Profound vs Peec AI, compared on published pricing and coverage

What each product is, on its own terms

Profound and Peec AI both answer the same question — where does my brand appear when someone asks an AI assistant about my category — and they package the answer in almost opposite ways. Reading their pricing pages side by side is the fastest way to understand the difference, because a pricing page is a product's clearest statement about what it thinks it is selling.

Profound's page, fetched on 3 September 2026, is built around a single escalating number: answer engines. Starter watches ChatGPT. Growth watches three. Enterprise is described as up to nine. Everything else on the page moves in step with that — fifty prompts on Starter against a hundred on Growth, one seat against three, a hundred agent credits a month against four hundred. Coverage is the thing you are buying, and every other allowance is sized to match it.

Peec AI's page, fetched the same day, does not tier on coverage at all. It lists ChatGPT, AI Mode, AI Overviews, Microsoft Copilot, Perplexity and Gemini once, as a property of the product rather than of a plan. What changes between Starter, Pro and Advanced is the number of projects — one, two, then five — with three countries per project throughout, and the support channel and integrations moving up alongside. Coverage is a given; scale is the thing you are buying.

That is not a small packaging difference. It means the cheapest plan of each product is a different kind of object. Profound Starter is a narrow, deep instrument pointed at one assistant. Peec Starter is a wide, shallow one pointed at six. A team that shortlists on entry price alone will compare two things that are not the same purchase.

The pricing asymmetry, stated plainly

One of these companies publishes prices and the other does not.

Profound published $99 per month for Starter and $399 per month for Growth, both billed yearly with two months free, and left Enterprise as custom. Those are numbers you can put in a budget line before you speak to anyone.

Peec AI published four tiers with no currency amount against any of them. Starter, Pro and Advanced are described by what they contain, and Enterprise directs you to contact sales. There is no number on the page.

We are not going to pretend that makes Peec more expensive, because we do not know, and neither does anybody else writing about it from the outside. What it does mean is concrete and worth stating: a team that has to shortlist from public information can budget for Profound and cannot budget for Peec. If your evaluation process starts with a spreadsheet of prices rather than a sequence of sales calls, that asymmetry is a real cost, and it is a cost that has nothing to do with which product is better.

It cuts the other way too. Published pricing is only an advantage if the published plan is the one you would actually buy. Profound's published entry plan watches one assistant. If your question is whether you are showing up in Perplexity and Google AI Overviews, the $99 number is not the price of answering it; the $399 number is closer, and even that names three engines rather than the specific three you may need. A published price for a plan that does not fit you is not budget certainty.

Where the coverage argument actually lands

The temptation on a comparison page is to declare a winner on assistant count. Resist it, because the count only means something once you attach it to a tier and a date.

On 3 September 2026, at the cheapest published plan, Peec listed six assistants and Profound listed one. At the top of each range, Profound's page named up to nine answer engines on Enterprise while Peec's page named the same six it names everywhere. So the honest summary is this: Peec is broader at the bottom, Profound claims to be broader at the top, and in the middle it depends on which three engines Growth turns out to include for your account.

There is a second dimension that gets less attention and often matters more. Profound's Starter plan is one region and one language. Peec's tiers carry three countries per project across the board. If you sell into more than one market, the coverage question is not only which assistants but which locales, and on that axis the two pages point in different directions from the first tier onward.

Team shape and the multi-brand question

Profound's self-serve tiers are single-team objects: one seat on Starter, three on Growth, with multiple companies tracked listed as an Enterprise capability. Peec's tiers do not state seat counts at all, and instead escalate projects, reaching five on Advanced.

For a single in-house team watching one brand, this row barely matters. For an agency, a holding company, or an in-house team that owns three product lines with separate positioning, it decides the shape of the deal. On published pages, Peec's self-serve path reaches five projects and Profound's does not reach two. If you are that buyer, you can start with Peec's Advanced tier without a procurement conversation, and you cannot start with a Profound equivalent because Profound has not published one.

Neither page states seat pricing for Peec, so the caveat applies in both directions: an agency evaluating Peec still does not know what five projects cost.

Governance, and who each product is really built for

Both pricing pages name enterprise controls, and the difference is one of emphasis rather than presence. Profound lists SSO, SAML and SOC 2 compliance against Enterprise. Peec lists SSO, API access and a Looker integration against Advanced and Enterprise.

Read those two lists as statements of intended buyer. Profound's is a security-review list — the things a procurement team asks for before a contract is signed. Peec's is a data-team list — the things an analyst asks for before the numbers can go into an existing reporting stack. That is consistent with the rest of both pages: Profound is packaged to be bought by a company, Peec is packaged to be used by a marketing function.

If your purchase will pass through a security questionnaire, the SOC 2 line on Profound's page is a material advantage, and the absence of an equivalent line on Peec's is a question you will have to ask directly rather than a fact you can read.

What neither page tells you

Three things are missing from both pricing pages, and they are the three things that usually decide whether an AI visibility tool earns its renewal.

The first is sampling method. Neither page explains how often a prompt is run, how many times, or how a single number is derived from a set of answers that differ every time they are generated. Two tools can report very different visibility for the same brand and both be reporting honestly, because they sampled differently. This is the question to ask on a demo call, of either vendor.

The second is what happens after the measurement. Both products will tell you where you are missing. Neither pricing page commits to what it does about it, and the gap between a finding and a shipped change is where most AI visibility programmes stall.

The third is the trial. Profound's Growth plan carries a free-trial button with no stated terms; Peec's page states nothing. For a category where the only meaningful evaluation is against your own brand and your own prompts, the absence of published trial terms on both pages is a shared weakness rather than a differentiator.

How to run the evaluation, given what is public

Because one page carries numbers and the other does not, the two products cannot be shortlisted the same way, and pretending otherwise wastes a fortnight. A workable sequence is to treat the public pages as a filter rather than a decision.

Start by writing down your prompt set before you look at either vendor. If the honest count is under fifty and you care about one assistant, Profound's published entry plan is a real option you can buy today, and Peec's absence of a number is a genuine obstacle. If the count runs into the hundreds, both published pages have already failed you and the conversation moves to sales regardless of which logo you prefer.

Next, write down which assistants matter, by name, and which countries. Those two lists do more to separate these products than any feature grid, because Profound charges for the first and Peec bundles it while charging for projects. A team that needs Perplexity plus AI Overviews in three markets is looking at Profound's middle tier at minimum, and at Peec's entry tier on the coverage rows alone.

Finally, ask both vendors the same two questions on the call: how many times is each prompt sampled before a number is reported, and what is the trial's actual length and limits. Neither answer is on either page today. Whichever vendor answers both plainly has told you something more useful than the pricing table did.

The verdict, restated

Choose Profound if budget certainty before a sales call matters to you, if you already know which one or three answer engines you care about, or if a security review is part of the purchase. Choose Peec AI if you want the same six assistants on the cheapest plan as on the dearest, if you work across several countries, or if you need more than one project without a procurement conversation.

And genuinely consider neither if you have a large prompt set and a small budget. Profound's published entry plan is fifty prompts and one engine; Peec publishes no allowance to compare it against. That combination is the most common reason a team leaves this shortlist and starts a new one.

Related reading: Promptwatch vs Athena covers two tools that both publish prices, Scrunch vs Profound covers the tier above this one, and Peec vs Athena puts Peec against a product with a free plan.