Best Profound Alternatives for AI Visibility Tracking in 2026: An AEO Consultant's Picks

If you are leaving Profound because the trial will not let you edit the prompts and the pricing page has no paid self-serve price, start with Otterly or Peec. Otterly is the published daily log for ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity, and Copilot. Peec is the published log when you need to choose three models, including Google AI Mode and Gemini, and you can accept that Perplexity is not in that self-serve set. Scrunch is the pick when Perplexity has to be in the base price and you also want a small site audit. Goodie, Writesonic, and AthenaHQ are the picks when the invoice has to include an action layer or a credit that equals one stored response. Ahrefs and Semrush are the picks when the team already pays for the suite and the engines on that plan are the ones that matter. Profound is still the quote when the buying process is a security review.

Last updated - November 2026

I am Austin Heaton. The visibility work I set up is mostly for fintech. The rest is B2B SaaS and other industries when the buyer question is the same. A visibility login is worth opening when I can see who was mentioned, which URL was cited, and which sentence a writer is about to ship. A share-of-voice figure without those rows is not a plan.

Profound's trial and Enterprise terms are from Profound's pricing page, read on 9 November 2026. Otterly's cards and add-ons are from Otterly's pricing page the same day. Peec's brand table is from Peec's brand pricing page, and the agency credit pools are from Peec's agency pricing page. Scrunch's Core card is from Scrunch's pricing page. Goodie's annual cards and engine columns are from Goodie's brand pricing page. AthenaHQ's credits and the model claim are from AthenaHQ's plans page. Writesonic's annual cards and the FAQ that names nine platforms are from Writesonic's pricing page. Ahrefs' plan checks are from Ahrefs pricing. Semrush's toolkit column is from the AI Visibility Toolkit pricing page. I did not log into any of them.

The cell-by-cell versions already on this site are not being rewritten here. Goodie beside Profound is Goodie vs Profound. Writesonic beside Profound is Writesonic GEO vs Profound. AthenaHQ beside Profound is AthenaHQ vs Profound. Peec beside Scrunch is Peec AI vs Scrunch. Otterly's plan math is the Otterly review. Ahrefs' index card and the definition of a check are the Brand Radar review. Semrush One beside the toolkit is the Semrush AI Toolkit review. The four-tool shortlist is Profound vs Peec AI vs Otterly vs Semrush. Where I re-opened a pricing page on 9 November and the headline number still matched, I say so. I am not pasting an older invoice forward when I did not reopen the URL.

Key Takeaways

• On 9 November 2026 Profound's brand pricing page was still a free trial and a custom Enterprise plan. The trial is 50 prompts, daily, for 7 days, on ChatGPT, Gemini, and Google AI Overviews, in one language and one region. Trial users cannot edit the prompts. The trial column has no export. Enterprise says up to 9 answer engines, CSV and JSON, API, and SSO/SAML plus SOC 2. I did not find a paid self-serve brand price. Agency Growth is described as 400 credits a month per client workspace, with no dollar on that FAQ.
• Otterly's pricing page the same day still showed Lite at $29 a month, Standard at $189, and Premium at $489, with annual figures of $25, $160, and $422 a month under a 15% label. The base four engines are ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity, and Copilot. Gemini, Google AI Mode, and Claude are add-ons. Peec's brand cards were Starter at $95 for 50 prompts, Pro at $245 for 150, and Advanced at $495 for 350, each with 3 models you choose. Perplexity is not in that self-serve model list.
• Scrunch Core was $250 a month for 125 prompts, 5,000 responses, and four engines: ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, and Copilot. The table limits Core to 1 country, 1 language, and 5 competitors. Goodie's annual view showed Core at $295 a month and Pro at $999, with actions capped and Gemini absent from the Core engine column. AthenaHQ Starter was still $295 a month, with 3,600 credits defined as one credit per AI response.
• Writesonic's annual cards were still $79, $199, and $399 a month, tracking ChatGPT, Gemini, and Google AI Overviews on the self-serve plans, with articles included and the other platforms named on Enterprise. Ahrefs pricing showed Lite at $129, Standard at $249, and Advanced at $449, with 150, 300, and 600 checks on AI prompts. Semrush's toolkit page showed Base at $99 a month per domain, billed annually, for 25 custom prompts and mentions from ChatGPT, Google AI, Gemini, and Perplexity.
• None of these products is a citation guarantee. The useful split is whose prompts they are, which engines you can name before a call, whether you can export the week, and whether a writing credit is bundled into the measurement invoice. A posting calendar is a different buy. That comparison is Koala AI vs Outrank.

