Profound vs Peec AI (2026): One Publishes Its Prices, One Does Not

They are built for different buyers, and the comparison is structurally lopsided because only one of them will tell you what it costs. Profound is the more established enterprise platform: its own pricing page publishes Starter at $99 a month for 50 tracked prompts, Growth at $399 for 100, and a custom Enterprise tier, and it is the deeper product on prompt-level analytics. Peec AI is the cleaner, more focused analytics surface with a much larger advertised allowance, showing a tier with 350 prompts, a choice of 3 models, unlimited users, daily tracking, 5 projects and multi-country support, and an Enterprise tier reaching up to 11 LLM models — but its pricing page renders no price at all. So the honest answer is that if a published, checkable price is part of what you are buying, Profound wins by default. If you need the larger allowance or the wider model ceiling and are willing to run a sales conversation to find out what it costs, Peec is worth the call. What you cannot do is compare them on value, because half the data does not exist.

Profound's own pricing page publishes Starter at $99 per month for 50 tracked prompts and Growth at $399 per month for 100 tracked prompts, plus a custom Enterprise tier described as a tailored prompt tracking plan. Two widely-circulated figures do not appear on that page and should not be trusted: an 'approximately $140 per month Lite' tier, and an '$82.50 per month billed annually' rate. A prominent June 2026 roundup also credits Profound Growth with '200+ prompts' when the vendor's own page says 100. Per tracked prompt, Starter works out at $1.98 and Growth at $3.99, which makes Growth the most expensive published per-prompt rate in this category.

Peec AI does not publish a price. We fetched its pricing page directly with a JavaScript-capable renderer, which is necessary because these pages are gated and a plain crawler reads an empty shell, and it renders plan contents without any dollar or euro figure. What it does show is a tier covering 350 prompts with a choice of 3 models, unlimited users, daily tracking, 5 projects, multi-country support and Looker Studio integration, plus an Enterprise tier reaching up to 11 LLM models. Peec AI and Scrunch are now the only two vendors of the ten we checked that publish no price at all, which matters more than it used to: seven of the ten do publish, so declining to is no longer the category norm it once was. Treat any specific Peec price you see in a roundup as unverified — a figure of roughly EUR 85 a month circulates and does not appear on the vendor's page.

On the published evidence, Peec AI states a higher ceiling and Profound states nothing, so the comparison cannot be settled from the pricing pages alone. Peec AI's page shows a choice of 3 models on the tier it displays and describes Enterprise as reaching up to 11 LLM models. Profound's pricing page does not state engine coverage at all, which is a real gap in its otherwise good disclosure. That asymmetry is worth noticing rather than resolving: Peec tells you the model ceiling but not the price, and Profound tells you the price but not the model coverage. Between them you still cannot assemble a complete comparison, which is the recurring problem with this whole category. If engine breadth is your deciding factor and you want it published alongside a price, Rankscale lists 11 engines from EUR 99 a month.

Only if prompt-level depth and enterprise readiness are what you are buying, because on allowance alone it is poor value. Growth is $399 for 100 tracked prompts, which is $3.99 per prompt — the most expensive published per-prompt rate in this category. For comparison, Otterly Premium is $489 for 400 prompts, or $1.22 each, and Otterly Standard is $189 for 100, less than half Profound's Growth price for the same allowance. Rankscale Pro is EUR 99 for an allowance the vendor rates at up to 4,800 AI responses across 11 engines. So the case for Profound is not efficiency. It is that it is the most established platform in the category, with the deepest prompt-level analytics and a sales-led enterprise process that some procurement teams actively prefer. If you are buying capability and support, that can be worth it. If you are buying tracked prompts, you are overpaying.

Three things, in writing, before any trial. First, the price per additional 100 prompts, because that is the number your bill actually grows by and it is the one most often withheld. Second, which engines are included rather than merely supported, since Otterly's published rates show Claude costing $439 a month at Premium and an engine being listed as available is not the same as it being in your quote. Third, whether the prompt allowance is per workspace or per account, which quietly decides whether an agency or multi-brand group can use the plan at all. A vendor that answers all three in writing is behaving reasonably even without a public price page. A vendor that will not is telling you something about how the renewal conversation will go.

Yes, and if the thing pushing you to compare these two is price transparency, several alternatives publish more than either. Otterly publishes plans, the annual discount, the per-100-prompt overage rate and the cost of every add-on engine on one page: $29, $189 and $489 for 15, 100 and 400 prompts. Rankscale publishes four euro-denominated tiers from EUR 20 to EUR 780 and covers 11 engines. AthenaHQ has a genuinely free tier with 300 credits including Claude, then $295 a month. ZipTie is $69 to $159 but covers only three engines and one seat at every tier. HubSpot AEO is the cheapest verified entry at $50, or $45 annually, for 25 prompts across three engines. Disclosure: Linkeddit sells Answer Radar at $99 a month inside Compete, covering GPT, Gemini, Perplexity and Claude, and built around closing the loop rather than reporting a score.