Profound alternatives
8 other tools that measure whether AI assistants name your brand, with what each one publishes about price, sampling and uncertainty. Profound is the best-funded pure-play in the category, aimed at enterprise brand teams.
We make Standing, which is one of the rows below, and it is labelled. The table sorts by published entry price rather than by our preference, so it opens with Otterly AI at $29/mo, 15 prompts and we appear wherever ours lands. Every figure comes from the vendor's own pricing page, documentation or help centre, verified August 6, 2026. Where a vendor has not published something it says not published, rather than being scored as a zero.
| Tool | Entry price | Billed by | Runs per prompt | Uncertainty |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Otterly AIThe cheapest serious entry point, aimed at small teams and solo marketers. | $29/mo, 15 prompts | Prompts | Not published | None published |
| Peec AIEuropean pure-play with the best agency workflows in the category. | $95/mo, 50 prompts | Prompts | Not published | None published |
| Semrush AI ToolkitAI visibility next to the rest of Semrush, on a very large query database. | $99/mo, one domain, 25 prompts | Tracked prompts | Not published | One disclaimer sentence |
| StandingThis is usFixed shared basket, 5 runs per prompt per engine, and a confidence band on every score. | $99/mo, 3 domains | Domains | 5 per prompt per engine (3 free) | 95% band, in the product |
| Scrunch AIPure-play built around how AI crawlers and agents experience your site. | $250/mo, 125 prompt variants | Prompt variants | Not published | None, a waiting period instead |
| AthenaHQCredit-based pure-play with no prompt cap and a large content library. | $295/mo, 3,600 credits | Credits | Not published | None, and missing days are zeroed |
| Ahrefs Brand RadarAI visibility bolted onto the SEO suite many teams already pay for. | Requires an Ahrefs plan | Checks | 1 per prompt per engine per location | None, but instability disclosed |
| EvertuneResearch-led, and the deepest disclosed sampling anywhere in the category. | Not published | Prompts | 100 per prompt per model | None published |
Why people look for an alternative to Profound
Three reasons, each one a property of their published product rather than an opinion about it.
- The entry tier caps you at 50 prompts, and prompts are the pricing unit, so growing the basket is the thing that raises the bill.
- Every prompt is asked once per engine per day. They defend that choice in public and it is defensible at portfolio scale, but at 50 prompts on one engine a single draw is a single draw.
- They ran the best variance study in the category and none of it reaches the customer: no error bar, no minimum detectable change, no significance test in the product.
When to stay with Profound
You are an enterprise brand team, you need crawler analytics and content workflows in the same product, and a procurement process needs a funded vendor.
Where Profound is genuinely stronger than us:
- Far more mature product surface: crawler analytics, content agents and conversation-corpus prompt generation that we do not have.
- Enterprise credibility, funding and a support organisation. If you need procurement to approve a vendor, that is a real advantage.
- They published genuine variance research. Nobody else in the category has done the work.
The question this table is really about
Two of the five columns matter more than the other three, and they are the two most of this category declines to fill in.
Every tool here asks AI engines a set of questions and reports how often your brand comes up. Answers move between runs, so the same question asked twice can produce two different scores with nothing having changed. How many times a tool asks, and whether it tells you how much of a move was noise, is what separates a measurement from a single draw.
5 of the 9 tools here do not publish a run count at all. Of the ones that do, Evertune samples deepest by a distance, at 100 runs per prompt per model against our 5, and that is on this page because leaving it off would be the same omission we are describing.
Nobody in this table except us publishes a confidence interval in the product. Evertune could: at 100 runs they could report roughly a ±10 point band at 50% and choose not to.
Standing compared with Profound, directly
You need to defend the number to somebody else, and being able to say how much of a change was noise matters more than feature count.
Standing vs Profound, head to headAlternatives to the others
Or skip the shortlist and get the number
Every tool on this page sells a subscription before it tells you anything. The free check asks five AI surfaces what they recommend in your category and shows whether you come up, with the confidence band, without an account.