Index › GTM › Marketing › AI visibility › Profound vs Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit
AI visibility and answer engine tracking tools · November 2026 Edition

Profound vs Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit

Gane, the publisher, sells software in this category. Every product here is measured by the same method as in every other category. How the conflict is handled.

Two of fourteen models named Profound first on the direct prompt; zero named Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit. Both were named by all fourteen models and Profound carries 42 labels and Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit 39, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Profound

accepted challenger

Named in four categories this edition.

By Semrush, Boston, United States, founded 2008. Named in two categories this edition.

First-choice share15%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate21%13%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#3#6A position in a field of 10; printed, not drawn.
Labels4239A 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 twelve of the fourteen direct answers. Peec AI vs Profound · Peec AI vs Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit · Otterly 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 modelsSemrush AI Visibility Toolkit
Direct203 against Profound · 1 against Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit
Paraphrase411 against Profound
Comparative711 against Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit
Budget-constrained003 against Profound · 1 against Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit
Scale-constrained201 against Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit
Negative002 against Profound · 1 against Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit
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.

Across every category in the November 2026 Edition, Profound and Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit were named in the same answer eighty-one times, of the 143 answers naming Profound and the 118 naming Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit. In those answers Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit took the first choice four times and Profound thirty.

Every model, every framing

The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Profound and Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit stood in it.
ModelDirectParaphraseComparativeBudget-constrainedScale-constrainedNegative
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 Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Profound on the left and Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Profound and Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit stood in it.

Profound first, Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit an alternative

2 of 14 modelsSemrush AI Visibility Toolkit was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
GPT-5.4 miniProfound alternatives: Conductor, SE Ranking, SE Visible, Similarweb AI Search Intelligence
Gemini 3.5 FlashProfound, Scrunch alternatives: Gauge, HubSpot AEO Tool, Mentionova, Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit

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.
Perplexity SonarPeec AI alternatives: HubSpot AEO Tool, Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit, Sona AI Visibility
Grok 4.20Peec AI alternatives: DeepSmith, HeyAmos, HubSpot AEO Tool, Profound
Qwen 3.7 FlashPeec AI alternatives: DeepSmith, HubSpot AEO Tool, Profound
GPT-6 LunaPeec AI alternatives: Profound, Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit

Neither was named

8 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
Claude Haiku 4.5Scrunch alternatives: HubSpot AEO Tool, Mentionova, Peec AI
Mistral SmallGetIntel, Peec AI alternatives: Otterly, Sona AI Visibility
DeepSeek V4 FlashGetIntel, Peec AI alternatives: Otterly
Llama 4 MaverickPeec AI alternatives: GetIntel, HubSpot AEO Tool, Otterly, Wonnda Signal
Kimi K2Peec AI alternatives: AthenaHQ, HubSpot AEO Tool
GLM 4.7 FlashXSona AI Visibility alternatives: Ahrefs Brand Radar, Otterly, Peec AI, Tracemetry
MiniMax M2.5Peec AI alternatives: GetIntel, Sona AI Visibility, Trakkr
Muse Glimmer 30BPeec AI alternatives: HeyAmos, HubSpot AEO Tool

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
Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit leads by four points.
Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit4%#4 of 8
Profound0%#8 of 8
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
The order flips: Profound leads at mid-market.
Profound15%#3 of 10
Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit2%#6 of 10
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
Profound leads by forty-five points.
Profound49%#1 of 11
Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit4%#5 of 11
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.

“Avoid enterprise options like Meltwater, Talkwalker/Lumen, or full Profound (~$99+/mo or custom $10k+/year)” Grok 4.20 · budget prompt · hard negative
“$30,000+/year — built for enterprise with high-volume prompt needs” DeepSeek V4 Flash · direct prompt · hard negative
“Avoid enterprise-focused tools like Profound ($99+/month)” Kimi K2 · budget prompt · hard negative
“Profound | Enterprise AEO intelligence | Tracks 10+ engines, SOC 2 Type II, Agency Mode, SSO, synthetic personas, used by ~10% of Fortune 500” DeepSeek V4 Flash · scale prompt · first choice
“Choose Profound or Conductor if you have a large budget and need comprehensive, multi-language, multi-engine data for enterprise reporting.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice
“Enterprise | Profound, Scrunch AI, Conductor, Botify | 500+ person orgs needing compliance, scale, and dedicated support” Kimi K2 · scale prompt · first choice

What the models said about Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit

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

“Avoid enterprise-focused tools like ... Semrush AI Visibility ($199/month)” Kimi K2 · budget prompt · hard negative
“The AI visibility features are less deep than dedicated tools. If AI visibility is a *priority*, not a secondary check, you'll outgrow it.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · direct prompt · soft negative
“Legacy SEO platforms like Semrush's standard AI Toolkit have "severe limitations for agency use" according to independent testing” MiniMax M2.5 · negative prompt · soft negative
“Choose Semrush if you want one platform for SEO + AI visibility.” GPT-5.4 mini · comparative prompt · first choice
“Top Recommendation: Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit” MiniMax M2.5 · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Leverage existing, trusted suites first: Established SEO platforms (like Semrush, Ahrefs, or Google Search Console) have added AI Overview and citation monitoring features” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · alternative
Also compared

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.