Profound vs Peec AI vs Scrunch AI for visibility tracking
Profound, Peec AI and Scrunch AI are frequently shortlisted together and are not the same kind of product. Profound is built to be believed later, publishing enough about its own sampling that the depth claim can be checked. Peec AI keeps the most useful record of sources, separating what an engine used from what it named. Scrunch AI treats tracking as the input to a delivery layer that changes what agents receive.
We publish this page and sell a competing answer engine optimization platform, which is not on this list. GetXEO publishes no per prompt sampling figure of its own, and Profound does. Every figure was read on the vendor pages on 29 August 2026.
In short
The questions this page answers, and the short answers.
- How do Profound, Peec AI and Scrunch AI differ?
- Profound sells depth and publishes the arithmetic behind it. Peec AI sells the record, splitting sources an engine used from sources it named. Scrunch AI sells the fix, using tracking to aim an edge layer that serves agents a clean document. They compete for the same shortlist while answering three different questions.
- Which of Profound, Peec AI or Scrunch AI samples deepest?
- Profound, and it is the only one of the three that publishes enough to check. A hundred prompts against about nine thousand responses a month on the main paid plan works out at roughly ninety checks per prompt. Peec AI runs each prompt every twenty four hours on every selected model. Scrunch AI publishes no per prompt figure.
- What does Profound cost against Peec AI and Scrunch AI?
- Profound starts at ninety nine dollars a month, Peec AI at eighty on annual billing with two higher tiers at two hundred and five and four hundred and twenty, and Scrunch AI at two hundred and fifty. The entry plans differ so much in coverage that the three figures are not really comparable.
- Which team should choose Scrunch AI over Profound or Peec AI?
- A team whose site is hard for agents to read and cannot be rebuilt soon. Scrunch AI serves agents a clean server rendered document at the edge and records what an agent actually received on its last crawl, which is a delivery problem rather than a reporting one.
Three products built on three different theories
Each one answers a different question about visibility.
These three appear on the same shortlists, and the reason they feel hard to compare is that each was built around a different belief about what a tracking number is for.
Profound believes the number will be challenged. Its product decisions follow from that: heavy sampling, a published response count, and a record carrying citations, sentiment, ranking and competitive position rather than a presence flag.
Peec AI believes the number should point at a page. So its most distinctive field is not a score at all, it is the split between sources an engine leaned on and sources it named aloud.
Scrunch AI believes the number is only useful if something changes. Its tracking sits in front of an edge layer and a diagnostics view, so the reporting exists to aim a fix rather than to be reported.
None of those is wrong. They lead to different products, and a shortlist that treats them as three versions of one thing will pick on price.
The three compared on what each records
Side by side on record, depth, coverage and price.
Every figure below was read on the vendor pages on 29 August 2026.
| Axis | Profound | Peec AI | Scrunch AI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Depth per prompt | About ninety checks a month | Once every twenty four hours per model | Not published |
| Source record | Citations, with sentiment and ranking | Used sources split from cited ones | Citations with an influence score |
| Engines at entry | ChatGPT alone | Three models included per plan | Four platforms, nine at enterprise |
| Locations | Not published as a cap | One to three below enterprise | Not published |
| Beyond reporting | Agent analytics on site traffic | Reporting focused | An edge layer that serves agents |
| Entry price | 99 a month | 80 a month, billed annually | 250 a month |
Three rows say not published for Scrunch AI, and that reflects what the pricing and platform pages carry rather than a judgment about the product. Its published detail sits on delivery instead, which is consistent with what it is selling.
Profound, and depth that can be checked
The only one publishing arithmetic behind its own number.
Most depth claims in this category are adjectives. Profound publishes two numbers instead, and lets a buyer do the division.
A hundred tracked prompts and about nine thousand responses a month on the main paid plan, at daily frequency across every tier means roughly ninety runs behind each prompt in a month. That is the figure worth carrying into a room where somebody will push back, because a two point move on ninety runs is a different claim from a two point move on thirty.
The record underneath is broad. Citations, sentiment, ranking and competitive position are reported together, and Prompt Volumes publishes what people actually ask answer engines rather than inferring it from search data. Agent Analytics reports what AI agents do on the site itself, which is a different question from what an answer said and a useful one beside it.
The cost is at the entry tier. The cheapest plan watches ChatGPT alone, so a brand that needs breadth immediately is buying a higher plan on day one. Profound raised ninety six million dollars, which matters mainly as a signal that the roadmap has funding behind it.
Peec AI, and the clearest source record
Used sources told apart from the ones named aloud.
Peec AI reports a smaller number of things and reports one of them better than anybody else here.
