Scrunch alternatives for enterprise or for better reporting: its own matrix answers both with a column of dashes, and it names its identity protocols where this category writes a phrase

Scrunch publishes the clearest Enterprise wall in this category, and it publishes it honestly, as a column of dashes on its own comparison matrix. Read on 21 October 2026, on the plan a buyer can purchase, Looker Studio access, query API access, MCP access, CLI access, the agent experience platform and product observability are each a dash. Query fan out reads Limited and content generation reads Basic. Five of its nine engines, Claude and Gemini among them, arrive only on Enterprise.

So the enterprise question and the reporting question have the same answer at Scrunch, and it is the same tier. That makes this one page rather than two, and it makes the useful comparison narrow: which rival puts identity, data egress and the wide engine list below a sales call.

One Scrunch line is better than anybody else's here and it should be said before the alternatives. On identity it publishes SSO as SAML and OIDC, naming the protocols. Everybody else in this set, with one exception, writes some version of the phrase single sign on and leaves the standard to the call. We sell a tracker and we publish no single sign on at all, so our row below is the worst in the table.

The criterion: what the plan you can buy is missing, and who gives it to you sooner

One criterion: on the cheapest buyable plan, which of identity, scheduled data egress and the full engine list is present. Read 21 October 2026, two agents each, bodies saved.

cheapest buyable plan, read 21 Oct 2026	identity	scheduled data egress	engines
Scrunch Core	absent, SAML and OIDC are on Enterprise	absent, query API, MCP, CLI and Looker Studio all on Enterprise	4 of its 9
Rankscale, lowest monthly plan	absent, SSO is on its custom plan	Looker Studio and dashboards included, REST API on the second plan	its full published list
Otterly.AI Lite	absent, SSO is on Enterprise	export included, API and MCP with published caps on the second tier	4 included, 3 as add ons
Peec AI Starter	absent, SSO is on the annual tier	absent, Looker Studio on the third tier and the API on the fourth	3 of up to 13
Depra AI Starter	not published on any plan	CSV and a read only MCP server, on every plan	4 of 4, with the rest as Enterprise add ons
Profound Trial	absent, SSO and SAML are on Enterprise, with SOC 2	absent, history, exports and API each read None	3 of up to 9
AI Knows Us, ours	not published on any plan	an export on every plan, a Visibility API on two of them	all 5 surfaces we name

On that criterion Rankscale is first, and the reason is that it moves two of the three columns below the sales call: the full engine list on its cheapest monthly plan and a REST API one plan up. Depra is first on the egress column alone, publishing CSV and a read only MCP server on its lowest plan, which means the data is reachable from a terminal without a tier change.

Nobody in this table, including us, publishes identity on a plan you can buy. Single sign on is an Enterprise artefact across this whole category, which is worth knowing before you build a shortlist around it: the question is not which vendor has it but which vendor names the protocol, and on that there are two answers, Scrunch and Profound.

Our own row fails identity outright and we are saying so rather than steering around it. Our pricing page publishes no single sign on anywhere, and the string SSO sits in its script payload where a text search finds it and a reader does not. Five of the six vendors above are ahead of us on that line and the sixth, Depra, is level with us.

Two zeros and a one, which is the whole engine evidence

Our standing dataset is 1,260 readings from ChatGPT and Gemini across the United States, the United Kingdom and India; 718 name at least one tracked vendor. Scrunch is named in 18 of those 718. Of those 18, one names it in a question about an enterprise or a large organisation, and none names it in a question about a report, a dashboard, an export or a stakeholder. The single enterprise reading produced no numbered list, so there is no ranking to report from it at all.

Those figures are published at their size because the alternative is to widen the definition until a number appears, and a reason group that stretches to fit becomes whatever the writer needed. What the data does support is the general shape: Scrunch is named rarely, and when it is named, Peec appears alongside it in 55.6% of readings against Peec's own base rate of 25.2%, the highest co-naming ratio between any two vendors in this set. Our own name appeared in none of the 1,260.

Which alternative answers which part of the wall

• You need Gemini and Claude without a quote. Rankscale publishes its whole engine list on every plan from the cheapest up. Depra publishes four engines on every plan with Claude and Copilot as top tier add ons. On Scrunch those five surfaces are a tier.
• The warehouse needs a scheduled pull. Rankscale publishes REST API on its second of four monthly plans and Otterly on its second of four with the monthly request caps printed, which is the only published rate limit in this set.
• Procurement wants a protocol and a certificate. Profound names SSO with SAML and SOC 2 together and quantifies support as a dedicated specialist with a 24 hour SLA, which is the fullest enterprise disclosure in this set. Scrunch names the protocols and leaves the certificate unnamed.
• The audit has to cover the whole site. Scrunch Core publishes a site map of 25 pages and complete site audits on Enterprise, so for a site of any size the audit is the second thing that pushes you up a tier after the engines.

A note on reading a dash, because it is the most honest thing on that page

A vendor that prints a dash is telling you something a vendor that omits the row is not. Scrunch's matrix has a dash against six capabilities on its buyable plan, and that is better disclosure than most of this category manages, because the alternative is a feature list that simply does not mention the capability at all. Four of the seven vendors in the table above leave at least one of these lines unstated rather than negative, which is harder to compare and easier to misread.

The same discipline applies to reading these pages mechanically. On two vendor matrices in this set, every numeric cell arrives as a zero in the first response and the real figures live on the plan cards above, so a scrape reports a product with no limits. Asking what a check would report if it were handed nothing is the habit that catches it, and a check that cannot fail reports good news about whoever ran it. 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.

Questions a larger buyer asks about Scrunch

What is behind the Scrunch Enterprise wall?

Nine engines instead of four, custom prompt and response counts, custom brand workspaces and licences, API access and integrations, SSO as SAML and OIDC, the agent experience platform, complete site audits, Looker Studio access, query API access, custom MCP access, CLI access over email and Slack, product observability and a dedicated account team.

Does Scrunch publish a compliance certification?

Not on its pricing page. Profound is the only vendor in this set that names one. Where a vendor publishes identity without a certificate, that is a question for the call rather than an answer.

Which engines does Core leave out?

Claude, Gemini, Meta AI, Google AI Mode and Grok. Core carries ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews and Copilot. For a brand whose buyers use Gemini heavily, that is the binding limit rather than the prompt count.

Why is there no reporting reading behind this page?

Because across 1,260 readings, no question naming a report, a dashboard, an export or a stakeholder produced an answer naming Scrunch. The set covers buying questions across three markets and several personas rather than oversampling one framing, and reporting is usually asked after a tool is owned.

What should an enterprise ask for in writing first?

The protocol, the certificate, the support time and the engine list, as four separate lines in the quote rather than a tier name. Two vendors in this set publish all four already, and asking the other five for them in writing is how you find out which gaps are policy and which are just an unwritten page.