Zumi vs Profound for AI Visibility Tracking

Zumi is an AI Search Intelligence Platform that tracks how a brand appears when ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude, Copilot, Grok, Google AI Overviews, Google AI Mode, or DeepSeek answers a category question.

Zumi measures AI Visibility and Citations, reports the four underlying signals separately instead of blending them into one score, and returns prioritized per-engine actions. Coverage runs up to nine engines, scoped to each engagement.

Profound describes itself as "the full stack marketing platform for the marketer of the future" (Profound, 2026), positioning AI visibility as one component of a wider marketing product.

Both platforms track AI visibility across most of the same engines and both publish tiered pricing. What separates them shows up after the trial starts, not on the pricing page.

Key takeaways

• Both platforms track AI visibility across most of the same major engines at the top of the range, so the headline engine count rarely settles the decision. The entry plans differ: Zumi's Starter covers two engines, Profound's covers one.
• Zumi is a specialist built only for AI visibility; Profound markets itself more broadly as a full marketing platform for the AI search era.
• The real differences sit in what happens after measurement: whether the platform prescribes specific fixes or stops at a report, and whether those fixes are included or paid for per use.
• Three plan mechanics separate the two more sharply than any feature does: seats, data export, and whether recommendations are metered.
• Zumi reports four descriptive signals (mention rate, share of voice, average position, citation share) instead of a single composite score.
• A short set of diligence questions, asked of both vendors, settles the comparison faster than a feature-by-feature checklist.

Zumi vs Profound at a glance

Zumi's column is drawn from published product facts. Profound's column reflects its published plans as checked in August 2026 and is worth re-verifying before a purchase decision, since vendor plan terms change. Rows marked Confirm are ones Profound does not document publicly.

What Zumi and Profound both do

Zumi and Profound both track AI visibility across ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude, Copilot, Grok, Google AI Overviews, Google AI Mode, and DeepSeek, though coverage on both platforms is scoped by plan rather than sold as a flat nine-engine bundle to every account.

Both publish self-serve tiers rather than gating every price behind a sales call. A buyer scanning the surface of either homepage sees a similar pitch: track the brand, track competitors, act on what changes.

Is Profound a specialist or a full marketing platform?

The two companies describe their own ambitions differently, and that is worth reading before comparing feature lists. Profound positions AI visibility as one part of a wider marketing product, not as the whole of it.

Zumi is an AI Search Intelligence Platform with a single job: track AI Visibility and Citations across up to nine AI engines and turn the result into a specific plan.

A brand consolidating marketing tools onto fewer vendors gets more from a platform building toward wider surface area. A team that wants the deepest tool for AI search measurement specifically gets more from the specialist.

Does the platform recommend fixes or just report the number?

Measurement and action are two different jobs, and platforms in this category split on how much of the second job they do. Some report a number and leave the interpretation to the team.

Zumi pairs its AI Visibility measurement, refreshed daily and built from mention rate, share of voice, average position, and citation share, with a Recommendations feature: prioritized, per-engine actions split into owned media (content to create) and earned media (coverage to earn).

The billing model matters as much as the feature. Profound charges recommendations against a credit balance (Profound, 2026). Zumi includes them on every plan within the tier's monthly cap, so the cost of acting on a finding is already paid before the finding arrives.

That difference compounds. A metered recommendation makes a team ration the step that actually moves the number, which is the step the platform was bought for.

Before choosing, a team should ask any vendor, Profound included, exactly what ships after the dashboard loads and what it costs to use. A number that goes down without a next step attached is not much more useful than no number at all.

What do the plan mechanics cost a team in practice?

Three plan terms decide more of the day-to-day experience than the feature lists do.

Seats: Zumi sets no per-seat limit on any plan. Profound's entry plan allows one seat and the next tier up allows three (Profound, 2026). A seat cap decides whether the analyst, the content lead, and the agency partner can all look at the same data, or whether one person screenshots it for everyone else.

Data export: Zumi allows export on every plan. Profound lists export as "None" on Starter and adds CSV and JSON from Growth upward (Profound, 2026). Without export, the measurement cannot be joined to a brand's own analytics, reported inside an existing BI stack, or kept after the subscription ends.