What People Are Actually Replacing When They Search for a Profound Alternative

Profound's pricing page leads with an AI Marketer that researches, writes, and reports, and then with Answer Engine Insights as the measurement module. The FAQ says the product is not only for AI search. Agents can research a market, shape a campaign, and write. That is a wider job than a prompt log. The measurement job is the one I can check, and it is the job this page is about.

The trial is the only brand offer with a number of days on it. Fifty unique prompts, run daily for 7 days, on ChatGPT, Gemini, and Google AI Overviews. One language. One region. ChatGPT Shopping is not on the trial. History is none. Exports are none. Support is none. The FAQ says trial users get a recommended set for their industry and cannot customize it. On Enterprise you can edit, disable, or add prompts. Both columns include unlimited seats. Setup, in that FAQ, is "instant." I did not time a setup.

Enterprise is custom: a tailored prompt plan, up to 9 answer engines, CSV and JSON, API, and SSO/SAML plus SOC 2. The capability list I read is ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Mode, Gemini, DeepSeek, Anthropic Claude, Google AI Overviews, Exa Search, and Muse Spark. That is nine names. The trial is three of them. I am not going to treat "up to 9" as a contents list you can assume on a quote until the order form repeats the names. Prompt Volumes is 5 searches on the trial. I am not treating an integration name, including the WordPress line, as a report I have seen.

The page does not say whether each of the 50 trial prompts runs on all three engines or the 50 runs are spread across them. I am not multiplying 50 by 3 by 7. Agents are credits, not articles. The FAQ says each run consumes credits by complexity, the trial includes limited credits, and more credit requires Enterprise except for the Agency Growth pack of 400 credits a month per client workspace. There is no dollar next to that pack and no price per credit. I am not inventing one.

So the alternatives are answers to four gaps. The first gap is a price you can read before a security review. The second is a prompt you wrote, not a prompt Profound recommended and locked. The third is an engine the trial does not include, especially Perplexity or Copilot, or Gemini if you are comparing with a tool whose cheap plan skips Gemini. The fourth is an export, or a page someone can ship after the report, with a cap printed on the card. A tool that fails the gap you actually have is not an alternative. It is a second demo.

I care about four objects inside whichever login you pick. The mention: did the answer name the brand. The citation: did the answer attach a URL, and whose URL. The engine list on the plan you can buy without a call. The row you can open on Monday, including the stored answer if the product keeps one. Sample percentages on a marketing page are not those objects. I did not open a stored answer in any of these products on 9 November 2026.

How Do the Alternatives Compare?

The table is the decision, not the feature tour. Prices are what I could read on 9 November 2026. "Before a quote" means a plan with a dollar on a public card, not a custom row. Profound is the last row so the gap stays visible.

If two of those rows are about to be bought because the engine lists do not overlap, Book a Call and bring one prompt the buyer actually asks. The prompt shows which card is even eligible.

Otterly, When the Log Has to Include Perplexity and Copilot

Otterly is the first card I open when the board asked for a daily row and the engines in that sentence are ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity, and Copilot. Those four are on Lite, Standard, and Premium. Profound's trial has the first of those, Gemini, and AI Overviews. It does not have Perplexity or Copilot. That single mismatch is enough to make Otterly the alternative, before anyone argues about sentiment charts.

On 9 November 2026 the pricing page still showed the same monthly figures I have used all month: Lite $29 for 15 prompts, Standard $189 for 100, Premium $489 for 400. Enterprise is custom and the card says it starts from 1,000 prompts. The annual block printed $25, $160, and $422 a month, and the header calls annual billing 15% off. Premium at $422 is not 15% off $489. I am reporting the numbers on the page. I am not "correcting" them to a discount I calculated. Extra prompts are $99 per 100 on Standard and Premium, and the page says they are not available on Lite. Standard, the same note says, can add up to 300 extra prompts and then moves to Premium.

