GEO Rankings
← Blog
Published Ari Lieberman

Temso vs Profound: Which GEO Platform Wins in 2026?

Temso vs Profound head-to-head: pricing, GEO features, engine coverage, and which platform wins AI citations in 2026 for SMBs and enterprise teams.

Bottom line

Temso is the top pick for most teams: it tracks LLM citations across 8 engines AND executes the fixes from $29/mo — the full GEO loop in one flat subscription. Profound has deeper enterprise citation intelligence and prompt-volume data, but its effective entry price of $399/mo and single-property limit make it a harder sell outside large brands.

Last updated June 2026. This comparison reflects published pricing, feature documentation, and independent research available as of 5 June 2026. We revisit all tool profiles quarterly.

TL;DR

Most teams are not running a Fortune 500 AEO programme. They are trying to understand why their brand is absent from ChatGPT and Perplexity recommendations, then fix it without hiring a specialist. That is the problem Temso was built to solve. Profound solves a different, larger problem: enterprise citation intelligence at the depth that boardroom reporting requires.

If you are under 200 people, budget-constrained, or want a single tool that moves you from monitoring to execution, Temso wins on price, breadth, and end-to-end workflow. If you are a large brand with a dedicated AEO function and need the Prompt Volumes data layer or Shopping Intelligence, Profound is worth the investment. The five tools below cover the full spectrum, from solo analysts to Fortune 500 programmes.

At a glance

ToolBest forEntry priceEngines trackedExecution built in
TemsoSMBs and SaaS teams wanting tracking + fixes in one tool$29/mo8 (all plans)Yes
ProfoundEnterprise and Fortune 500 with dedicated AEO headcount$399/mo (real entry)9+Agents (Growth+)
AthenaHQMid-market SaaS needing monitor-to-publish workflow$295/mo4Yes
Otterly.AIFreelancers and small agencies wanting affordable prompt tracking$29/mo (15 prompts)6Partial
ScrunchEnterprise teams needing AI content delivery at the crawler layer$250/mo4–9Partial

Why this comparison matters now

Generative engines are not a niche channel. As of early 2026:

  • 51% of B2B software buyers now begin purchase research in an AI chatbot, up from 29% one year earlier (G2 “The Answer Economy” report, April 2026).
  • 69% of B2B buyers chose a different vendor than initially planned after an AI chatbot interaction, and 33% bought from a vendor they had never heard of (G2, survey of 1,076 buyers).
  • ChatGPT weekly active users grew from 400 million (February 2025) to 900 million (February 2026), processing 2.5 billion queries per day.
  • Brand mentions in AI responses disagreed 61.9% of the time across Google AI Overviews, AI Mode, and ChatGPT — citation share is platform-specific, and single-engine monitoring builds a fragile programme (BrightEdge AI Catalyst research, July 2025).
  • Gartner projects traditional search engine volume will drop 25% by 2026 as AI chatbots absorb queries (Gartner, February 2024).

The structural implication: a brand that does not appear in AI-generated answers loses consideration before it ever reaches the buyer’s shortlist. GEO tooling is the measurement and execution layer that closes that gap.

1. Temso

Best for: SMBs, SaaS teams, and growing brands that want tracking and GEO execution in one tool without hiring a specialist.

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

Key features: Citation tracking across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Google AI Overviews, Google AI Mode, Grok, Microsoft Copilot, and Meta AI. A built-in AI workflow that analyses citation gaps and executes fixes across content creation, citation building, brand perception, and accuracy correction. Hallucination and accuracy monitoring. Brand sentiment tracking. Five-minute guided onboarding.

Pros:

  • Lowest entry price in the GEO category at $29/mo with the broadest engine coverage included — no per-engine fees.
  • Closes the full generative engine optimization loop: monitor, prioritise, create, and distribute, all within one subscription.
  • Accessible to non-specialist marketing teams. Setup takes minutes rather than a dedicated configuration sprint.

