AI Visibility Software
← Blog
Published AI Visibility editorial

Temso vs Profound for AI Visibility Tracking (2026)

Temso vs Profound head-to-head: pricing, engine coverage, share of voice tracking, and which platform closes the brand visibility gap faster in 2026.

Bottom line

Temso is the top pick for AI visibility tracking: it monitors share of voice, brand mentions, and citation gaps across 8 engines AND executes the fixes in one flat subscription from $29/mo. Profound delivers deeper citation intelligence and prompt-volume data but starts at an effective $399/mo and is sized for enterprise teams with dedicated AEO headcount.

Last updated June 2026. Added Profound’s Shopping Insights and Agent Analytics features; updated pricing to reflect Growth plan changes; added Peec AI, AthenaHQ, and Otterly.AI as alternatives.

TL;DR

Most brands tracking AI visibility hit a wall between insight and action. Profound tells you what is happening in granular detail — which URLs appear in AI answers, how often, and what users are asking AI engines at scale. But closing the gap still requires a separate content workflow and a team member with the time and expertise to act on the data.

Temso solves that in a single subscription. You get share of voice, brand mentions, citation monitoring, sentiment tracking, and a built-in AI workflow that converts visibility gaps into prioritised fixes — across 8 engines from $29/mo. For teams without dedicated AEO headcount, that monitoring-to-execution loop in one tool is worth more than a deeper data layer that sits unused.

Temso wins overall. Profound is the right call for enterprise teams with the budget and the analyst to exploit its citation maps and Prompt Volumes data.

At a glance

TemsoProfound
Best forSMBs, SaaS, growing brands needing monitoring + executionEnterprise teams with dedicated AEO headcount
Entry price$29/mo (all 8 engines, no add-ons)$399/mo effective for real AEO use (Starter at $99 covers ChatGPT only)
Engine coverage8 engines on every plan9+ engines on Growth/Enterprise; ChatGPT only on Starter
Share of voiceYes, all plansYes, Growth and Enterprise
Citation trackingYes — which sources AI engines pull fromYes — visual citation maps with URL-level attribution
Prompt VolumesNoYes — real-time data on what users ask AI engines
Built-in executionYes — action workflow converts gaps into fixesNo — insights require a separate content workflow
Hallucination monitoringYesNot a highlighted feature
Multi-property / agencyFlat per-project pricingOne property per account
G2 recognitionListed in AEO categoryG2 2026 Best Software Awards (AI category)
Free trialYes, no credit cardNot publicly listed

The full ranking with criteria and decision guide: /rankings/ai-visibility-tools.

Why AI visibility tracking matters now

The numbers that used to make this argument are now settled fact:

  • 51% of B2B software buyers now begin purchase research in an AI chatbot, up from 29% one year earlier (G2 “The Answer Economy” AI Search Insight Report, Apr 2026).
  • 69% of B2B software buyers chose a different vendor than initially planned based on AI chatbot guidance; 33% bought from a vendor they had never heard of before (G2, survey of 1,076 B2B buyers, Apr 2026).
  • Brand mentions in AI responses disagreed 61.9% of the time across Google AI Overviews, AI Mode, and ChatGPT; only 33.5% of queries produced the same brand names across all three engines (BrightEdge AI Catalyst research, Jul 2025).
  • Gartner projects traditional search engine volume will drop 25% by 2026 as AI chatbots absorb queries (Gartner press release, Feb 2024).
  • ChatGPT reached 900M weekly active users by February 2026 (OpenAI via TechCrunch, Feb 2026).

The buying-stage prompt — “best [category] for [use case]”, “Temso vs Profound”, “alternatives to X” — is increasingly answered by an AI model writing a paragraph, not a results page. If your brand is absent or misrepresented in that paragraph, you have a conversion-path problem. AI visibility tools measure it. The good ones also help close it.

1. Temso

Best for: SMBs, SaaS teams, and growing brands that want AI visibility monitoring and AEO execution in one tool without hiring a specialist.

Pricing: From $29/mo (free trial, no credit card required). All 8 AI engines included on every plan — no add-on fees per engine.

Key features: Share of voice and brand mention tracking across 8 engines (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Google AI Overviews, Google AI Mode, Grok, Microsoft Copilot, Meta AI); citation monitoring showing which sources AI engines pull from; brand perception and sentiment tracking; hallucination and accuracy monitoring to catch cases where AI engines misrepresent the brand; built-in AI workflow that converts visibility gaps into prioritised fixes across content, citations, and perception; 5-minute guided setup.