Gemini, Google AI Mode, and Claude remain add-ons. The add-on table lists AI Mode and Gemini at $9, $59, and $149 a month on Lite, Standard, and Premium. Claude is $29, $109, and $439 on those three. Annual add-on figures are printed too. The $29 headline is the four-engine plan. A seven-engine stack is the headline plus three add-ons, and I would add those lines on a spreadsheet before I told anyone Otterly is "the cheap Profound." Profound's trial is three engines and free for a week. Otterly Lite is four engines and 15 prompts, for as long as you pay. They are not the same sample.

The line-by-line caps, including workspaces, GEO audit counts, API requests, and the trial length on the homepage FAQ, are in the Otterly review. I am not rebuilding that table. Two things from the 9 November read belong here because they change a Profound comparison. First, the pricing FAQ says there is a free trial and does not, in the text I extracted, repeat a day count. Second, one includes block listed unlimited brands and competitors on Lite, and another includes block for the annual view did not repeat that brands line. I would confirm how many brands a Lite workspace holds before I used Otterly as the multi-brand escape from Profound's one-region trial. The prompt counts and the four engine names were stable across both blocks.

Peec, When You Need to Choose the Models and the Country Count

Peec is the alternative when the prompt has to be yours, the model mix has to be a choice, and you can live without Perplexity until an add-on or Enterprise. On 9 November the brand cards were Starter at $95 a month for 50 prompts and 1 project, Pro at $245 for 150 prompts and 2 projects, and Advanced at $495 for 350 prompts and 5 projects. Each self-serve plan lets you run 3 models. The table's available models for those three plans are ChatGPT, AI Mode, AI Overviews, Microsoft Copilot, Gemini, and Naver. Enterprise adds Claude, a GPT-5 Search API, Grok, Deepseek, Qwen, Mistral, Muse Spark, and Perplexity, and it says up to 13 models. Perplexity is also in an "additional models" block under the table. The dollars in that block did not stay attached to a plan name in the text I could extract, so I am not quoting an add-on price.

That model menu is the opposite of Profound's trial in a useful way. Profound's free week includes Gemini and excludes Perplexity, AI Mode, and Copilot. Peec's self-serve list includes AI Mode, Copilot, and Gemini, and it excludes Perplexity until you leave the three-model set. If the buyer question lives in Perplexity, Peec Starter is the wrong alternative and Otterly or Scrunch is the right one. If it lives in AI Mode, Peec can name it at $95 and Profound's trial cannot.

Countries are a hard gate on the table: 1 on Starter, 3 on Pro, 3 on Advanced, unlimited on Enterprise. The FAQ says you can track queries across any supported country or language with no additional cost, and that pricing stays tied to prompts. I am reading those sentences together. The country you pick is included. The number of countries is still the table. A US product and a UK product do not both fit on Starter. Languages are marked unlimited on every column. Competitors are unlimited on every column, which is a real difference from Scrunch Core's five. The FAQ also says annual billing is 15% off. I did not see the annual dollar amounts on the cards, and I will not invent them.

The table prints monthly AI answers as 4,500, 13,500, and 31,500. The FAQ's own example is prompts times models times days. Fifty prompts, 3 models, and 30 days is 4,500, which matches the Starter cell. I am citing Peec's arithmetic, not a sample I pulled. API access is marked off on Starter and on for Pro, Advanced, and Enterprise. CSV export and MCP are marked on all four columns. SSO is Enterprise. SOC 2 is marked included on the self-serve columns, and the FAQ says customers on the custom plan can get the Type II report through sales. I would ask for the report if the security review is why you were looking at Profound. A checkmark is not the PDF.

Fact-check caps are small and easy to miss: 5 prompts and 5 facts on Starter, 10 and 20 on Pro, 25 and 50 on Advanced. That is not "the product checks every answer." Custom attributes start on Advanced. Objections are off on Starter, monthly on Pro, and weekly on Advanced and Enterprise. If someone buys Peec as a Profound alternative because Profound's Answer Engine Insights page talks about inaccurate claims, the Peec object is this cap, not an unlimited audit.