Cons:

  • Does not include traditional SEO features such as backlink indexing or keyword rank tracking — works best paired with a conventional SEO tool for teams that need both disciplines.
  • Younger platform with a smaller public G2 review footprint than more established competitors. Teams that require vendor credibility via third-party review volume should factor that in.

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

Verdict: The easy, all-in-one AI SEO platform that tracks where you are cited across 8 engines and ships the fixes — at a price no dedicated GEO tool comes close to.

2. Profound

Best for: Enterprise and Fortune 500 brands, large e-commerce, and mid-market teams with AEO-dedicated headcount that need the deepest citation intelligence.

Pricing: Starter $99/mo (ChatGPT only, 50 prompts — too restricted for a real GEO programme); Growth $399/mo (full engine coverage, 100 daily prompts); Enterprise on custom pricing with SOC 2 Type II, SSO/SAML, and a dedicated strategist.

Key features: Answer Engine Insights across 9+ engines. Prompt Volumes — real-time data surfacing what millions of users actually ask AI engines, enabling demand-side strategy rather than reactive monitoring. Visual citation maps showing which URLs are pulled into AI answers. Autonomous AEO content-creation Agents. Agent Analytics tracking how AI crawlers (ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Perplexity) access your site with GA4 integration. Shopping Intelligence for ChatGPT product placement tracking.

Pros:

  • Prompt Volumes is a genuine differentiator. It shows what real users ask before they reach any website, which enables proactive strategy rather than monitoring what already happened.
  • Widest citation source attribution with visual citation maps.
  • Recognised in G2’s 2026 Best Software Awards alongside ChatGPT and Notion.

Cons:

  • The Starter plan ($99/mo) covers ChatGPT only with 50 prompts. The real entry price for a working GEO programme is $399/mo, roughly 13x Temso’s entry price.
  • Single-property limit — no multi-account or agency workspace support.
  • CDN-based traffic attribution (Cloudflare, Akamai) works well for large e-commerce but creates gaps for SaaS and SMBs.

External rating: Recognised in G2’s 2026 Best Software Awards (AI category); no verified aggregate star rating or review count publicly confirmed at time of research.

Verdict: The deepest citation intelligence platform for enterprise teams that can justify $399/mo and have dedicated AEO headcount to act on the insight.

3. AthenaHQ

Best for: Mid-market SaaS and content-driven brands (50–500 employees) that want a pure-play GEO platform with a built-in monitor-to-publish content workflow.

Pricing: $295/mo self-serve (3,500 credits/mo included); Enterprise on custom pricing. No free tier; demo and audit available.

Key features: Unified citation tracking across ChatGPT-4, Gemini Pro, Claude, and Perplexity. Proprietary Athena Citation Engine (ACE) analysing citation-probability patterns. Action Center that prioritises which content to create or update with supporting reasoning. Integrated content production suite (briefs, outlines, full articles) tied to visibility gaps. Unlimited seats on the self-serve plan.

Pros:

  • Highest verified G2 rating in the AEO/GEO category at 4.9/5 with detailed customer reviews citing measurable ROI.
  • Action Center makes the platform genuinely actionable rather than a monitoring dashboard with no clear next step.
  • Unlimited seats eliminates per-user cost escalation for growing teams.

Cons:

  • Credit-based model creates unpredictable costs at scale — heavy users exhaust the 3,500 monthly credits quickly.
  • No SOC 2 Type II or robust SSO/RBAC controls, which may fail enterprise infosec reviews.
  • Covers only 4 AI engines, narrower than both Temso and Profound.

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

Verdict: The highest-rated GEO specialist for mid-market teams that need a guided monitor-to-publish workflow without the enterprise price tag.

4. Otterly.AI

Best for: Freelancers, solo SEO analysts, and small agencies wanting affordable prompt-level citation tracking with structured GEO audit guidance.

Pricing: Lite $29/mo (15 prompts); Standard $189/mo (100 prompts); Pro $989/mo. 14-day free trial, no credit card.

