- Profound self-serve: $99/month tracks ChatGPT only (50 prompts, 1,500 responses monthly, 100 agent credits); $399/month tracks three engines (100 prompts, 9,000 responses, 400 credits). Enterprise unlocks up to nine engines, SSO and SOC2.
- Peec self-serve: 50, 150 and 350 prompts across three chosen models, unlimited users, daily tracking, 15% annual discount; full model choice and API at enterprise.
- Profound's differentiators: attribution of AI-sourced traffic, prompt volumes data, agents, enterprise engine breadth.
- Peec's differentiators: unlimited seats, simple project structure, no surcharge for extra countries, honest denominator maths in its own documentation.
- Comparison pages on this query are mostly written by one of the two vendors or by a third tool selling against both.
Profound and Peec AI both sample answer engines and report where your brand appears. Profound goes deeper (more engines at enterprise, AI-traffic attribution, agent workflows) and costs more to run in money and attention. Peec is simpler, prompt-metered and built for a team to operate weekly without ceremony. Pick Profound when AI answers are a measured channel with an owner and a budget. Pick Peec when you want clean evidence a content team will actually use. Neither one changes a single page on your site.
The genuine differences
Engine coverage
Peec lets self-serve customers choose three models from a supported set including ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, AI Overviews, AI Mode and Copilot, with more available as add-ons and up to eleven at enterprise. Profound's $99 tier is ChatGPT only, its $399 tier covers three engines, and the wider set sits at enterprise. If you need breadth without a sales call, Peec reaches it sooner.
What gets counted
Both publish their maths, which is rarer than it should be. Peec defines an AI answer as one chat result per model and gives the arithmetic openly: 25 prompts across 3 models for 30 days equals 2,250 answers. Profound publishes responses analysed per tier: 1,500 a month on Starter, 9,000 on Growth. Either way, hold the denominator beside every percentage; the discipline is in AI search metrics.
Attribution and workflow
This is Profound's real edge. Agent Analytics tracks AI-sourced traffic across your domains with Google Analytics and Google Cloud integrations, and Profound Agents draft AEO content against findings on a credit model. Peec deliberately stays a reporting product and leaves both to you.
Operating weight
Profound asks more of you: credits to manage, more surfaces to configure, more features to ignore if you only wanted a weekly read. Independent reviewers repeatedly describe Peec as the simpler daily driver and Profound as the deeper, heavier platform. Simplicity is a real feature when the alternative is an unopened dashboard.
Cost, compared honestly
At the entry tiers Peec's reported ~$95 buys 50 prompts across three models; Profound's $99 buys 50 prompts on one engine. Peec looks better per engine there. Higher up, Profound's $399 adds attribution, volumes data and 400 agent credits that Peec does not attempt, so the tiers stop being comparable and become a question of which product you want. Neither vendor renders every figure on a static page, so confirm at signup. The meters behind both, prompts times engines with add-ons, follow the pattern in how software pricing models work.
Who wins for whom
Choose Profound if: you need AI-traffic attribution, your prompt and engine inventory is large, you want agent workflows attached to findings, or procurement needs SSO and SOC2.
Choose Peec if: a content or SEO team will read it weekly, you want unlimited seats and multi-market tracking without surcharges, and simplicity matters more than depth.
Choose neither yet if: nobody owns acting on the output. Both tools will document your invisibility beautifully while it continues. That is the argument in AI visibility reporting vs SEO execution, and the sequencing question in AI visibility depth vs search delivery.
A note on the comparisons you will read
The top result for this query is published by Peec, comparing Peec with Profound. Others come from platforms selling against both, including one whose 30-day benchmark finds its own product gaining 45% net answer share while Peec gains 8% and Profound declines 1%. Vendor-run tests of the vendor's own product are marketing. We sell delivery rather than tracking, which shapes our conclusion too; every price and mechanic above comes from the vendors' own pages, retrieved 26 August 2026.
What we do with either one
Searchmaxxed runs AI-answer observation as one evidence stream inside the Managed Search Loop, then converts it into shipped page and source changes with approval and live verification. Clients bring whichever tracker they like. If you want the full picture and a ranked fix plan before choosing a subscription, the AI Visibility Audit delivers it in six business days for A$4,500, credited in full if a program starts within 14 days.
FAQs
Is Profound or Peec better?
Profound for depth, attribution and enterprise engine coverage. Peec for simplicity, seats and weekly usability. Neither is better in the abstract; they are different products at overlapping prices.
Which is cheaper, Profound or Peec?
At entry, Peec gives more engines per dollar (three models against Profound's ChatGPT-only $99 tier). Above that the feature sets diverge enough that price comparison stops being like-for-like.
Does Peec track the same engines as Profound?
Both cover the major surfaces; the difference is how many you get per tier and what extras cost. Peec caps self-serve at three chosen models with add-ons; Profound gates its widest coverage behind enterprise.
Which is better for agencies?
Both run agency structures: Peec with bundles and per-client projects, Profound with agency workspaces and per-workspace credits. Choose on client count, prompt allocation flexibility and reporting export.
Can I use both?
You can, and some teams do during evaluation, but their scores will not agree because methodologies differ. Run them in parallel for a month to compare usability, then keep one.
Do either of them fix AI visibility problems?
No. Both report. Fixes happen on your pages and in your third-party sources, which is a delivery job.
What about Otterly and the other cheap tools?
Otterly starts at $29 a month for 15 prompts across four engines and is the value entry point. The full field is in Profound alternatives and Peec AI alternatives.
How should I run a fair trial?
Same prompt set, same window, same markets in both tools. Judge on which one a real person opens weekly and how many shipped changes its findings caused, not on which reports a higher score.
Next step
Trial both on identical prompts if measurement is genuinely the gap. If the gap is shipping, LET'S TALK or start with the AI Visibility Audit.