The agency page, which the 4 November comparison could not price from the text available then, printed dollars on 9 November. Essential is $245 a month for 10,000 credits. Growth is $495 for 25,000. Scale is $795 for 65,000. Comprehensive is custom. The prompt counts under those cards sit in a block labeled as an example configuration, based on the models and frequency you select. I am not treating 111, 277, or 722 prompts as a contractual cap. I am treating the credit pools and the monthly prices as the offer I could read. A brand with one project does not need this page. A roster does, and it should make Peec write down how a credit becomes a prompt before it compares the pool with Scrunch.

Scrunch, When Perplexity and a Site Audit Are the Same Invoice

Scrunch Core is the alternative when Perplexity has to be in the price you can see, and you also want a thin on-site layer: bot traffic, a few audits, and one page optimization. On 9 November the brand card was $250 a month. It includes 125 unique prompts, 5,000 responses a month, 5 site audits, 1 brand workspace, and 5 user licenses. The four engines are ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, and Copilot. The comparison table limits Core to 1 country, 1 persona, 1 language, and 5 competitors. The sitemap on Core is 25 pages. Page optimizations are 1 a month. Content generation is Basic. Product observability and the Agent Experience Platform are not on Core. Enterprise is custom and lists nine engines, adding Claude, Gemini, Meta AI, Google AI Mode, and Grok to the Core four.

Against Profound's trial, Scrunch Core is a larger prompt count, it includes Perplexity and Copilot, and it does not include Gemini or AI Mode. It also has a dollar. Against Otterly Lite, it is much more money for a prompt count that sits between Otterly Lite and Otterly Standard, with Perplexity included and Gemini still absent. The reason to pay the $250 is the on-site rows, not a claim that 125 prompts are a better sample than Otterly's 100. Five audits and a 25-page sitemap will not describe a large fintech site. They will tell you whether AI bots are blocked on a handful of URLs. That is a useful week. It is not a program.

I did not reopen Scrunch's agency FAQ on 9 November, so I am not restating an agency price from an earlier read. The brand page I opened has two columns that matter for an in-house team: Core at $250, and Enterprise as a quote. The pricing page also displays a percentage increase in brand presence. I am not using it. It is a marketing figure, and I did not see the prompt set behind it.

Goodie and AthenaHQ, When the Invoice Has to Include an Action

Goodie is the alternative when you want a published price, a counted prompt allowance, and a capped list of actions in the same login, and you can accept the engines on the column you are actually buying. On 9 November the brand page was on the annual view. The label said two months free. Core showed $295 a month. Pro showed $999 a month. Enterprise is custom. Core's engine column names ChatGPT, AI Overview, Perplexity, AI Mode, and Copilot. That is five, which matches the "5 core models" line. Pro adds Gemini, Alexa, and Sparky. Tracked prompts are 110 and 250. Actions are 50 and 100 a month. Pages on the scorecard are 10 and 30. Core is the self-serve plan. The FAQ says Pro and Enterprise start with a conversation.

Set that next to Profound's trial and the overlap is awkward in a way that should decide the purchase. Profound's free week has Gemini and does not have Perplexity. Goodie Core has Perplexity and does not have Gemini. A team that switches to Goodie "to cover more engines" has dropped Gemini unless it is ready for the Pro conversation at $999 on the annual card. I did not re-extract the monthly-billed offer schema on 9 November. The 8 November comparison walks that schema, the agency floor, and the "up to 14" list that I could count as 13 names in the enterprise column again today. I am not repeating that arithmetic. The enterprise column I read still named 13, and the card still says up to 14.

AthenaHQ is the alternative when you want a credit that the vendor defines, and a model claim wider than three, at $295. On 9 November the plans page still showed Essential as free, with "$25 free credit" on the card, and Starter at $295 a month. The comparison table puts 3,600 credits on Starter and says 1 credit equals 1 AI response. If that definition holds, 3,600 responses is the month. I did not divide it by engines in an account, so I will not tell you it equals 3,600 prompts. The Starter card also prints "$300/month free credit" under the $295 price. I still cannot tell whether that is a grant, a promotion, or a label that does not match the 3,600. I am not converting the Essential card's $25 into a credit count either. The card did not print one.