It scores visibility, the position a brand lands at inside an answer, and sentiment, and separates the sources an engine used from the ones it named. That split is the field that turns a report into a task. A page that is being used steadily and never cited is in a specific, fixable situation, and a dashboard that collapses both into one citation count hides it completely.
The plan structure is the honest constraint. Plans run eighty, two hundred and five and four hundred and twenty dollars a month on annual billing, with three models included per plan and countries capped at one to three below enterprise. A brand in one market with a focused engine list fits that comfortably. A brand across six markets meets the ceiling on coverage rather than on volume, and moves up the card for reasons that have nothing to do with how many prompts it watches.
Peec crossed ten million dollars in annualized revenue in 2026, which suggests the focused product is finding its buyer rather than being a stepping stone to a suite.
Scrunch AI, and tracking that feeds delivery
The number exists to aim a change at the edge.
Scrunch AI is the one of the three that a buyer can misread, because a shortlist built on reporting features will rank it last and a shortlist built on outcomes may rank it first.
It serves AI agents a clean server rendered document at the CDN, which addresses a problem the other two can only report. A site that renders its content in the browser can be perfectly visible to a person and close to empty to an agent, and no amount of tracking fixes that. Site Diagnostics records the last agent crawl and what an agent actually received, which turns an argument about whether the site is readable into a record.
The reporting itself is real but less detailed. Presence and citations are tracked with an influence score per source, and no sampling figure is published. The entry plan is two hundred and fifty dollars a month, the highest of the three, which reads differently once the edge layer is counted as part of the purchase rather than as an add on.
The team that should look hardest at this is the one whose engineering roadmap is full. An edge layer needs no rebuild, and a rebuild is what the alternative costs.
Which of the three suits which team
Three products, three buyers, and where each one fits.
Every one of the three is a reasonable purchase. The question is which problem is actually in front of the team.
| Situation | Choose | Because |
|---|---|---|
| The figure goes into a board pack | Profound | Published depth that survives a challenge |
| The team needs to know which page to fix | Peec AI | Used sources split from cited ones |
| The site is hard for agents to read | Scrunch AI | An edge layer needs no rebuild |
| Budget is tight in one market | Peec AI | The lowest entry price of the three |
| Agent traffic on the site is the question | Profound | Agent analytics beside the answer record |
We publish this page and sell a competing platform, so the useful thing to add is what none of the three does. All of them report an outcome. The work that changes the outcome starts before a single prompt is tracked, with knowing which questions buyers actually ask and publishing a set of pages that answer them in a form an engine can lift cleanly. Research on AI search citation factors describes what earns the citation, and no dashboard on this page reads that back for a specific answer.
Frequently asked questions
Longer tail questions that did not need a section of their own.
Does the cheapest Profound plan cover enough answer engines?
It depends on how many engines matter now. The cheapest Profound plan watches ChatGPT alone, so a brand that already knows it needs Gemini or Perplexity coverage is buying a higher tier immediately, and the comparison against Peec AI should be made at that tier rather than at the advertised entry price.
Does Peec AI track more than one country?
Below the enterprise tier, countries are capped at one to three depending on plan. That cap is the constraint most likely to move a multi market brand up the price card, and it is a separate limit from the number of prompts or the three models included per plan.
What does Scrunch AI do that reporting tools do not?
It changes what an agent receives. The platform serves a clean server rendered document at the CDN and records what the last agent crawl actually got, so a site that renders content in the browser can become readable to agents without a rebuild. That is a delivery capability rather than a measurement one.
Can Profound, Peec AI and Scrunch AI be trialed side by side?
Yes, and it is the only way to compare them fairly, using one fixed prompt set for at least two weeks in all three. Expect the figures to disagree by more than the gaps between competitors inside any single tool, because prompt handling, engine lists and run counts differ.
Sources
The 13 records behind every external claim on this page.
All were published or last updated within the past twelve months. A competitor page appears only as a record of that vendor’s own published terms.
- Fortune, on Profound raising ninety six million dollars
- TechCrunch, on Peec crossing ten million dollars in annualized revenue, May 2026
- Machine Relations, AI search citation factors research
- Profound, the published pricing page and plan comparison, read 29 August 2026
- Profound, the published Answer Engine Insights page, read 29 August 2026
- Profound, the published Prompt Volumes page, read 29 August 2026
- Profound, the published Agent Analytics page, read 29 August 2026
- Peec AI, the published product page, read 29 August 2026
- Peec AI, the published pricing page and plan comparison, read in a browser 29 August 2026
- Scrunch AI, the published platform page, read 29 August 2026
- Scrunch AI, the published pricing page, read in a browser 29 August 2026
- Scrunch AI, the published Agent Experience Platform page, read 29 August 2026
- Scrunch AI, the published Site Diagnostics page, read 29 August 2026
Read next
The rest of this cluster, in the order it makes sense to read.