Both platforms publish the same two entry prices, $99 and $399 per month, and the same prompt allowances at each. Price is not the differentiator here, which is why the terms attached to it are worth reading closely.

Which platform supports multi-client agency work?

Agency support is the next place to look closely. Zumi includes multiple client workspaces and white-label reporting on every agency tier, Starter through Enterprise, not reserved for the top of the ladder, at the same price a brand pays for the same tier.

Profound's agency pricing does not mirror its brand pricing. Switching the pricing page from its default "For brands" view to "For agencies" surfaces a separate Agency Growth plan at $99 per month for 25 prompts, half the prompt allowance of Profound's own $99 Starter plan for brands (Profound, 2026). An agency comparing the two should price out its actual client roster under each vendor's agency-specific terms, not the brand-facing numbers shown by default.

An agency evaluating either platform should confirm, in writing, whether white-labeling is available at the tier it plans to buy or only at custom enterprise pricing.

Does the platform report one composite score or four signals?

The third difference is how each platform reports the measurement itself. A single composite score is easy to put in a board deck and easy to misread, since it can move for four different reasons with four different fixes.

Zumi reports the four signals directly instead of blending them into one number, on the reasoning that a team acting on the data needs to know which lever moved, not just that something did.

What are Zumi's advantages over Profound?

Five differences are settled by each vendor's own published terms, not by either company's marketing.

Same entry price, wider coverage: at $99 a month, Zumi's Starter plan tracks two engines, ChatGPT and Google AI Overviews. Profound's $99 Starter plan tracks one, ChatGPT only (Profound, 2026). A team paying the same headline price starts with double the visibility.

Recommendations included, not metered: Zumi's Recommendations feature runs inside the plan's monthly cap on every tier. Profound bills recommendations against a monthly agent-credit balance, 100 credits on Starter and 400 on Growth, charged per run by complexity (Profound, 2026). A metered fix is a fix a team has to ration.

No seat limit: Zumi puts no cap on how many people can log in, on any plan. Profound allows one seat on Starter and three on Growth (Profound, 2026), so a fourth stakeholder, an agency partner or a second analyst, needs a plan upgrade just to see the dashboard.

Export everywhere: Zumi's data can be exported on every plan. Profound lists export as "None" on Starter, adding CSV and JSON from Growth up (Profound, 2026). Without export at the entry tier, the measurement cannot be joined to a brand's existing analytics until the team upgrades.

Agency and brand pricing match: Zumi charges an agency the same $99 to $399 a month as a brand, with the same prompt allowances, and adds white-label and multi-workspace at no extra cost. Profound's agency-facing Agency Growth plan costs the same $99 a month but includes only 25 prompts (Profound, 2026), half of what a brand gets at that price.

These differences compound differently depending on the buyer. An agency serving several clients feels the seat cap and the agency-pricing gap first, since those decide how many people can work inside the tool and what it costs to serve a full roster. A brand running a single AI Visibility program feels the metered-recommendations gap first, since that is the difference between a fix that ships this week and a fix that waits for next month's credit reset.

What should a buyer ask both vendors?

Before signing with either platform, a marketing or agency team can clear up most of the comparison with a short list of questions:

• How is AI visibility actually measured, and does the platform show the four underlying signals or roll them into a single score?
• What happens after a mention rate drops: does the platform recommend a specific fix, or just flag the change?
• Is white-label reporting included at the tier being purchased, or does it require an upgrade?
• How many prompts and engines are included at that tier, and what does adding more cost?
• How does the platform handle answer variability, since a single AI query run once is a much weaker signal than the same query run repeatedly and averaged?

The decision turns on two things: how much the dashboard is expected to do beyond reporting the number, and how much agency infrastructure the plan actually needs.

The credit model is where that trade-off turns into a budget problem. An agency running several client workspaces, or a brand tracking a wide prompt set, can work through a monthly credit balance well before the month ends, then has to choose between buying more credits or leaving a known fix unaddressed. Zumi does not sell recommendations back to a team that already pays for the plan: naming the fix is the job the platform was bought to do, not a second charge on top of it.

To see how Zumi's measurement and recommendation model work together, read the AI Visibility solution page or the published pricing tiers.

Book a demo to run the comparison against a brand's own category prompts.