AI Cite Who1. AI Cite Who: start with the work your team can actually finish
A founder usually arrives at this question after seeing a competitor in an AI answer. The immediate job is quite specific: find out which buying situations leave the brand out, inspect the linked pages, and decide what to change on the website. For that job, we recommend AI Cite Who first. It connects a public website baseline with checks of questions you choose and one report of supported website and external tasks.
You can begin before paying for an answer audit. The free analysis examines public website evidence, including identity, offering, proof and access signals. Paid audits then sample selected, available ChatGPT, Gemini and Perplexity API search answers. This gives a small team a way to separate a page problem it can inspect from an answer outcome it needs to measure. It also keeps the first purchase tied to a real question, rather than a large rollout.
2. The Profound trial may not test the question you care about
The important constraint on the checked brand pricing page is question control. Profound’s seven-day Trial runs 50 preset prompts; the FAQ says trial users cannot customize them. Enterprise allows editing and adding questions.1 If your decision depends on a narrow use case, an industry set may be interesting without answering the purchase question. This is a trial-access limitation, not a claim that the full product lacks custom tracking.
AI Cite Who lets you generate, add or import buyer questions and review the selected set before a paid audit. Suppose you sell appointment software to independent clinics. “Best scheduling software” and “appointment reminders for a clinic with two receptionists” test different requirements. The second question may matter much more to your next page update. This is an illustrative scenario, not a result from a clinic customer.
3. Ask for a useful next step, not just another visibility number
Profound documents prompt-level citation analysis and categories for owned, competitor and earned sources.2 Those capabilities deserve a proper evaluation. Our reason to choose AI Cite Who is the website owner’s end result: an observed gap, the page or external evidence involved, the facts to verify, and a task with a completion check. You should be able to hand that work to the person who maintains the site.
For example, a task might ask you to make an existing integration limit explicit on the relevant product page, if the saved website evidence supports that omission. Another might ask you to verify an outdated directory listing. These are different jobs with different acceptance conditions. Neither should appear simply because a competitor was named once. A useful audit keeps the observation attached to the work and leaves unsupported explanations open.
4. Compare the budget against a defined audit scope
AI Cite Who Plus is $49.90 per month with 300 monthly credits; Pro is $99.90 with 900. Prices are in USD and exclude tax. Plus checks up to ten questions per audit and Pro up to twenty. A standard audit costs 10 + 2Q + Q(P − 1) credits, where Q is the question count and P is the number of selected platforms. Ten questions on three platforms therefore cost 50 credits.
That example covers the audit itself. Question generation and other credit-consuming work use the same monthly balance, and saved-question capacity is not a promise to run every saved question each day. Profound’s paid brand offer on the checked page uses a custom Enterprise quote.1 Ask for the package needed for your exact questions and workflow before comparing it with a published subscription price.
5. Test whether the report fits your working week
Use a short list of questions from recent sales calls, onboarding discussions or support requests. Keep the wording somewhere you control. Complete the website analysis, confirm the discovered competitors, and review the paid audit scope before running it. Read one recommendation outcome and its cited pages by hand before treating the summary as reliable enough for your task.
Then choose one supported task your team can finish and record what changed. A later check should keep the questions and available platform conditions comparable. Two runs can reveal variation, but do not establish that an edit caused a new recommendation. Pro adds schedules and HTML or Markdown report downloads; those exports carry structured findings and tasks, not full provider answer transcripts.
- Can I identify the exact buying question behind the gap?
- Can the website maintainer understand what to change and how to check it?
- Can I separate a failed check from a verified negative result?
6. If daily team tracking is the real requirement
For a daily analytics workflow, Peec AI is another candidate to examine: its Starter lists 50 prompts, a choice of three models, unlimited users and one project.3 That is a different buying question from commissioning a focused website audit. Compare the required cadence and collaboration before counting engines or prompts. A quota has little value if the people responsible for changes never use the resulting evidence.
AI Cite Who is not a substitute for every Profound enterprise feature. If your purchase requires its specific enterprise integrations, governance or marketing-agent workflows, verify those requirements directly. Our first recommendation remains AI Cite Who for the owner who needs a practical path from selected buyer questions to website work, with a free baseline and a clear paid-audit scope.