# Profound vs Peec AI: which do AI models recommend for AI visibility, September 2026

GTM AI Recommendation Index, September 2026 Edition, AI visibility and answer engine tracking tools. Zero of twelve models named Profound first on the direct prompt; three named Peec AI. Page: https://gtm-ai-index.com/marketing/ai-visibility-tracking/profound-vs-peec-ai/

| | First-choice share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Models naming it |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Profound | 10% | #2 of 11 | 22% | 37 | 12 of 12 |
| Peec AI | 8% | #4 of 11 | 10% | 31 | 9 of 12 |

## The direct prompt, model by model

- Grok 4.1 Fast: peec ai first (first choices: Peec AI) (alternatives: Otterly)
- Mistral Small: peec ai first (first choices: Peec AI) (alternatives: AthenaHQ, Otterly, Profound, Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit)
- DeepSeek V4 Flash: peec ai first (first choices: Peec AI) (alternatives: Mentionova, Otterly, Wellows)
- Gemini 3.5 Flash: neither first, one named (first choices: HubSpot AEO Grader) (alternatives: LLM Pulse, Mentionova, Otterly, Profound)
- Perplexity Sonar: neither first, one named (first choices: Wellows) (alternatives: Goodie, Otterly, Peec AI, Profound)
- Qwen 3.7 Flash: neither first, one named (first choices: Omnibound) (alternatives: Peec AI, SE Ranking)
- Kimi K2: neither first, one named (first choices: Scrunch) (alternatives: AIVO Platform, Goodie, Peec AI, Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit)
- GLM 4.7 FlashX: neither first, one named (first choices: Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit) (alternatives: Ahrefs Brand Radar, Otterly, Profound)
- MiniMax M2.5: neither first, one named (first choices: Wellows) (alternatives: Mentionova, Profound)
- Claude Haiku 4.5: neither named (first choices: Wellows) (alternatives: Ahrefs Brand Radar, GrackerAI, Otterly)
- GPT-5.4 mini: neither named (first choices: Athena) (alternatives: Semrush Enterprise / Enterprise AIO)
- Llama 4 Maverick: neither named

## What the models said about Profound

- "Price issue: $499/month for Lite plan is 48% more expensive than the category average... G2 reviews cite instability, slowness, and overwhelming dashboards" (Kimi K2, negative prompt, hard negative)
- "Profound: Major red flags—allegations of using browser extension clickstream data ... experts call it ethically questionable" (Grok 4.1 Fast, negative prompt, hard negative)
- "Avoid enterprise tools like Profound ($499+/month)" (Qwen 3.7 Flash, budget prompt, hard negative)
- "Shortlist 3-5: Profound (enterprise security), AirOps (tracking-to-content loop), Semrush/Ahrefs (if you use SEO tools)." (Grok 4.1 Fast, scale prompt, first choice)
- "Enterprise-grade with data depth and competitive intelligence | Large enterprises needing comprehensive tracking" (GLM 4.7 FlashX, comparative prompt, first choice)
- ""We're an enterprise—we need every possible engine covered." → Profound or Peec AI" (Qwen 3.7 Flash, comparative prompt, first choice)

## What the models said about Peec AI

- "Peec AI, Otterly AI, AthenaHQ: Frequent complaints on plan limits ... Peec criticized for agencies/SMBs" (Grok 4.1 Fast, negative prompt, hard negative)
- "Hidden costs: Real pricing is 30-60% above headline prices... No actionability... No ROI attribution" (Kimi K2, negative prompt, hard negative)
- "pure monitoring versions of Peec AI provide excellent data but lack built-in workflows to audit or fix your content" (Qwen 3.7 Flash, negative prompt, soft negative)
- "Peec AI stands out as the best AI visibility and answer engine tracking tool for a mid-market B2B company." (Grok 4.1 Fast, direct prompt, first choice)
- "Peec AI offers the best balance of comprehensive tracking, competitive insights, and reasonable pricing" (Mistral Small, direct prompt, first choice)
- "Peec AI is the strongest recommendation for a mid-sized B2B company." (Gemini 3.5 Flash, paraphrase prompt, first choice)

Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all twelve models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category. Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category. Published under CC BY 4.0; the output is the models' output, and nothing here is a recommendation by the index.