United Kingdom · English · GBP
Prices, terms and tax follow the country you choose.
GBP
Prices only. You are always billed in GBP.
FastFound vs Profound
What they are genuinely good at, where we differ, and who should pick which. We have tried not to write the version where we win every row.
An enterprise AI-search platform that positions itself as the full stack marketing platform for the marketer of the future, and which holds the best raw material in this category for the hardest measurement question in it.
- tryprofound.com. Enterprise-focused; no pricing published on the site.
- Positions as the full stack marketing platform for the marketer of the future.
- Products: Answer Engine Insights, Prompt Volumes, Agents, Agent Analytics, Aim and Shopping.
- Covers Perplexity, ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok, Copilot, DeepSeek and Google AI Overviews.
- Named customer: Ramp.
- Prompt Volumes is described as drawing on conversations licensed from consumer panels. Searching their site and help centre on 24 August 2026 we could not find the panel provider named.
- We could not find the method for scaling panel data to population figures described beyond “statistical modeling”, and could not find a margin of error published against any volume figure.
- Their published scale figures did not reconcile with each other when we checked on 24 August 2026: “hundreds of millions of prompts” monthly against “tens of millions” from panels, with the difference described as modelled.
Checked 23 August 2026. If anything here is out of date or wrong, tell us and we will correct it.
What Profound is genuinely good at
Prompt Volumes rests on real conversations, licensed from consumer panels of people actually using AI assistants. Nobody else in this category has raw material that good, and we certainly do not — our phrases are written from a trade and reviewed by a person, which is construction, not observation. The hardest question anyone can ask an AI visibility vendor is whether the prompts being tested are the ones real users type, and on the evidence behind that question they are ahead of us. We would rather write that down than hope you do not notice.
Engine coverage is broad and current: Perplexity, ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok, Copilot, DeepSeek and Google AI Overviews.
A serious enterprise product surface — Answer Engine Insights, Agent Analytics, Aim and Shopping — with named customers such as Ramp, in a market where a lot of entrants are a landing page and a waitlist.
They are building for a zero-click world from first principles rather than bolting an AI tab onto a search product, and the product shows it.
Where we differ
We publish our answers to all 31 methodology questions, including the limits of our own score. As far as we can establish, no other platform in this comparison has published theirs.
On the DATA behind representativeness they are ahead of us, and that is said above rather than buried. On the ARGUMENT the question actually asks for — how a prompt set was shown to represent the population — we could not find a published answer from them either. Better data than ours; the same missing demonstration, and the specifics are in the verifiable bits below. Where we differ more broadly is on everything the other thirty questions cover: what a score measures, what it does not, how far it drifts when nothing in the market has changed, and what result would make us withdraw it. We publish all of that. We have not found their equivalent.
23 languages, 35 markets, local currency and local tax wording — and the work is done in your language, not translated into it afterwards.
English-first and enterprise-first. We are 23 languages and 35 markets, with local currency, local tax wording and a human replying in the language you wrote in.
AI probes run on Google Vertex AI in Frankfurt (europe-west3); search data is processed in Germany by an Estonian company. Every sub-processor is documented.
We have not audited where they process data and we make no claim about it. What we will state about ourselves: AI probes run on Google Vertex AI in europe-west3 (Frankfurt), search data is processed in Germany by an Estonian company, and every sub-processor is written down with its transfer instrument.
A tool hands you a dashboard and a list of tasks. We run the tasks. That is the difference between a subscription and a growth department.
They sell autonomous Agents that act on the measurement. Question 28 of that methodology set asks precisely what safeguards exist before an automated agent acts on a number, and it is a fair question to put to anyone, us included. Our position is a commitment rather than a boast: if we ever automate an action off a score, the repetition threshold, the minimum effect size and the human-review requirement ship at the same time and are visible to you. Until then a person decides, and a person is accountable for the decision.
Who should pick which
If you are an enterprise with a marketing team big enough to operate a platform, and prompt-volume data is the thing you most need, buy Profound. On that specific question they hold data we do not, and no amount of care on our side substitutes for it.
We suit a business that is not an enterprise, has no team to run a platform, sells to people who do not work in English, and would rather a named person did the work than an autonomous agent did it. One practical note: there is no public pricing, so you will not know what it costs until you have had the conversation.
There is no performance figure anywhere on this page. We do not publish one — ours or anybody else's — until it is our own measured result, and we do not have one yet. Anyone showing you a number should be able to tell you whose data it is.
Abbreviations used on this site
Statute, regulator and standard names are given in their own language, because that is what they are called — a translated citation would be one you could not look up.
- ABN
- Australian Business Number · Australia
- ACL
- Australian Consumer Law · Australia
- AEO
- answer engine optimisation
- AI
- artificial intelligence
- AIO
- AI optimisation
- ANPD
- Autoridade Nacional de Proteção de Dados · Brazil
- API
- application programming interface
- ASA
- Advertising Standards Authority · United Kingdom
- CASL
- Canada's Anti-Spam Legislation · Canada
- CCPA
- California Consumer Privacy Act · United States
- CMS
- content management system
- CPRA
- California Privacy Rights Act · United States
- CRO
- conversion rate optimisation
- CSS
- Cascading Style Sheets
- DMCC
- Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 · United Kingdom
- DPA
- data processing agreement
- DTC
- direct-to-consumer
- EEA
- European Economic Area
- EFTA
- European Free Trade Association
- ESIGN
- Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act · United States
- FTC
- Federal Trade Commission · United States
- GDPR
- General Data Protection Regulation · European Union
- GEO
- generative engine optimisation
- GST
- goods and services tax
- ICO
- Information Commissioner's Office · United Kingdom
- IDTA
- International Data Transfer Agreement · United Kingdom
- IP
- intellectual property
- KPI
- key performance indicator
- LGPD
- Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados · Brazil
- LLC
- limited liability company
- LLM
- large language model
- MCP
- Model Context Protocol
- MFA
- multi-factor authentication
- OAIC
- Office of the Australian Information Commissioner · Australia
- OPC
- Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada · Canada
- PECR
- Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations · United Kingdom
- PII
- personally identifiable information
- PIPEDA
- Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act · Canada
- QA
- quality assurance
- SCC
- standard contractual clauses · European Union
- SEO
- search engine optimisation
- SMS
- short message service
- TCPA
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act · United States
- UEMA
- Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act · New Zealand
- UETA
- Uniform Electronic Transactions Act · United States
- UGC
- user-generated content
- UWG
- Bundesgesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb · Switzerland
- VAT
- value added tax
- WCAG
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines