Head to head comparisons of the approaches competing for the same AI visibility budget, including the cases where the honest answer is to do neither.
Both tell you how assistants describe your company. Profound is the deeper instrument and assumes somebody whose job this is. Peec AI gets you to a decision faster, and its cited sources view is the most actionable artefact in the category.
Two AI visibility modules bolted onto the two large SEO suites. For most B2B teams the feature comparison is the wrong comparison, because the deciding factor is which suite your reporting habit already lives in.
One of these is measured from the logs of the platform generating the answers and covers a slice of the market. The other is sampled and covers everything. They are not competitors, and treating them as competitors is how teams end up with neither.
Scrunch is right about the problem, which is that AI agents arrive at your site and often cannot read it. The argument worth having is whether you rent the fix at the edge or ship it once in your own stack, and the answer is a scheduling question rather than a technical one.
A light AI visibility tracker and a spreadsheet run the same method. What you buy is repetition, cadence and a history you will not otherwise keep. What you cannot buy is the prompt set design that makes any of it mean something.
Paste a URL and get the extractability read: what an assistant can actually retrieve, and what it cannot.
Free. No signup, no email capture.