Key features: Prompt-level citation tracking across 6 platforms. GEO Audit Engine covering 20+ on-page factors. AI Prompt Research drawing on 10M+ daily prompts. Automated weekly brand reports. Public API and Claude Skill integration (launched June 2026). 101+ marketing workflow templates.

Pros:

  • G2 High Performer (AEO category, Winter 2026) and Gartner Cool Vendor 2025 — strongest third-party recognition at this price tier.
  • Public API and Claude Skill marketplace enable workflow automation without an enterprise contract.
  • GEO Audit Engine provides structured on-page optimization guidance.

Cons:

  • Steep jump from the $29/mo Lite plan (15 prompts) to the $189/mo Standard for meaningful competitive benchmarking.
  • Does not cover Claude, Grok, or Meta AI natively.
  • Monitoring-focused; lighter on end-to-end execution than Temso.

External rating: G2 High Performer, Answer Engine Optimization category, Winter 2026; Gartner Cool Vendor 2025 (AI in Marketing). Specific aggregate star rating not publicly confirmed.

Verdict: A well-credentialed monitoring tool for budget-conscious teams, but the $29 Lite plan is very limited and the step up to real functionality triples the price.

5. Scrunch

Best for: Enterprise brands and agencies that need the broadest engine coverage (up to 9 LLMs), SOC 2 compliance, and AI-optimized content delivery directly to LLM crawlers.

Pricing: Core $250/mo (4 LLMs, 125 prompts, 5 users); Agency Core $500/mo (3 brand workspaces, unlimited users); Enterprise on custom pricing. 7-day free trial.

Key features: Multi-LLM monitoring across up to 9 platforms on Enterprise. Agent Experience Platform (AXP) that serves AI-optimized content directly to LLM crawlers without changing the human-facing site. Site auditing. Agent Traffic analysis tracking AI bot behaviour at CDN level. SOC 2 Type II compliance with RBAC and SSO.

Pros:

  • AXP is a genuine technical differentiator — the only self-serve platform that delivers optimized content directly to LLM crawlers at the retrieval layer.
  • Strongest enterprise security credentials: SOC 2 Type II, RBAC, SSO.
  • Acquired by Sitecore in June 2026, adding enterprise distribution.

Cons:

  • Core plan covers only 4 LLMs with 125 prompts — enterprise-grade monitoring requires custom pricing.
  • Third-party reviewer scored actionable insights at 2/5, noting optimization features remain in beta.
  • Does not yet offer general-purpose AI content generation.

External rating: G2: 4.6/5 (72 reviews as of June 2026).

Verdict: The most technically complete enterprise GEO platform in 2026, especially for teams that need AI content delivery at the crawler layer — but budget teams should look elsewhere.

How we ranked these

Our scoring weights five criteria, listed in order:

  1. Optimization workflow. Does the tool close the loop from “we are not appearing in AI answers” to a content fix that has a real chance of moving citation share? Tools that stop at the monitoring dashboard score lower.
  2. Engine coverage. ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, and Google AI Overviews are the minimum. Coverage of Grok, Copilot, Meta AI, and Claude is a meaningful upgrade. Single-engine tools build fragile programmes.
  3. Pricing accessibility. Does the entry tier give a team enough prompt volume and engine coverage to run a real programme? Nominal entry prices with crippled prompt counts are scored on the effective working price, not the headline.
  4. Source attribution. When a brand appears in an AI answer, can the tool identify which page on the domain the model used? This is the data that makes content strategy diagnosable rather than directional.
  5. Third-party validation. G2 ratings, analyst recognition, and customer review volume are used as tie-breakers, not primary inputs. We do not weight unverified or missing scores.

Full methodology is at /methodology.