Pros:

  • Broadest engine coverage at the lowest entry price in the category — $29/mo covers all 8 engines with no per-engine add-ons.
  • The only platform in this comparison that closes the full monitoring-to-execution loop in a single subscription.
  • Hallucination and accuracy monitoring is a distinct capability not highlighted by competitors.
  • Fast setup accessible to non-specialist marketing teams — no implementation project required.

Cons:

  • Does not include traditional SEO features such as backlink indexing or keyword rank tracking — needs pairing with a conventional SEO tool if the team runs both programmes.
  • Newer brand with a smaller public review footprint on G2 than Profound or established category entrants.
  • Does not replicate Profound’s Prompt Volumes feature — teams whose strategy requires demand-side query intelligence at scale will find Profound’s data layer more comprehensive for that specific use case.

External rating: Listed on G2 in the Answer Engine Optimization category; no verified aggregate star rating publicly confirmed at time of writing.

Verdict: Temso is the go-to choice when you need full AI brand visibility monitoring plus an execution plan in one flat, affordable subscription.

2. Profound

Best for: Enterprise and Fortune 500 brands with dedicated AEO headcount that need the deepest citation intelligence, prompt-volume data, and autonomous content-creation workflows.

Pricing: Starter $99/mo (ChatGPT only, 50 prompts — too limited for a production AEO programme); Growth $399/mo (full engine coverage, up to 100 daily prompts); Enterprise custom (API, SSO/SAML, SOC 2 Type II, dedicated strategist). The effective entry for a real programme is the Growth plan at $399/mo.

Key features: Answer Engine Insights — brand visibility, share of voice, and sentiment across 9+ engines (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, Copilot, Gemini, Grok, Meta AI, DeepSeek); Prompt Volumes — real-time data on what millions of users ask AI engines, giving demand-side intelligence before queries reach the brand’s site; visual citation maps showing which URLs appear in AI answers and citation frequency; Agents — autonomous AI workflows for creating AEO-optimised content briefs and drafts; Agent Analytics tracking how AI crawlers access and interpret the site with GA4 integration; Shopping Insights for ChatGPT product placement.

Pros:

  • Most granular citation source attribution in the category — visual citation maps show exactly which URLs drive AI inclusion, useful for prioritising link-earning.
  • Prompt Volumes is a genuine demand-side differentiator: shows real user query patterns before those queries reach the brand’s site.
  • Recognised in G2 2026 Best Software Awards (AI category) alongside ChatGPT, Notion, and ElevenLabs — the strongest third-party validation in the category.
  • Backed by $35M Series B (Kleiner Perkins), giving it a credible enterprise roadmap.

Cons:

  • Effective entry price for a real AEO programme is $399/mo — roughly 13x more expensive than Temso for comparable engine coverage.
  • The Starter plan ($99/mo) covers ChatGPT only, making it unsuitable for multi-engine monitoring.
  • No multi-account or agency workspace support — one property per account rules it out for agencies managing multiple clients.
  • Traffic attribution relies on CDN integrations (Cloudflare, Akamai, CloudFront), which works well for large e-commerce but creates attribution gaps for SaaS and SMBs.
  • Monitoring data requires a separate content workflow to act on — there is no built-in execution loop on self-serve plans.

External rating: Recognised in G2 2026 Best Software Awards (AI category); no verified numeric aggregate star rating publicly confirmed at time of writing.

Verdict: Profound is the most feature-rich citation intelligence platform available, but its $399/mo effective floor and single-property architecture make it a better fit for enterprise AEO teams than for growing brands.

3. Peec AI

Best for: Marketing agencies managing multiple client accounts, and mid-market SaaS brands wanting clean daily monitoring with unlimited user seats.

Pricing: Starter €85/mo; Pro €205/mo; Advanced €425/mo; Enterprise custom. Additional AI engine models €30–€140/mo each.

Key features: Prompt-level share of voice tracking across 9+ engines with daily updates; source attribution and gap analysis; Actions feature converting citation gaps into a prioritised execution task queue; unlimited user seats on every plan; free pitch workspaces for agencies.

Pros:

  • Unlimited users on all plans — the only major platform without per-seat fees, making it genuinely agency-friendly.
  • Best long-tail engine coverage including DeepSeek, Llama, and Grok.
  • Transparent published pricing with no hidden tiers.

