GTM AI Index
Index › Marketing › AI visibility › Profound vs Rankscale
AI visibility and answer engine tracking tools · September 2026 Edition

Profound vs Rankscale

Zero of twelve models named Profound first on the direct prompt; zero named Rankscale. Profound was named by twelve of the twelve models and Rankscale by ten and Profound carries 37 labels and Rankscale 16, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Profound

accepted challenger

Named in one category this edition.

Rankscale

accepted challenger

Named in one category this edition.

First-choice share10%10%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate22%0%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#2#3A position in a field of 11; printed, not drawn.
Labels3716A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Profound reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Otterly was named alongside these two in seven of the twelve direct answers. Otterly vs Profound · Otterly vs Rankscale

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; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the AI visibility and answer engine tracking tools page.

By framing

How many of the twelve models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
ProfoundFirst choices, of twelve modelsRankscale
Direct002 against Profound
Paraphrase002 against Profound
Comparative50
Budget-constrained051 against Profound
Scale-constrained50
Negative103 against Profound
Bars are first choices, 0 to 12 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to twelve.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Profound and Rankscale stood in it.

Neither was the first choice, one was named

5 of 12 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
Gemini 3.5 FlashHubSpot AEO Grader alternatives: LLM Pulse, Mentionova, Otterly, Profound
Perplexity SonarWellows alternatives: Goodie, Otterly, Peec AI, Profound
Mistral SmallPeec AI alternatives: AthenaHQ, Otterly, Profound, Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit
GLM 4.7 FlashXSemrush AI Visibility Toolkit alternatives: Ahrefs Brand Radar, Otterly, Profound
MiniMax M2.5Wellows alternatives: Mentionova, Profound

Neither was named

7 of 12 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
Claude Haiku 4.5Wellows alternatives: Ahrefs Brand Radar, GrackerAI, Otterly
GPT-5.4 miniAthena alternatives: Semrush Enterprise / Enterprise AIO
Grok 4.1 FastPeec AI alternatives: Otterly
DeepSeek V4 FlashPeec AI alternatives: Mentionova, Otterly, Wellows
Llama 4 Maverickno first choice
Qwen 3.7 FlashOmnibound alternatives: Peec AI, SE Ranking
Kimi K2Scrunch alternatives: AIVO Platform, Goodie, Peec AI, Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit

Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.

By buyer segment

The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
Rankscale leads by two points.
Rankscale2%#5 of 9
Profound0%#9 of 9
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Level: the same share of first choices.
Profound10%#2 of 11
Rankscale10%#3 of 11
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
The order flips: Profound leads at enterprise.
Profound63%#1 of 9
Rankscale0%#– of 9
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Profound

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.

“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 Rankscale

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of four in this category shown.

“Best For: Absolute lowest entry price and actionable site diagnostics... it is exceptionally cost-effective.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
“Rankscale if you want the absolute lowest cost with the broadest platform coverage” Kimi K2 · budget prompt · first choice
“I recommend starting with RankScale AI ($20/month) or Otterly.AI ($29/month)” GLM 4.7 FlashX · budget prompt · first choice
Also compared
Otterly vs ProfoundOtterly vs RankscaleThe full AI visibility standing

Comparisons are drawn for the top three products in each category. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.