	qwairy.co	qwairy.com
Domain rank	239	84
Backlinks	1,121	53
Referring domains	146	41
Backlink spam score	6	36
Pages crawled	586	12
First seen	May 2025	November 2023

A rank of 239 on a domain first seen fifteen months ago is a fast build. For context, Citeme measures 149 on the same scale and the same day, so Qwairy is the stronger domain of the two, and we would rather report that than pretend otherwise. What a domain rank does not measure is product quality: a company good at acquiring links is demonstrating marketing competence, not measurement accuracy.

Second, the market signal. Searching qwairy in the United States returns 20 searches per month with low competition, but a cost per click of 26.78 USD and high-range bids reaching 83.58 USD. Almost no volume and extremely expensive clicks is the fingerprint of a small market where each visitor is worth a great deal, fought over by well-funded competitors bidding on each other's brand names.

The English-language results page is thinner than the brand's ambitions. Positions are held by the company's own site, a G2 listing at 4.7 across 43 reviews, its French LinkedIn page, a PDF on an events platform, a Context7 developer listing, a YouTube channel with roughly 90 followers, and one comparison page on Sorank. Independent English coverage therefore amounts to two pages: a review aggregator and a single competitor comparison. There is no substantive English editorial review of this product. Related searches confirm the appetite, with Qwairy reviews and Qwairy alternative both appearing even though neither returns measurable volume yet.

In short : the product lives on qwairy.co at domain rank 239, ahead of Citeme's 149, while the weaker qwairy.com is a separate and spammier property, and English-language independent coverage of the product amounts to a G2 page and one comparison article.

How we judged this, and what we could not judge

This review rests on three things: the vendor's published material read closely, domain and keyword measurements we ran ourselves, and category knowledge from building a competing product. It does not rest on usage. That is a legitimate basis for reviewing an offer and an illegitimate basis for reviewing an experience, so here is the boundary.

We cannot assess scoring accuracy. Every tool here samples a stochastic system. Ask ChatGPT the same question twice and you can get two different brand lists, so a visibility score is a sampling estimate with an error bar vendors rarely publish. Whether Qwairy's sampling is dense enough to separate real movement from noise is knowable only by running a fixed prompt set for weeks and looking at the variance.

We cannot assess reliability over time either. Engines change their retrieval behaviour without notice and a scraper that worked in June can silently degrade in September. The relevant question is how quickly a vendor detects and repairs that, and the only evidence is a track record you observe as a customer. Nor can we assess support quality, onboarding, how the credit meter behaves under real load, or the quality of the content briefs the Act module produces, which is the part of the offer where a tool either earns its keep or becomes an expensive dashboard. If you want to compare that kind of output rigorously, a structured head-to-head is the way, and the method we used in our Peec AI against Profound comparison and our Otterly against Peec AI comparison transfers directly. Running a GEO audit on your own domain first gives you the baseline to judge whichever tool you trial.

In short : this is a review of a public offer, not of a product experience, and the four things it cannot tell you are score accuracy, reliability over time, support quality and brief quality, all of which need weeks of use.

Verdict: 3.9 out of 5

Qwairy scores well on the things a buyer can check before paying. The engine list is specific and includes the API versus interface distinction most competitors blur. Pricing is public in a category that mostly hides it, the entry tier is affordable and the free plan needs no card. EU hosting and a French entity solve real procurement problems for European buyers. The domain footprint, rank 239 in fifteen months, indicates a company executing rather than a project that will vanish, and the founding team is named with checkable backgrounds.

It loses points in three places. The claim set is entirely self-reported against self-defined metrics, and the one figure we could verify, the G2 rating, was slightly overstated. The dual prompt-and-credit meter is opaque enough that a buyer cannot calculate their real allowance from the public page, an odd gap for a vendor otherwise praised for transparency. And the two-domain situation, with a spammier qwairy.com beside the product's qwairy.co, is loose housekeeping for a company selling brand visibility.

It suits European marketing teams and agencies, particularly French-speaking ones, that want broad engine coverage without an enterprise contract and value EU data residency. Look harder if you are a North American team needing same-timezone support, or if your measurement programme depends on documented score methodology, because that is not published. Trial it on the free tier with your own prompts before forming a view, and ask about credits.

In short : 3.9 out of 5, earned on transparency, coverage and European fit, and held back by unverifiable claims, an opaque credit meter and untidy domain management.

FAQ