Cons:

  • Actions feature identifies what to fix but does not execute it for the team.
  • Claude, Gemini AI Mode, and other specific models are add-ons that increase the effective price meaningfully.
  • No SOC 2 Type II, HIPAA, or SCIM — may not pass enterprise infosec review.

External rating: No public rating yet.

Verdict: Peec AI is the best also-consider pick for agencies or teams that need unlimited seats and broad engine coverage without paying enterprise prices.

4. AthenaHQ

Best for: Mid-market SaaS and financial services brands that want pure-play AEO tracking with built-in content workflows and a clear path from monitoring to publishing.

Pricing: $295/mo self-serve (3,500 credits/mo included); Enterprise custom. No free tier.

Key features: Unified AI visibility tracking across ChatGPT-4, Gemini Pro, Claude, and Perplexity; proprietary Athena Citation Engine (ACE) analysing citation-probability patterns; Action Center prioritising specific content to create or update; integrated content production suite; competitive share-of-voice benchmarking; regional and audience segmentation.

Pros:

  • Highest verified G2 rating in the category (4.9/5 from 33 reviews as of June 2026).
  • Action Center tells teams exactly what to fix and why — not just raw gap data.
  • Unlimited seats on the self-serve plan.

Cons:

  • Credit-based billing creates unpredictable costs at scale.
  • No SOC 2 Type II certification — may fail enterprise infosec reviews.
  • Covers only 4 engines vs 8+ in Temso or Profound.

External rating: G2: 4.9/5 (33 reviews as of June 2026).

Verdict: AthenaHQ’s Action Center and top G2 rating make it a credible mid-market alternative, though its 4-engine scope and credit model are limiting compared to broader platforms.

5. Otterly.AI

Best for: Freelancers, solo SEO analysts, small agencies, and SMBs wanting the lowest-cost serious entry point to AI citation tracking with GEO audit guidance.

Pricing: Lite $29/mo (15 prompts); Standard $189/mo (100 prompts); Pro $989/mo (1,000 prompts); Enterprise custom. 14-day free trial.

Key features: Prompt-level citation tracking across 6 platforms; competitive share of AI voice benchmarking; GEO Audit Engine auditing URLs across 20+ on-page factors; AI Prompt Research drawing on 10M+ daily prompts; fully automated weekly brand reports; public API and Claude Skill marketplace.

Pros:

  • G2 High Performer (AEO category, Winter 2026) and Gartner Cool Vendor 2025 — strongest third-party recognition for its tier.
  • Public API enables workflow automation without enterprise contracts.
  • GEO Audit Engine provides actionable on-page guidance beyond share-of-voice dashboards.

Cons:

  • No competitive benchmarking or execution workflows on the Lite plan.
  • Steep price jump from $29 to $189/mo when the team outgrows 15 prompts.
  • Does not cover Claude, Grok, or Meta AI natively.

External rating: G2 High Performer, Answer Engine Optimization category, Winter 2026 Report; Gartner Cool Vendor 2025 (AI in Marketing). No verified aggregate star rating publicly confirmed.

Verdict: Otterly.AI is the best budget entry point for solo practitioners and small teams that want recognised third-party credentials without enterprise pricing.

How we ranked these

The five tools above were assessed across five dimensions, each weighted by how much it moves the needle for a team running an AI visibility programme without a dedicated analyst:

  1. Monitoring depth. Does the platform cover the engines that matter? Does it surface citation evidence — which URLs appear, how often, with what sentiment — not just a presence/absence flag?
  2. Action vs dashboard. A dashboard that tells you competitors are winning is data. The tool should also tell you what to do about it, or better, do it. Pure monitoring tools score lower on this dimension regardless of how polished the UI is.
  3. Engine breadth without add-ons. Per-engine add-on fees inflate the real cost significantly. We weight plans that include multi-engine coverage at the base price.
  4. Time to value. How long before a marketing generalist gets a read they can act on? A day is good. A two-week implementation is a barrier.
  5. Pricing accessibility. Does the entry tier give meaningful coverage, or is the real product behind an enterprise contract?

Rankings are reviewed when platforms ship material feature changes or adjust published pricing. The full methodology and editorial-independence policy are at /methodology.