The Starter card says visibility across 11 models. The monitoring section names ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, Google AI Mode, Gemini, Claude, Copilot, and Grok, and then says "and more." That is eight names. I am not inventing the other three to make the card true. API access and extra credits are paid add-ons on Starter, billed on top, with the price behind a contact line. CSV export is on the Starter card. Profound's trial export is none, and Profound's editable prompts start at Enterprise. If the reason you are shopping is "I need a file and a prompt I wrote, this week, with a number on the page," Athena's $295 card is aimed at that sentence, and the unnamed models are the question I would ask before the call ends. The 5 November comparison is AthenaHQ vs Profound. Country scope is the part I would re-ask: the Starter card says "country-level support," and it does not say one country, and it does not say sixty.

Writesonic, When the Same Invoice Has to Include Articles

Writesonic is the alternative when the team wants Gemini on a published plan, a counted article allowance, and a prompt count, and it can wait on Perplexity. On 9 November the pricing page was on the annual view. Starter was $79 a month, billed annually, with a $240 a year savings line. Basic was $199, save $600. Growth was $399, save $1,200. Enterprise is custom. The FAQ says annual billing saves 20% and that you pay for 12 months up front. I did not see a separate monthly dollar in the text I extracted. The toggle exists. I am not going to gross the annual cards up by 25% and call that a monthly price.

Starter tracks ChatGPT, Gemini, and Google AI Overviews, with 50 prompts and 50 answers a day, 15 articles, 10 audits of 100 pages, and 10 agent runs. Basic is 100 prompts, 300 answers, 25 articles, and 50 agent runs. Growth is 200 prompts, 600 answers, sentiment included, an Action Center trial of 5 off-page and 5 on-page actions, 50 articles, and 100 agent runs. The FAQ says Basic and Growth track those three engines, and that Enterprise tracks all 9 platforms, including Perplexity, Claude, Microsoft Copilot, Grok, Google AI Mode, and Muse Spark. The Starter card lists the same three engines even though that FAQ sentence names Basic and Growth. I am budgeting the card. Sentiment is marked available on Growth, not on Starter. The Action Center is marked available on Enterprise, with a trial on Growth.

Profound's trial also has ChatGPT, Gemini, and AI Overviews, for 7 days, on prompts you did not write, with no article count. Writesonic Starter has the same three engines, prompts you are paying to track, and 15 articles, for $79 a month on the annual card. That is the actual alternative when the gap is "the trial ends and I still do not have a price or a draft." It is a weak alternative when the missing engine is Perplexity. Perplexity is in the Enterprise sentence, not on the $79 card. The docs-versus-card conflict, including an older docs table that does not match these article counts, is the Writesonic comparison. I am not quoting that older docs table as today's invoice. The pricing page is the invoice. The FAQ also says Growth can add articles at $100 for 20, and that extra users are $50 a month with a maximum of 5 users. I did not complete a checkout.

Ahrefs and Semrush, When You Already Pay for the Suite

Ahrefs is the alternative when the team already works in Ahrefs and the job is a set of prompts you wrote, paid for in checks. On 9 November the pricing page showed Lite at $129 a month with 150 checks on AI prompts, Standard at $249 with 300 checks and 2,000 tracked keywords, and Advanced at $449 with 600 checks and 5,000 tracked keywords. Additional users were $40, $60, and $80 a month. Annual billing says save up to 17%. Content Kit, which is a writing add-on and not the log, starts at $99. The page also says you can research a brand across 542 million+ prompts in Ahrefs' database. I did not reopen the Brand Radar marketing URL, so I am not restating the index card or the all-models line as a page I opened today. Those figures, the paused-engine question, and the help-article definition of a check are the 8 November review. What I can say from the pricing page alone is that the three main plans still include a check allowance, and that a check allowance is not an article quota.

Semrush is the alternative when the team wants 25 daily prompts and a published toolkit price, and the mention sources on that card are enough. On 9 November the toolkit pricing page showed one paid column, Base, at $99 a month per domain, billed annually. The card lists 25 custom prompts, one domain for Brand Performance, and mentions from ChatGPT, Google AI, Gemini, and Perplexity. A details block says 300 reports a day. I did not find Copilot in that column. I also did not reopen the Semrush One pricing page, so I am not pasting the bundle prices from the 7 November review into today's invoice. If the team needs the SEO suite and the prompts together, that review is the place to read the bundle, and then the current pricing URL should be opened again before anyone signs. A toolkit at $99 that does not name Copilot is not a replacement for a Profound Enterprise quote whose capability list does name Copilot. It is a replacement for the trial's missing Perplexity, on 25 prompts, inside a login the team may already know.

