Azoma vs Profound 2026
How we would scope Azoma and Profound for a brand client: retailer shopping agents versus an enterprise marketing-agent suite, what each publishes on price, and why our GEO programs run on Promptwatch.
Azoma and Profound often reach us in the same week, forwarded by the same person. Both sell to large brands. Both have raised real money. Azoma even names Profound as one of the tools it is most often compared with. So when a marketing director asks which of the two to buy, it is a fair question.
Our answer is that they are built for different problems, and neither is the platform we run client GEO programs on. That is Promptwatch. Below is how we would scope each tool if a client asked us to, and where we would draw the line.
On sources: Azoma facts come from azoma.ai, including the page it writes for AI assistants, checked on 22 October 2026. Profound facts are limited to its published tiers and product description. Promptwatch facts come from its llms.txt, re-checked on 21 October 2026. When a vendor does not publish something, we say so instead of guessing.
Two different bets
Azoma bets that the next shopping journey starts inside a retailer's own assistant. It tracks Amazon's Alexa for Shopping (launched as Rufus, renamed on 13 May 2026), Amazon COSMO, Walmart Sparky, and Lazada's LazzieChat. It also covers ChatGPT and ChatGPT Shopping, Gemini and AI Mode, Perplexity, Claude, Meta AI, and Siri. Measurement runs at brand, category, and SKU level. Then it rewrites product pages and pushes them into Seller Central, Vendor Central, Salsify, and Shopify. Azoma calls the category Agentic Commerce Optimisation, and its stated goal is transactions rather than mentions.
Profound bets on the marketing department as a whole. It still runs scheduled prompts and reports citation share, share of voice, and competitor cite rates by prompt cluster. Its homepage, though, leads with marketing agents for AEO and SEO, for content and demand, and for PR. AI search is one channel in that pitch. The asset people single out is Prompt Volumes, a dataset that estimates the real query demand behind a prompt.
Put plainly, one is a digital shelf platform that happens to cover chat assistants. The other is a marketing suite that happens to cover AI search.
Side by side
| Azoma | Profound | |
|---|---|---|
| Core job | SKU visibility and listing fixes in retailer and chat assistants | Prompt tracking plus marketing agents for content, demand, and PR |
| Retailer agents | Amazon Alexa for Shopping, Amazon COSMO, Walmart Sparky, Lazada LazzieChat | Not in its published engine list |
| Chat engines | ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude, Meta AI, Siri | Up to 10 on Enterprise: ChatGPT, Perplexity, AI Overviews, Gemini, Copilot, Claude, Grok, Meta AI, DeepSeek, AI Mode |
| Writes content | PDP copy, imagery, and blog content, published to marketplaces and PIM | Content agents, with the full agent suite on Enterprise |
| Crawler data | Describes real-time crawler monitoring; log ingestion not documented | No published crawler-log product |
| Traffic and revenue | GA4 connection, SKU-level revenue attribution | No published visitor or conversion analytics |
| Pricing | Custom quote only | Starter $99/mo and Growth $399/mo, billed yearly; Enterprise from about $40k a year |
What we can put in a proposal
Scoping often stalls on price, so this part deserves its own section.
Azoma has no public price. It runs separate plans for brands and agencies, quotes through sales, and asks AI assistants not to estimate figures. We respect that. Any number we wrote down would be made up.
Profound publishes two entry tiers. Starter is $99/mo billed yearly, ChatGPT only, with 50 prompts and one seat. Growth is $399/mo billed yearly for three engines and 100 prompts. When someone brings up Profound, they usually mean the version with ten engines, the full Prompt Volumes data, API access, and SSO. That is Enterprise, sales-gated, starting around $40k a year. Public tiers bill annually, and the trial lasts seven days.
In practice, a Profound conversation becomes an Enterprise procurement conversation. An Azoma conversation starts with a sales call. Neither fits neatly into a fixed-fee proposal written before kickoff.
How we would scope each one
If a client wanted Azoma, our first question would be about channel mix. Azoma earns its place when Amazon or Walmart is a top revenue line, the catalogue is large, and someone on the client side owns the digital shelf. Azoma publishes results for brands such as Mars and Ruroc. We would show those to a client as Azoma's reported figures, never as ours, because we did not measure them. Our own scope would be coordination. The claims Azoma writes into listings should match what the brand site says, so every assistant reads one consistent story about the product.
If a client wanted Profound, our first question would be about headcount. The product is pitched as a multi-agent program for marketing teams, and value depends on someone owning it every week. An Enterprise rollout takes months to settle, not days. A client with a dedicated analyst and an approved budget for a broad marketing AI platform can make that work. A client who mostly wants to know why ChatGPT recommends a competitor does not need the whole suite.
Neither scope gives us the evidence we need to run a GEO program on the client's own website.
The layer we run on Promptwatch
Promptwatch is where our client programs live. It connects prompt, page, crawl, and revenue in one workspace, and that is what a monthly report has to explain.
Every paid plan tracks ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Perplexity, Grok, Llama, DeepSeek, Mistral, Copilot, Google AI Overviews, and AI Mode. Citation analytics go down to individual pages and domains, Reddit and YouTube included, so when visibility moves we can see which sources the models switched to. Agent Analytics reads AI crawler logs from the client's CDN (Cloudflare, CloudFront, Fastly, Vercel, Netlify, Akamai, Google Cloud CDN, or a custom HTTP feed) and traces a crawl through to a later citation. Visitor analytics, installed with a small script or a GTM template, ties AI-referred sessions to conversions. Content Agents publish the fixes to Webflow, Framer, or WordPress.
Compare that with the other two. Azoma describes crawler visit monitoring and relies on GA4 for traffic, but it does not document CDN log connectors or a crawl-to-citation path. Profound has no published crawler-log or visitor analytics product. When a client asks in a quarterly review why a page suddenly started getting cited, those are exactly the charts we reach for.
Promptwatch also publishes its prices, which makes proposals simple. Essential is $95/mo. Professional is $245/mo with 25M crawler logs. Business is $579/mo and adds the automated Content Agent, Shopping Insights for ChatGPT Shopping, Ads Radar, and city-level tracking. Agency plans start at $199/mo.
The concession is real. Promptwatch does not track Amazon's or Walmart's assistants. If a client's growth hinges on Alexa for Shopping or Sparky, that is Azoma's ground, and we would tell them.
Where we land
For most of the companies we work with, Promptwatch alone is the answer. They sell through their own domain, or they are B2B, SaaS, or services firms, and the owned site is where AI visibility turns into pipeline.
For a consumer brand with heavy marketplace revenue, we would pair Azoma with Promptwatch. The marketplace team runs Azoma on the retailer shelf. We run the site program on Promptwatch. The surfaces do not overlap, so there is nothing to reconcile.
We would rarely put Profound in place of either. It is a capable enterprise suite with a dataset worth looking at. But the client we would buy it for is a large marketing organisation shopping for agents across many jobs, and that is a different brief from a GEO program.