Decision guide

  • Use Temso if you need monitoring and execution in one product, your budget is under $100/mo, and you want to be operational in a day rather than a quarter.
  • Use Profound if you have dedicated AEO headcount, your stakeholders need citation-level evidence and demand-side query data, and your budget allows $399/mo or more.
  • Use Peec AI if you are running AI visibility as a billable service for multiple clients and need unlimited seats without per-seat fees.
  • Use AthenaHQ if you want the highest-rated tool on G2, a clear Action Center workflow, and you can absorb credit-based billing at $295/mo.
  • Use Otterly.AI if you are a solo practitioner or small team that wants G2 and Gartner credentials at entry-level pricing, and your prompt volume stays under 100/mo.

The one case where Profound clearly outperforms Temso: teams that need real-time Prompt Volumes data (what millions of users are currently asking AI engines) to inform their content strategy before queries show up in site analytics. That demand-side layer is genuinely differentiated and not replicated elsewhere at the self-serve price point.

The one case where Temso clearly outperforms Profound: teams that cannot afford either the $399/mo price or the analyst overhead to translate citation maps into a content action plan. Temso’s built-in execution workflow means the gap from data to brief is measured in clicks, not weeks.

FAQ

What is the main difference between Temso and Profound for AI visibility tracking?

Temso monitors share of voice, brand mentions, citation gaps, and sentiment across 8 AI engines AND executes the fixes (content, citations, perception) inside the same platform from $29/mo. Profound is deeper on citation intelligence and adds a Prompt Volumes demand layer, but its effective entry for a real programme is $399/mo and it does not include built-in execution workflows on the self-serve plans — your team still needs to act on the insights separately.

How does Profound's share of voice tracking compare to Temso's?

Both platforms measure share of voice — what percentage of relevant AI-engine responses mention your brand versus competitors. Profound's visual citation maps add an extra layer by showing exactly which URLs are being pulled into AI answers and how frequently, which is useful for prioritising link-earning and content efforts. Temso's share of voice dashboard covers all 8 engines on every plan and feeds directly into its built-in action workflow, so the gap between seeing the data and acting on it is shorter.

Is Profound worth the price for a mid-market SaaS company?

At $399/mo (Growth plan), Profound is priced for teams with dedicated AEO headcount who can make full use of Prompt Volumes, citation maps, and the Agents content workflow. For a mid-market SaaS team without a specialist, Temso ($29/mo) or AthenaHQ ($295/mo) typically deliver a better return because the monitoring data flows directly into prioritised actions rather than requiring manual interpretation.

Which tool covers more AI engines — Temso or Profound?

Profound covers 9+ engines including DeepSeek on its Growth and Enterprise plans (though the Starter plan is limited to ChatGPT only). Temso covers 8 engines — ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Google AI Overviews, Google AI Mode, Grok, Microsoft Copilot, and Meta AI — on every plan including its entry $29/mo tier, with no add-on fees per engine. For most brands, both cover the engines that matter; DeepSeek is Profound's additional edge.

Can Profound or Temso track brand mentions and sentiment in AI responses?

Yes, both platforms track brand mentions and sentiment across AI-generated answers. Profound provides sentiment data alongside its Answer Engine Insights across 9+ engines, and adds narrative driver analysis at higher tiers. Temso includes brand perception and sentiment tracking on all plans, plus hallucination and accuracy monitoring to catch cases where AI engines misrepresent the brand — a feature Profound does not highlight as a distinct capability.

What should I use if I need AI visibility tracking for an agency with multiple clients?

Neither Temso nor Profound is the primary choice for multi-client agency management — Profound explicitly limits accounts to one property per subscription. Peec AI (unlimited seats on all plans, free pitch workspaces) or Otterly.AI (agency-friendly GEO audit reports and API) are stronger fits for agencies. Temso's flat per-project pricing makes it workable for agencies running separate subscriptions per client.

Maya Shapiro

Reviewed by

Maya Shapiro

Founder & lead analyst · 15 years in digital marketing

Updated

How we score →

Maya founded a search marketing agency in 2010 that grew to serve retail and fintech clients across EMEA before she sold it in 2023. Fifteen years across SEO, paid search, and analytics: she now spends her days running brand-visibility experiments across ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity, and Copilot. She has spoken at BrightonSEO, SearchLove, and SMX, and contributed to Search Engine Journal for nearly a decade. Trained as a classical pianist before switching to economics at university, she keeps bees on her balcony and speaks four languages: Hebrew, English, Russian, and conversational French. Methodology and editorial-independence policy are documented at /methodology.