The suite path fails in one specific way. Someone treats "we have Ahrefs" or "we have Semrush" as if every engine on a Profound enterprise slide were included. The cards I read do not say that. Match the engine names. If the name is missing, you are still shopping.

Which Limits Actually Change the Decision?

Four limits matter more than the category label.

The first is the engine you can name before a demo. Profound's free week is ChatGPT, Gemini, and Google AI Overviews, on prompts you did not write. Otterly's paid plans name Perplexity and Copilot and sell Gemini as an add-on. Peec's self-serve set names Gemini, AI Mode, and Copilot, and not Perplexity. Scrunch Core names Perplexity and Copilot, and not Gemini. Goodie Core names Perplexity and AI Mode, and not Gemini. Writesonic's self-serve plans name Gemini, and not Perplexity. Semrush's toolkit names Perplexity and Gemini, and the sentence I read does not name Copilot. If you only remember one rule from this page, make it this one. An "alternative" that drops the engine the buyer uses is a step backward from a free week that at least had that engine.

The second is whose prompts they are. Profound's pricing FAQ locks the trial set. Otterly, Peec, Scrunch, Goodie, Writesonic, and Semrush sell a count of prompts, and Goodie's FAQ says you can swap prompts up to the cap. Athena's card says unlimited topics and prompts, then meters responses as credits. I have not clicked any of those editors. A count on a pricing page is not proof the box accepts the fee question a sales team heard on Tuesday. It is proof the vendor is selling the count. Profound is explicit that the trial count is not yours to edit. That is the cleanest reason to leave the trial, and it is not a reason to skip the editor test on the tool you buy instead.

The third is the file. Profound's trial export is none. Peec marks CSV on the self-serve columns. Athena marks CSV on Starter. Otterly's review, not this page, is where the export row was walked in detail. Goodie, on the 8 November read, holds export off the Core column. I did not re-check that checkbox in a logged-in Goodie account today. I would not promise a warehouse load from a Core trial. If the Monday meeting needs a file, put "export on this plan" in the order form.

The fourth is the page someone has to ship. Profound's path from a gap to a draft is an agent, metered in credits, with no article count and no brand-plan price. Goodie prints action credits. Athena prints a content agent beside the credits. Writesonic prints article counts. Ahrefs' Content Kit is a separate add-on from $99, and I am not reviewing it here. Otterly, Peec, and Scrunch can recommend. They are not, on the cards I used for this shortlist, a newsroom. A posting product that publishes on a schedule is a different risk, which is why Koala and Outrank are not in this table. Do not let a visibility vendor's "agent" publish a fee table unsupervised.

On a fintech shortlist, Austin Heaton still asks for one stored answer before the invoice is approved. The answer has to show the brand, the URL, and the engine. A score without that row can wait.

Honest Verdict: Who Should Pick Which, and Who Should Stay With Profound

Otterly is the default alternative when the report has to include Perplexity and Copilot on a price list, and 15 prompts is understood to be a sample. Standard, at $189 for 100 prompts, is the first plan I would actually try to run a category on. The add-on table is mandatory reading if Gemini or AI Mode is in the board's sentence. Peec is the default when you want to choose three models, you need AI Mode or more than one country before a sales call, and Perplexity can wait. Scrunch is the default when Perplexity plus a small audit is worth $250 and one country is enough. I would not buy all three. I would buy the one whose base engines match the prompts.

Goodie is the default when the team wants actions with a number on the card and can live with Core's five engines, or is ready for a Pro conversation. AthenaHQ is the default when a 3,600-response credit and a CSV, at $295, beat a Profound quote, and someone has asked which three models are hiding behind "11" and "and more." Writesonic is the default when Gemini and a pile of articles have to be on one annual invoice, and Perplexity is an Enterprise conversation you are willing to have later. Ahrefs is the default when the check allowance on Lite, Standard, or Advanced covers the prompt list and the team will not pretend the index is included until they read the Brand Radar page themselves. Semrush's toolkit is the default when 25 prompts and those four mention sources are the whole ask.

