AI visibility and answer engine tracking tools · October 2026 Edition
Profound vs SE Ranking
Five of fourteen models named Profound first on the direct prompt; one named SE Ranking. Profound was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and SE Ranking by ten and Profound carries 42 labels and SE Ranking 13, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in two categories this edition.
United States, founded 2012. Named in five categories this edition.
First-choice share15%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate29%15%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#3#7A position in a field of 9; printed, not drawn.
Labels4213A 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.Peec AI was named alongside these two in nine of the fourteen direct answers. Otterly vs Profound · Otterly vs SE Ranking · Peec AI vs Profound
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen 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 fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
ProfoundFirst choices, of fourteen modelsSE Ranking
Direct511 against Profound
Paraphrase103 against Profound
Comparative60
Budget-constrained012 against Profound · 1 against SE Ranking
Scale-constrained20
Negative006 against Profound · 1 against SE Ranking
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Profound and SE Ranking stood in it.
| Model | Direct | Paraphrase | Comparative | Budget-constrained | Scale-constrained | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | | | | | ||
| GPT-5.4 mini | | | | |||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | | | | ||
| Perplexity Sonar | | | ||||
| Grok 4.20 | | | | | | |
| Mistral Small | | |||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | | | | | ||
| Llama 4 Maverick | | |||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | | ||||
| Kimi K2 | | | | | | |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | | ||||
| MiniMax M2.5 | | | ||||
| GPT-6 Luna | | | ||||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | | |
Profound SE Ranking first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Profound on the left and SE Ranking on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Profound and SE Ranking stood in it.
Both were the first choice
1 of 14 modelsThe answer named them together, and the judge labeled each a first choice.Mistral SmallProfound, SE Ranking alternatives: Peec AI, Qwairy
Profound first, SE Ranking an alternative
4 of 14 modelsSE Ranking was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Claude Haiku 4.5Peec AI, Profound alternatives: HubSpot AEO Grader, Otterly
GPT-5.4 miniProfound alternatives: Bluefish, BrightEdge AI Catalyst, Conductor, HubSpot AEO Grader, Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit, Similarweb AI Search Intelligence
Perplexity SonarProfound, Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit alternatives: Quattr
Muse Glimmer 30BPeec AI, Profound alternatives: Qwairy, SE Ranking
Neither was the first choice, one was named
4 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Gemini 3.5 FlashOrchly AI alternatives: Ahrefs Brand Radar, GrackerAI, Peec AI, Profound, Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit
Grok 4.20Peec AI alternatives: AthenaHQ, HubSpot AEO Grader, Profound, Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit
Llama 4 MaverickPeec AI alternatives: HubSpot AEO Grader, Qwairy, SE Ranking
GPT-6 LunaPeec AI alternatives: Otterly, Profound
Neither was named
5 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.DeepSeek V4 FlashHubSpot AEO Grader alternatives: Cognizo, Omnibound, Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit
Qwen 3.7 FlashDeepSmith alternatives: Peec AI, Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit
Kimi K2Peec AI alternatives: Otterly, Searchable
GLM 4.7 FlashXOtterly alternatives: Rankscale, Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit
MiniMax M2.5CrowdReply alternatives: Cognizo
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
Mid-marketThe figures above
Enterprise
SE Ranking is not named for this buyer.
Profound55%#1 of 9SE Ranking—not namedWhat 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.
“Tools to Approach with Extra Caution or Avoid (if possible): - Profound: Privacy concerns” Grok 4.20 · negative prompt · hard negative
“What to Avoid - Profound ($399+/mo) – Overkill unless you're enterprise” Kimi K2 · paraphrase prompt · hard negative
“Avoid pricier ones like Profound ($99+)” Grok 4.20 · budget prompt · hard negative
“A purpose-built Answer Engine Optimization platform that combines the industry's deepest AI visibility data with content creation, automated workflows, agent analytics, and real-time attribution.” Muse Glimmer 30B · comparative prompt · first choice
“Peec AI or Profound are most likely to deliver the right balance of features, analytics depth, and team-focused pricing.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · direct prompt · first choice
“the best single pick is usually Profound if your priority is AI visibility / answer-engine tracking specifically” GPT-5.4 mini · direct prompt · first choice
What the models said about SE Ranking
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of three in this category shown.
“The original in-suite "AI Results Tracker" requires a complex prompt-cap credit model” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“typically overkill if you only need AI monitoring” Kimi K2 · budget prompt · soft negative
“### 1. SE Ranking (Best Overall Value)... widely considered the best "budget-friendly" all-in-one SEO suite” Qwen 3.7 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
Also compared
Otterly vs ProfoundOtterly vs SE RankingPeec AI vs ProfoundPeec AI vs SE RankingProfound vs HubSpot AEO GraderProfound vs Semrush AI Visibility ToolkitProfound vs RankscaleProfound vs ScrunchHubSpot AEO Grader vs SE RankingSemrush AI Visibility Toolkit vs SE RankingRankscale vs SE RankingSE Ranking vs ScrunchAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full AI visibility standing
Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.