AI visibility tools compared: Profound, Scrunch, and BeCited (2026)
AI visibility tools split into two categories: monitors, which report where AI answers mention you (Profound, Scrunch, Otterly, Peec), and closed-loop platforms, which measure, apply fixes, and re-measure to prove the delta. BeCited is built as the second kind: audit, fix, re-audit, with a deterministic before/after score.
Disclosure: BeCited is our product. The comparison keeps to public, checkable facts; where a competitor's capability is unclear from public material, we say so instead of guessing.
Why did AI visibility monitoring get big?
Because the market moved first. Profound raised to a reported $155M valuation on the promise of tracking brand presence in AI answers; Scrunch was acquired in a deal reported at $225M (funding coverage). Category funding follows a real anxiety: B2B buying research is moving into AI chatbots, and organic click traffic to content sites has fallen sharply as answers absorb queries.
Monitoring answers the first question a CMO asks: "are we visible?" It does not answer the second: "what changed after we spent the budget?" The category has grown fast enough that the AEO tool space now has its own review coverage (market overview) and emerging-trend roundups (2026 trends).
What to look for when comparing tools:
- Engine coverage: how many answer engines are tracked, and how often.
- Determinism: are the on-page scores repeatable, or do they drift run to run.
- Fixes: does the tool only report, or does it apply the changes.
- Proof: is there a dated before/after, or just a trend chart.
What is the difference between monitoring and closing the loop?
Monitoring reports visibility; a closed loop changes it and proves the change. Closing the loop requires three connected parts: a repeatable measurement, fixes applied to the actual site and its third-party presence, and a re-measurement that attributes the delta to the work. Tools that stop at dashboards leave the fixing to you.
The distinction matters because AI answers are noisy. A single snapshot can flatter or slander any brand; only a dated, repeatable query matrix, before and after a fix cycle, separates real movement from noise. This is also the honest response to "GEO is a scam" skepticism: deterministic before/after evidence or it did not happen.
How do the tools compare?
| Capability | Monitors (Profound, Scrunch, Otterly, Peec) | BeCited |
|---|---|---|
| Answer-engine tracking | Yes, core strength; broad engine coverage | Yes, dated query matrix (beta) |
| Deterministic on-page scoring | Varies; usually secondary | Yes: CITE + SEO Health, same input, same score |
| Prioritized fixes | Recommendations vary by tool | Top-5 per track, impact-over-effort ranked |
| Applies fixes | No (dashboards + advice) | Fix list today; fix-pack and one-click PR shipping next; managed creative available |
| Proof of impact | Trend charts | Before/after delta per fix cycle, unmeasured cells always labeled |
| Entry price | Mid-market and up, typically quote-based | Free instant report; plans from $39/mo |
Two honest caveats. First, mature monitors track more engines at higher query volumes than a young product; if breadth of tracking is the whole requirement, they are strong. Second, closed-loop is only as good as the fixes; that is why ours ship as auditable artifacts (schema, citable rewrites, directory work) rather than invisible magic.
Which should you choose?
If you need enterprise-wide share-of-voice dashboards across every engine, start with a monitor. If you need your own domain to actually get cited, and evidence that the work moved the number, you need the loop closed: measure, fix, re-measure. That is the product we are building in the open; the scoring model is public on the methodology page, and the first report is free.