Profound is still the right conversation when the security review is the purchase. SSO/SAML and SOC 2 are on the Enterprise column. The engine list can be tailored, up to the nine names on the capability list, and I would paste that list into the order form because "up to 9" has already drifted between Profound pages in earlier reads. The trial is a reasonable week if you only need to see whether an answer is stored, on three engines, on Profound's prompts. It is a bad week if you needed your own prompts, Perplexity, or an export. I would not describe the free trial as a cheaper Otterly. The prompts are not yours, and the week ends.

I would also not stack a writing suite on top of a tracker "because Profound's agents do both," unless the article cap and the engine list are the ones you meant. Writesonic and Goodie are the published versions of that bundle, with different engines. A tracker plus a human editor is still the combination I trust on a regulated page. Pricing for that kind of engagement depends on scope.

Which Should You Choose?

• You need Perplexity and Copilot on a published price, this week. Otterly. Start on Standard if 15 prompts cannot cover the category. Add Gemini or AI Mode only if the prompt lives there. Read the annual figure on the screen before you accept the 15% label. Premium's annual number does not equal 15% off the monthly card.
• You need to pick the models, including AI Mode, and you may need a second country. Peec Pro is the first card with 3 countries. Starter is one country and three models from a list that includes Gemini and excludes Perplexity. Do not buy Starter for a Perplexity report.
• You need Perplexity in the base price and a look at bot traffic. Scrunch Core, if one country, five competitors, and a 25-page sitemap are enough. If you need Gemini as well, Core is the wrong row. Enterprise is a quote, which is the situation you were trying to leave.
• You need a published price and a capped action list, and Gemini can wait. Goodie Core on the annual card, 110 prompts, 50 actions, and the five engines in that column. If Gemini is required on day one, you are on a Pro conversation or you are looking at a different row.
• You need a credit that equals a response, and a CSV, before a demo. AthenaHQ Starter. Ask which 11 models are included, in writing. Treat the "$300/month free credit" label as unresolved until Athena defines it. API is extra.
• You need Gemini and a monthly article count on one invoice. Writesonic's annual Starter or Growth, after you accept that Perplexity is not on those cards. Growth is where sentiment and the Action Center trial show up. Confirm the monthly price if you will not pay annually. I did not see it in the extract.
• You already pay Ahrefs or Semrush. Use the check allowance or the $99 toolkit if the engines match. Open the dedicated rows above if they do not. Do not add Profound Enterprise only because a slide has more logos.
• Procurement cannot start without SSO, a custom engine list, and a vendor review. Stay on Profound's Enterprise conversation. Use the trial only as a storage test. Do not use it as the prompt list you will report on next quarter.
• You actually needed pages, not a dashboard. None of the rows above should be turned on as an unattended publisher. The posting tools are a separate decision, and the measurement of those pages still belongs to a log. How that log fits a B2B report is how I measure AI visibility.

What I Could Not Confirm

• A paid self-serve dollar price for Profound on the brand pricing page. The offers I saw were a free trial and custom Enterprise.
• Whether each of Profound's 50 trial prompts runs on all three trial engines. The page does not say. I did not multiply them.
• A dollar for Profound's Agency Growth credit pack, or a price per agent credit.
• That a 2025 Profound blog post with a lower starting price is still an offer. I did not reopen that post on 9 November. The pricing URL I did open does not show it.
• Otterly's homepage trial length, on 9 November. The pricing FAQ says a trial exists and does not, in the extract, say how many days.
• Whether Otterly Lite includes unlimited brands. One includes block said so. Another did not repeat the line.
• Peec's per-plan price for one additional model. The block lists Perplexity among models you can add. The dollars in the extract were not clearly tied to Starter, Pro, and Advanced.
• Peec's annual dollar amounts. The FAQ says 15% off. The cards I read were monthly.
• That Peec's example agency prompt counts are caps. The page labels them as an example configuration on top of the credit pools.
• A Scrunch agency price, on 9 November. I opened the brand pricing page. I did not reopen the agency FAQ.
• Goodie's monthly-billed offer amounts, on 9 November. I read the annual cards at $295 and $999. The schema split is in the 8 November comparison.
• The three AthenaHQ model names that would turn "eight, plus and more" into the card's "11."
• What AthenaHQ's "$300/month free credit" label means next to 3,600 credits.
• A monthly, non-annual dollar for Writesonic. The cards I extracted were annual. The FAQ says the annual option saves 20%.
• Ahrefs' Brand Radar index price and all-models line, as of 9 November. I opened the main pricing page. I did not reopen the Brand Radar URL. The 8 November review has that read.
• The definition of an Ahrefs check, from the help article, as a page I opened today. The pricing page prints the check counts. The definition lives in the review.
• Semrush One prices, as of 9 November. I opened the toolkit page. The bundle is a different URL, covered in the 7 November review.
• Any stored answer, export file, or prompt editor inside these products. I read the public pages. I did not create accounts.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which Profound alternative should a team open first?

