Profound vs Scrunch vs Goodie: Comparing AI Visibility Tools When Only Two Publish a Price

You're trying to pick an AI visibility tool, and you've landed on three names that keep showing up at the top end of the category: Profound, Scrunch, and Goodie. The natural move is to build a price comparison table and go from there. That move breaks on the first row, because Profound has no base price to put in it. As of 2 October 2026, its pricing page offers exactly two options: a free trial, and a custom Enterprise quote. No Starter tier, no Pro tier, no number you can drop into a budget spreadsheet before a call. (Its agency toggle does list add-ons, such as a client workspace at +$399/mo, but no platform fee to add them to.)

Scrunch and Goodie don't have that problem. Both publish real tiers, real dollar figures, and real included usage, confirmed directly on their own pricing pages. So the comparison most readers expect, a clean three-way price table, is actually a two-way price table with Profound standing outside it. That's not a flaw in this article. It's the first real fact about this market. Two ownership facts also matter for a buyer in late 2026: Scrunch is now owned by Sitecore (announced 3 June 2026; Sitecore did not disclose terms, and Bloomberg's reported figure of about $225M is unconfirmed), and Profound announced a $180M Series D at a $1.8B valuation on 15 September 2026, according to its own newsroom.

The second fact matters just as much: Profound isn't the same kind of product it used to be. It spent 2026 turning into what it calls an "AI Marketer," an agent that researches, drafts, reports, and corrects, built on visibility data rather than presented as a dashboard you read. Comparing that to Scrunch's and Goodie's tracking features line by line, as if all three were the same kind of software, starts from a wrong premise. Here's how to make it right.

TL;DR

The Real Split: One Price You Can't See, Two You Can

This is the spine of the whole comparison, so it's worth stating plainly before anything else: Profound cannot be priced against Scrunch or Goodie, because Profound has no published price to price against. Scrunch and Goodie can be priced against each other directly, because both show real numbers for real tiers.

A word on confidence, since not every figure above carries the same weight. Scrunch's Starter price is confirmed in the page's own rendered markup, and its Growth price ($500/mo, $417/mo annual) came back the same way on a fresh fetch, matching our wider AEO tools roundup. But the page is not identical everywhere: in some regions it shows a single Core plan at $250/mo (125 prompts, 5,000 responses, 4 engines, 5 seats, 7-day trial) plus a custom Enterprise tier, and we could not tell whether that is region or an A/B test. Check your own region. Goodie's Core and Pro prices are annual-billing rates; billed monthly, they are $478.80 and $1,198.80. Profound's missing base price isn't a confidence gap. It's a design choice: every path past the trial routes into a form, not a number.

That split changes what question you're actually answering. With Scrunch and Goodie, you're comparing two prices and two feature sets. With Profound, you're deciding whether an unpriced agent is worth negotiating for, which is a different kind of decision than a line-item budget comparison, and the rest of this article treats it that way.

What Each Tool Actually Is in Late 2026

The easy version of this article would benchmark all three on tracking depth: how many prompts, how many engines, how fast the dashboard updates. That version was accurate a year ago. It isn't now, because one of these three products changed what it does.

Profound's own homepage states the shift directly: "Meet your AI Marketer: Research, write, report, and collaborate with a superintelligent teammate who knows your brand." That's not marketing gloss over the same old tracker. The product surface backs it up: an AI Marketer agent, Answer Engine Insights for tracking mentions, reusable workflow Agents, Agent Analytics for traffic attribution, Prompt Volumes for analyzing what people ask AI engines, and a Context Manager that stores brand knowledge for the agent to draw on. Tracking is still in there. It's no longer the product.

Why Ranking Profound on Tracking Features Alone Is a Mistake

A scorecard that ranks Profound, Scrunch, and Goodie on prompt volume, engine count, and dashboard refresh rate will make Profound look thin, because that's not what most of its product does anymore. That's the category error worth naming before you decide anything based on a scorecard like that one.

Three of seven listed capabilities are tracking. Four are agent infrastructure, drafting, or active correction. A fair comparison has to weigh Profound against what it's actually selling: an agent with tracking data underneath it, not a tracker with extra buttons. That reframes the real question from "which tool tracks the most" to "do you want an agent doing research and drafting work, or a dashboard you and your team read yourselves."

Scrunch: The Purer Monitoring Platform

Of the three, Scrunch is the one that stayed a tracker. It added a genuinely useful technical feature on top, but it never pivoted into a writing or agent product the way Profound and Goodie both did, which makes it the cleanest "just monitoring, done well" option in this comparison.

Additional seats can be added at $25/mo per seat (or 5 for $75 on some regional layouts).

On the US-served layout, every tier tracks the same engine list: ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity, Google AI Mode and AI Overviews, and Meta, a broader default spread than most of the category gives at an entry price. (The Vietnam-served Core plan lists 4 engines: ChatGPT, Perplexity, AI Overviews, and Copilot.) Scrunch's old domain, scrunchai.com, now redirects to scrunch.com, worth knowing if you're linking to it, and Scrunch is now owned by Sitecore, which is connecting its answer-engine insights to its CMS, DAM, and marketing tools. The vendor claims more than 500 companies and agencies as customers, naming Lenovo, Skims, and Crunchbase. That's a vendor claim with no published methodology behind the count, so treat it as marketing, not an audited figure, even though the named logos are a real signal of enterprise traction.