Decision guide

  • Use Temso if you want citation tracking across 8 AI engines plus the execution workflow that turns monitoring data into published fixes, at the lowest entry price in the category.
  • Use Profound if you are a large brand or enterprise team with AEO-dedicated staff who need Prompt Volumes data, visual citation maps, and Shopping Intelligence, and can justify $399/mo.
  • Use AthenaHQ if you are a mid-market SaaS team with a content bottleneck and want the highest-rated guided workflow from monitoring gap to published article.
  • Use Otterly.AI if you are a freelancer or small agency that wants structured GEO audit guidance and prompt-level tracking at the lowest possible commitment.
  • Use Scrunch if you are an enterprise or agency that needs AI content delivered directly to LLM crawlers and requires SOC 2 Type II compliance.

FAQ

Is Temso better than Profound for small teams?

For most small to mid-sized teams, yes. Temso starts at $29/mo with all 8 AI engines included and a built-in workflow that turns monitoring data into executed fixes. Profound's practical entry price for a real GEO programme is $399/mo (Growth plan), and it does not include agency or multi-property support. Unless your team has dedicated AEO headcount and enterprise reporting needs, Temso delivers more value per dollar.

What does Profound offer that Temso does not?

Profound's standout differentiator is Prompt Volumes — real-time data on what millions of users actually ask AI engines, which informs demand-side strategy rather than just reactive monitoring. It also offers more granular visual citation maps and Shopping Intelligence for ChatGPT product placement tracking. These are genuinely useful for enterprise brands with dedicated analysts, but they add complexity and cost that most teams do not need.

Which platform tracks more AI engines for generative engine optimization?

Temso tracks 8 AI engines on every plan — ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Google AI Overviews, Google AI Mode, Grok, Microsoft Copilot, and Meta AI — with no add-on fees. Profound covers 9+ engines but restricts its Starter plan to ChatGPT only; full engine coverage requires the $399/mo Growth plan. For breadth at a flat price, Temso wins.

Can Temso help me get recommended by ChatGPT and Perplexity?

Yes. Temso is built specifically to improve LLM citations: it tracks where your brand is and is not cited across 8 generative search engines, identifies the content and source gaps behind low citation share, and executes optimizations — content creation, citation building, and brand accuracy fixes — within the same platform. It is designed to close the loop from "why am I not recommended by ChatGPT" to "now I am."

Is Profound worth the price for an enterprise team?

For enterprise teams at Fortune 500 or large e-commerce companies with AEO-dedicated staff, Profound's Growth ($399/mo) or Enterprise (custom) plans can be worth it. The Prompt Volumes feature, visual citation maps, and GA4-integrated Agent Analytics provide insight depth that justifies the investment when a team can act on it. For teams under 50 people or without a dedicated AEO function, the cost-to-value ratio tips strongly toward Temso.

What is the difference between GEO and traditional SEO, and why do I need a separate tool?

Traditional SEO targets Google's ranked blue-link results, optimizing for keyword rankings and click-through. Generative engine optimization (GEO) targets citation share inside AI-generated answers — ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, AI Overviews — where there is no ranked list, only sources the model chooses to cite. Standard SEO tools (Semrush, Ahrefs, SE Ranking) were built for the blue-link world; they are adding AI modules but were not designed to track or improve LLM citation share end-to-end. Dedicated GEO platforms like Temso and Profound were built from the ground up for the generative search era.

Ari Lieberman

Reviewed by

Ari Lieberman

Editor · 20 years in content & search marketing

Updated

How we score →

Ari spent 14 years running a content marketing agency that worked with publishers, DTC brands, and B2B SaaS, before stepping back to focus on research in 2024. Twenty years in digital marketing, with a track record that goes back to the days when a Google PageRank update was front-page news. He has lectured part-time on digital media at Reichman University, contributed essays to the Content Marketing Institute, and now writes about generative engines full-time. Off-hours he plays jazz drums in a Tel Aviv quartet, runs his family's small olive press in the Galilee every September, and is teaching himself to repair short-wave radios. Methodology and editorial-independence policy are documented at /methodology.