Open Otterly or Peec when the gap is a published price and a counted set of prompts. Otterly's base plans include Perplexity and Copilot. Peec's self-serve plans let you choose three models and do not include Perplexity in that set. Open Scrunch when Perplexity has to be in the base list and a small site audit is part of the same login. Open Goodie, Writesonic, or AthenaHQ when the invoice also has to include an action layer or a credit that equals one response. Open Ahrefs or Semrush when the team already pays for that suite and the engines on the card match. Profound remains the quote when the purchase is a security review.

Does Profound publish a paid self-serve price?

On the brand pricing page I opened on 9 November 2026, the offers were a free trial and a custom Enterprise plan. The trial runs 50 prompts daily for 7 days on ChatGPT, Gemini, and Google AI Overviews, and trial users cannot edit those prompts. I did not find a paid self-serve dollar amount on that page. Agency Growth is described as 400 credits a month per client workspace, with no dollar next to it.

Which alternatives include Perplexity before a sales call?

Otterly includes Perplexity on Lite, Standard, and Premium, with ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, and Copilot. Scrunch includes Perplexity on the $250 Core card. Semrush's AI Visibility Toolkit names Perplexity among the mention sources on the $99 annual toolkit card. Peec's self-serve model list does not include Perplexity. It appears on Peec's Enterprise list and in an add-on block. Goodie Core does include Perplexity. Profound's trial does not. Writesonic's self-serve cards do not. They name Perplexity on Enterprise.

Can I edit the prompts during a Profound trial?

Profound's pricing FAQ says trial users receive a recommended set and cannot customize it. Editing, disabling, and adding prompts are described on Enterprise. Otterly, Peec, Scrunch, Goodie, Writesonic, and Semrush sell a prompt count on the plans above. Goodie's FAQ says you can swap prompts up to the plan limit. I did not click those editors. A count on a pricing page still has to be tested with one real buyer question before you report on it.

Do Ahrefs and Semrush replace a dedicated visibility tool?

They replace it when the engines and the prompt count on the plan you already pay for are the ones the board asked about. On 9 November, Ahrefs Lite, Standard, and Advanced included 150, 300, and 600 checks on AI prompts, at $129, $249, and $449. Semrush's toolkit was $99 a month per domain, billed annually, for 25 prompts and mentions from ChatGPT, Google AI, Gemini, and Perplexity. If the missing engine is Copilot, the Semrush sentence I read does not name it. If the missing piece is an index of hundreds of millions of prompts, that price is in the Brand Radar review, not in the three plan cards I re-read.

Will any of these tools publish the page that gets cited?

Profound, Goodie, AthenaHQ, and Writesonic describe an action or writing layer beside the log. Goodie prints action credits. Writesonic prints 15, 25, or 50 articles on the annual cards I read. Athena prints a content agent beside a credit that it defines as one response. Otterly, Peec, Scrunch, Ahrefs, and Semrush are on this list as measurement. A draft still needs a person on a regulated page. A product whose job is to publish on a schedule is a different category, and it does not replace the log.

Can any of these products guarantee an AI citation?

No. They collect answers, citations, or both, on the engines and the prompt caps their pages describe. Publishing the page, and being the URL a model repeats, are separate jobs. I would not put a citation promise in a client report because a vendor sold a dashboard. If you want the measurement designed around the prompts your buyers ask, pricing depends on scope.

Read next:

• Goodie AI vs Profound
• Writesonic GEO vs Profound
• AthenaHQ vs Profound
• Peec AI vs Scrunch AI
• Ahrefs vs SEMrush for AI Search Reporting
• Koala AI vs Outrank

If the engine list, the prompt owner, and the export still belong to three different conversations, Book a Call and we will put one buyer prompt on the only cards that can track it.