The one feature that takes Scrunch slightly past pure monitoring is its Agent Experience Platform, which serves a separate, lightweight, machine-readable version of your site built for how LLMs parse pages. That's a real technical change, not a report telling you to go make one yourself. But it's not content production. Scrunch doesn't draft blog posts or marketing copy the way Profound's AI Marketer or Goodie's AEO Writer do; it changes how machines read what you already have, rather than writing anything new. That's why Scrunch, not Profound or Goodie, is the purer tracker of the three: its one "action" feature is infrastructure, not authorship.

Goodie: Monitoring Plus Production

Goodie is the vendor in this comparison closest to doing what Profound now does, and that's the more useful pairing to understand than Profound versus Scrunch.

Core is brand-level tracking only. SKU-level tracking is available on Pro and Enterprise only.

Every plan bundles Prompt Research, Visibility Monitoring, Optimization Actions, and Analytics & Attribution. The piece that matters most here is the AEO Writer inside Goodie's Content Studio, which drafts AI-optimized content directly from the visibility gaps monitoring finds. The second is Brand Command, built around the same problem Profound's FactCheck Agent targets: knowing when an AI assistant says something wrong about your brand before a customer repeats it back to you.

Worth stating plainly: a good amount of third-party coverage still calls Goodie fully demo-gated with no published price. That's wrong as of 2 October 2026. Core and Pro both show real numbers, though Pro's button reads "Get a demo" rather than checkout. Only Enterprise, on either side, is fully quote-only.

Goodie's marketing also leans on named customer case studies with specific numbers attached, and those numbers deserve a clear label. Here's what the vendor states on its own site, with no third party involved in measuring any of it:

These are vendor-published case studies from Goodie, the company selling the tool said to have produced the results. Treat every number as a claim from an interested party, not an independently audited outcome. That's a real signal something worked for those specific customers, but it's not a basis for budgeting your own expected results.

Goodie vs Profound: The Comparison That Actually Fits

Here's the insight that should drive your decision more than price: Goodie and Profound are the same kind of purchase, and Scrunch is a different one. Both pair monitoring with a tool that acts on what it finds: drafting content, correcting misinformation, or both. Scrunch fixes a technical layer but doesn't write anything for you to publish. The real matchup here is Goodie against Profound, not either against Scrunch.

The honest read: Goodie gives you Profound's two headline acting capabilities, content drafting and misinformation correction, at a price you can see today. Profound gives you a broader agent platform (workflow automation, traffic attribution, a knowledge-management layer for the agent) that Goodie doesn't attempt to match, but you pay for that breadth with an undefined number and an Enterprise sales process. If your need is simply correcting what AI says about you and closing visibility gaps with drafted content, Goodie answers that today. If you want a general-purpose agent platform with workflow automation and attribution built in, Profound reaches further, at a cost it won't disclose until you're in a room with its sales team.

What You Give Up by Staying With a Pure Tracker

Scrunch not doing content production or correction isn't a flaw. It's a legitimate, narrower scope that some buyers actively prefer, because a dedicated tracker with no writing tool attached is a simpler thing to evaluate, staff, and budget.

A team that already has a content function, or doesn't want monitoring and production coupled together, gets a cleaner tool in Scrunch. A team that wants one subscription to both see the problem and fix it gets that from Goodie today, or from Profound if it's willing to negotiate.

How to Evaluate Profound Against Two Vendors Who Publish Real Numbers

Since you can't put Profound in a price table, judge it fairly by walking into its sales call with the same specificity Scrunch's and Goodie's pricing pages already give for free. Ask these questions, and compare the answers against the published tiers above, not a vague sense of what "enterprise AI software" usually costs.

Walking into that call with Scrunch's and Goodie's numbers already in hand gives you real leverage, even if you never intend to switch. Both sales teams know you could create a self-serve account elsewhere in less time than the call takes.

A Few Dimensions the Tables Above Don't Cover

Honest Wins and Honest Limits

No tool in this comparison wins everywhere, and each one has a real weakness worth naming before you buy.

Decision Framework

What to Do Next

Before you take a Profound demo call, write down your real workload: prompts you'd track monthly, which answer engines your buyers actually use, whether you want content drafted or just flagged, and whether brand-accuracy correction is a need today or a nice-to-have. Take Scrunch's and Goodie's published numbers into that call as your anchor, and run the questions above before anyone quotes you a figure you can't check.

If you're still deciding whether AI visibility tracking belongs in your existing marketing stack, our guide to measuring AI visibility covers the metrics worth tracking regardless of which of these three you pick. Our AI brand monitoring roundup goes deeper on how Profound's FactCheck Agent and Goodie's Brand Command compare against other accuracy-focused tools. For the full 12-vendor view, see our AEO tools roundup, and for the broader "watch versus act" framework this article leans on, our GEO tools comparison covers the whole category. Each of the three has a dedicated alternatives guide too: best Profound alternatives, best Scrunch alternatives (Scrunch is now owned by Sitecore) and best Goodie alternatives, if none of them turns out to be the right fit.

One last distinction: everything above is a software subscription you monitor or act through yourself. If you're also being pitched paid placement into third-party articles, that's a different purchase, covered separately in Noble vs Anchorial. Don't let a placement pitch get compared against any of the three tools here; they're not solving the same problem.

If your shortlist doesn't match this trio, pick the head-to-head that does: Profound vs Peec AI is the two-way version, with Peec AI's published ladder as the benchmark and a call script for Profound's quote, AthenaHQ vs Profound vs Peec AI adds AthenaHQ's free, credit-based tier, and Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit vs Profound vs HubSpot AEO compares Profound with a per-domain toolkit from Semrush (now part of Adobe) and HubSpot's standalone beta.