Every price and limit attributed to another vendor below was read from that vendor's own public pricing page on 11 August 2026, and each is linked so you can check it yourself. Pricing in this category changes often. If you are reading this well after that date, treat the figures as a starting point and verify before deciding. Re-check competitor pricing quarterly, or whenever a vendor announces a pricing change.
What each publishes
Profound publishes three tiers on its pricing page. As read on 11 August 2026: Starter at $99 per month billed yearly, covering ChatGPT only, 50 tracked prompts and 100 Agents credits per month. Growth at $399 per month billed yearly, covering 3 answer engines, 100 tracked prompts and 400 Agents credits. Enterprise at custom pricing, stating up to 9 answer engines, multiple companies, tailored prompt tracking, dedicated Slack support, and SSO/SAML with SOC 2.
IndexHalo publishes IndexHalo Professional at EUR 79 per month and IndexHalo Agency at EUR 299 per month, with Enterprise arranged directly. The published limits are domain counts, crawled pages per month, OCR documents per month, crawl depth and snapshot history rather than prompt counts, which reflects the different unit of work: Profound meters prompts tracked, IndexHalo meters pages and documents analysed.
A note on currency. IndexHalo prices in euro and the vendors below price in US dollars. The comparisons here do not convert between them, because the rate moves and a converted figure would be wrong by the time you read it. Compare the number against your own budget in your own currency.
What each product measures
This is the substantive difference and it matters more than price.
Profound's published description centres on prompt-level analysis: which questions trigger a mention of your brand, across which engines, and how that changes. That is the visibility question, and for a brand that already publishes strong content it is often the more immediately useful one.
IndexHalo starts one step earlier. It crawls the site, resolves fifteen AI user-agents against the live robots policy, analyses pages and documents — including scanned PDFs through OCR — for extractability, answer-capsule structure, claim provenance and citation readiness, and then monitors answer engines on top of that. The premise is that a visibility number without a diagnosis leaves you knowing you have a problem and not what to change.
Neither framing is universally correct. If your content is already well structured and well sourced, the diagnostic layer will tell you less. If you have never checked whether AI crawlers can reach your pages at all, a visibility dashboard will report a low number without explaining the cause.
Where Profound is the better choice
Three cases, stated plainly.
You need published compliance commitments. Profound states SSO/SAML and SOC 2 at its Enterprise tier on a public page. If procurement needs to see that before a first call, that is a real advantage and IndexHalo does not currently match it publicly.
You want the largest published engine count. Profound states up to 9 answer engines at Enterprise. If breadth of coverage is your primary criterion, that is the higher published number.
You are an enterprise marketing team buying a category leader. Profound raised a well-publicised Series B and is widely deployed. For organisations where vendor scale is itself part of the decision, that is a legitimate factor and we are not going to pretend otherwise.
Where IndexHalo differs
Document and unpublished-content analysis. IndexHalo analyses uploaded documents, including image-only scanned PDFs via OCR, so a report can be checked before it is published. We could not find an equivalent capability described on Profound's public pages, and we are not claiming it does not exist — only that we did not find it stated.
Crawler access resolution. IndexHalo resolves fifteen named AI user-agents against a site's live robots.txt and reports which rule decided each verdict. This is also available free and without signup in our AI crawler access checker.
Evidence classing. Every IndexHalo finding is labelled as measured, observed at a timestamp, modelled, or unknown, and any metric drills back to the raw archived answer that produced it. We think this should be table stakes across the category rather than a differentiator.
How to settle this without trusting either of us
A vendor comparison page is the weakest possible basis for a purchase decision, including this one. Here is a trial protocol that will tell you more in a fortnight than any amount of reading.
Build one fixed set of twenty questions your buyers would genuinely type, and run the identical set through both products. Do not let either vendor supply the questions; a query set chosen by the vendor will flatter the vendor. Then compare four things. Do the two tools agree on whether you were cited? Where they disagree, can each show you the raw archived answer that produced its verdict? Does either report a confidence interval alongside its percentages, or only a point estimate? And run the same set twice a day apart — how much does each tool's number move when nothing about your site has changed?
That last test is the one most buyers skip and the one that separates measurement from decoration. These systems are non-deterministic, so some movement is expected. A tool whose headline number swings wildly between identical runs is sampling too thinly to detect the changes you actually care about, and one that never moves at all may be caching more aggressively than it admits.
Free tools with no signup. The crawler checker, llms.txt generator and robots policy builder are unmetered and require no account.
What we could not verify
We read Profound's public pricing page. We did not run a paid trial of Profound, and we have not independently tested its measurement methodology, sampling rates, or whether its reported figures carry confidence intervals. Nothing on this page should be read as a claim about the quality or accuracy of its measurements, because we have not measured them.
If you are evaluating both, the test we would suggest applying to either product is the same one from our tool selection guide: pick any headline number and try to drill from it back to the exact archived response, with its query, engine and timestamp. That test is more informative than any comparison page, including this one.
IndexHalo published this page, and IndexHalo is one of the products being compared. Read it with that in mind. We have tried to make it useful by linking every competitor claim to its source, stating plainly where a competitor is the better choice, and describing what we could not verify rather than filling the gap with a guess. If you find something here that is out of date or wrong, tell us and we will correct it.
Primary references
Common questions
What is the main difference?+
Scope. Profound is an answer-engine visibility platform, focused on tracking how a brand appears across AI engines. IndexHalo does that monitoring too, but its starting point is page-level and document-level analysis: whether crawlers can reach your content, whether passages are extractable, and whether claims are attributable. If you want to know why you are not cited rather than only that you are not, that is the difference.
Which is cheaper?+
It depends on the tier and the currency. Profound's published entry plan is $99 per month billed yearly, tracking ChatGPT only with 50 prompts. IndexHalo Professional is EUR 79 per month. We do not convert between currencies here because the rate moves; compare each against your own budget.
Does Profound cover more engines?+
At the higher tiers, yes on the published numbers. Profound's Enterprise tier states up to 9 answer engines, and its Growth tier states 3. Engine count is a weak decision criterion on its own — coverage of the engines your buyers actually use matters more than the total.
Which should an enterprise choose?+
If your requirement list includes SSO/SAML and SOC 2, Profound publishes both at its Enterprise tier and that is a concrete, checkable advantage. IndexHalo Enterprise is arranged directly and its governance terms are agreed during onboarding rather than published, so if you need to see compliance commitments on a public page before starting a conversation, Profound is the easier path.
Can I use both?+
Yes, and some teams reasonably would. They answer different questions: one tells you where you stand in AI answers, the other tells you what about your content is preventing you from standing higher. The overlap is real but partial.