Peec AI vs Profound
 Peec AI |  Profound | |
|---|---|---|
| Sentiment | ||
| Score | 13/100 | 6/100 |
| Rank in category | Unranked (under 8 rated comments) | #1 |
| Rated comments | 3 | 9 |
| Best for | SEO and content teams that want a straightforward first tracker for brand visibility in AI answers; Teams that want to compare their AI-answer visibility against named competitors over time | Larger brands with an enterprise budget that want a broad, data-heavy AI visibility tracker |
| Skip it if | Buyers who want a single source of truth without manual spot checks; Teams tracking a large prompt set on a tight budget | Small teams or agencies on a tight monthly budget; Buyers who need prompt-volume figures they can verify; Teams without time to set up and interpret a complex dashboard |
| Starting price | €85/mo | Custom pricing |
| Pricing (vendor-stated) | Starter €85/mo (50 prompts, 3 models, 1 project), Pro €205/mo (150 prompts, 2 projects) and Advanced €425/mo (350 prompts, 5 projects), all with unlimited users and daily tracking, shown at monthly prices; annual billing is 15% cheaper. Extra models are a paid add-on. Enterprise is custom, billed annually, with API access and SSO. The page offers a free trial but states no length; no free plan. | No public price for brands: a free 7-day trial (50 preset prompts run daily on ChatGPT, Gemini and Google AI Overviews), then Enterprise at custom, sales-led pricing. For agencies, the self-serve Agency Growth plan lists client workspaces as add-ons at $399/month each but shows no base price; Agency Enterprise is custom. |
Independent discussion is very thin: only three non-promotional comments give a real opinion of Peec, so treat any conclusion as tentative. Ten of the 16 comments were promotional, mostly accounts naming Peec as the 'simple starting point' before plugging their own tracker, plus one comment from a Peec employee and two identical copies of the same plug. Of the genuine users, one says it is much better than anything else they tried and another says its competitor comparison caught visibility dips early but should be paired with manual checks and Ahrefs; a third found a rival tool cheaper at scale.
Users like
- Users who run it rate it highly: one says it is much better than anything else they tried, another that its competitor comparison helped them spot visibility dips before they hit traffic[1][2]
- One user after a few weeks of use says it showed which pages were trending up even while Google Search Console data was lagging[1]
Independent discussion is thin: only 9 non-promotional comments give a real opinion of Profound, and most are critical. A few users see it as one of the deeper, more mature trackers, but the recurring complaints are enterprise-level pricing, setup and UX that take effort, and prompt-volume numbers that users find opaque or implausibly high; whether its data comes from real user conversations or from purchased and synthetic panels is contested in the threads. 34 of the 54 comments mentioning it were promotional, mostly vendors and agencies using Profound as the foil for their own AI-visibility tool, and those were excluded.
Users like
Users complain about
- Enterprise pricing: users call it expensive and say it is priced and built for enterprise buyers[1][2][3]
- Prompt-volume and prompt data are not trusted: users call the numbers opaque, "crazy high" relative to traditional search volumes, or a guess, and say the data does not inspire confidence[1][2][3][4]
- Takes effort to get going: one user found the UX too complicated with parts still under development, another had no time to do the setup it needed[1][2]
- One skeptic sees no merit in paid trackers like it, arguing the prompts, analytics and suggested fixes are themselves generated with AI[1]