Profound alternatives for enterprise: one reading of our 1,260 asked this, so the answer comes from documents, and Profound alone publishes a named certification and an SLA in hours

If you are replacing Profound inside a large organisation, the first honest thing to say is that the assistants are a thin instrument for this particular decision. Of our 1,260 standing readings from ChatGPT and Gemini, exactly one asked a question naming an enterprise or a large organisation alongside Profound, and in that one reading Profound was placed first. One reading is a single observation and not a shortlist, so this page is built from what the vendors publish, which suits a procurement review better anyway: a security questionnaire runs on documents, not on a recommendation.

Read on 21 October 2026, Profound's Enterprise tier publishes four things a procurement review asks for, in its own words: SSO with SAML, SOC 2 compliance, up to 9 answer engines tracked, and support options including a dedicated specialist with a 24 hour SLA. The useful question is which rival top tier publishes the same four lines, and the answer is that none of them publishes all four.

The criterion: the four lines a security review stops on

One criterion, and it is the one that survives a questionnaire rather than a demo: is single sign on published and is its protocol named, is a compliance certification named, is support quantified in time, and how many engines does the top tier carry. All read from vendor pricing pages on 21 October 2026, two agents each, bodies saved. We sell a tracker in this category, so our own row is here and it is the weakest one in the table.

top published tier, read 21 Oct 2026	single sign on	compliance named	support quantified	engines on that tier
Profound Enterprise	yes, named as SSO and SAML	yes, SOC 2	yes, a dedicated specialist with a 24 hour SLA	up to 9, each one listed
Scrunch Enterprise	yes, named as SAML and OIDC	not named on the pricing page	a dedicated account team, no time given	9, each one listed
Otterly.AI Enterprise	yes, named as Single Sign-On	enterprise grade compliance, not named	a dedicated customer success manager, no time given	4 included on every tier, with 3 more as add ons
Peec AI Enterprise, annual	yes, named as SSO	not named on the pricing page	dedicated support, no time given	up to 13 models tracked
Rankscale, its custom plan	yes, listed on the custom plan only	not named on the pricing page	a dedicated success manager and SLA guarantees	its full published list, on every plan
AI Knows Us, ours	not published anywhere	not named on the pricing page	published per plan, with a review call on the managed tiers	all 5 surfaces we name, on the plans that carry them

On that criterion Profound is first and the margin is one column: it is the only vendor in the set that both names a certification and quantifies support in hours. Scrunch is second and it publishes the most precise identity line of anybody here, naming SAML and OIDC rather than the phrase single sign on, which is the difference between a feature and an answer to question seven of a questionnaire.

Our own row fails the first two columns outright and we are naming it rather than steering around it. There is no single sign on on our pricing page and no named certification. What we publish instead is the collection route for each of the five surfaces we name and an exportable tracking log on every plan, plus a Visibility API on the two plans that carry it. For an organisation whose identity provider is non negotiable, that is not enough, and every vendor above is ahead of us on that line.

A method note that this page is the reason for

Checking our own page for this table produced the exact trap an enterprise buyer should know about. The string SSO is present in the markup of our pricing page and renders nowhere: it sits inside the script payload, where a text search finds it and a reader never does. A raw search of that page would have reported that we publish single sign on. We do not. The same shape of error sits waiting on every modern pricing page, because a page built as an application ships its whole dictionary to the browser and renders a part of it.

So when you check any claim on this page, or any claim on a vendor's page during a procurement review, confirm the sentence renders and confirm which block it renders in. On Rankscale's comparison matrix, for instance, every numeric cell arrives as a zero in the first response and the real figures live on the plan cards above it, so a scrape of the matrix would report a product with no limits at all. The habit generalises: a check that cannot fail reports good news, and that page is one of the 1,068 of ours, 53.7% of the 1,987 in our inventory, that no stored body on this site links to.

What the one reading we have actually said

Of the 1,260 readings, one named Profound alongside an enterprise question, and Profound took first place in it. Publishing a sample of one as a sample of one is the point: it supports nothing about the market and it is still the complete record of what we measured, so it goes on the page with its size attached rather than being folded into a larger figure where nobody can see it. Across the whole set the picture is different and larger: Profound was named in 203 of the 718 readings that name any vendor, and in the 56 numbered shortlists containing it, Profound held first place 10 times against Peec's 14 and Otterly's 13.

Which alternative fits which enterprise constraint

• Identity is the blocker. Scrunch names its protocols, SAML and OIDC, which is the line an identity team can act on without a call. Profound names SAML. Rankscale puts single sign on on its custom plan rather than on any priced plan, so it becomes a negotiation.
• You need the engine list to be wide and monthly. Rankscale publishes its full engine list as included on every plan, Claude, Gemini, DeepSeek and Mistral among them, with no annual commitment. Peec publishes up to 13 models and puts them on the annual tier.
• Procurement needs a certification name. Profound is the only vendor in this set naming one on its pricing page. Where a vendor writes enterprise grade compliance without naming the standard, that is a question for the call rather than an answer.
• The data has to reach your warehouse. Profound Enterprise publishes an API, all time history and CSV and JSON exports. Scrunch Enterprise publishes query API access, Looker Studio access and a CLI, each of which is a dash on the plan you can buy today.

Questions a procurement review asks about Profound

How many engines does Profound Enterprise actually cover?

Up to nine, and it lists them: ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Mode, Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, DeepSeek, Anthropic Claude, Google AI Overviews and Exa Search. Its trial covers the first three of those only, so a pilot on the trial is not a pilot of the product you would be buying.

Does Profound publish a support SLA?

Its Enterprise support row reads as custom with options for email, a dedicated Slack channel and a dedicated specialist with a 24 hour SLA. That is the only figure in hours on any top tier in this set.

What does Profound publish about seats?

Unlimited, on both plans, and its FAQ repeats it. Seats are not a cost lever anywhere in this category now except at our end, where every plan publishes one login with full access and an export for the rest of the team.

Why is there only one reading behind the enterprise cut?

The 1,260 readings were built to cover buying questions across three markets and a range of personas rather than to oversample one segment, and enterprise phrasing is rare in the way real buyers ask. Reporting the one is better than widening the definition until the number looks respectable, which is how a reason group turns into whatever the writer needed it to be.

Which of these vendors would fail a questionnaire first?

Ours, on the identity line, and we would rather say so here than have it found in week three of an evaluation. Three of the five vendors above also leave the certification line unnamed, so that question belongs on every call rather than on one.

The thing worth taking from this page

An enterprise comparison in this category is won by whoever publishes the most of their own answers, because every unpublished line becomes a meeting. Profound publishes four of the four lines above and that is why it leads this table, even though the page you are reading is about leaving it. AI Knows Us publishes its own failures on the same criterion, including the two columns where it is last, because an evaluation that discovers them later costs everybody a month.