Key takeaways
- Promptwatch's Agencies tiers (Kick-off $199/mo, Growth $399/mo, Scale $799/mo) pool unlimited client projects and prompts into one flat fee, which independent cost modeling puts at roughly $10/client/month at 20 clients, the cheapest per-client figure in a cross-platform comparison.
- Profound removed its self-serve brand plans around September 2026 and now runs agencies through a $99/month base plus $399/month per client workspace, which works out to roughly $404/client/month at scale, by far the most expensive of the three.
- Scrunch's pricing page has shifted multiple times in 2026 (Core $250/mo vs an older Agency Core at $500/mo, or Starter/Growth at $300/$500), and its agency tier doesn't appear to offer a volume discount, so running five clients can mean paying close to five times over.
- Only Promptwatch includes API and MCP access on every paid tier. Scrunch gates MCP, Query API, and Looker Studio access behind custom Enterprise, and Profound locks API, SSO, and full engine coverage behind Enterprise contracts too.
- All three have real agency features (white-label dashboards, pitch/prospecting workspaces, referral programs), but the workspace model you buy into determines whether your margin holds as you add clients or erodes with every signature.
Why agency pricing for GEO tools is messier than it looks
If you run an agency and you've tried to price out AI visibility reporting across a client roster, you've probably hit the same wall I did: every vendor's public pricing page is built for a single brand buying for itself, and the agency numbers live somewhere else entirely, often behind a sales call. That's not an accident. The workspace model a vendor picks, pooled-and-unlimited versus per-client-metered, changes the economics of running ten or thirty clients by an order of magnitude, and vendors don't love putting that math in front of you before you've talked to a rep.
I dug through the current pricing structures for the three platforms agencies ask about most, Promptwatch, Profound, and Scrunch, and the picture that emerges is pretty stark. One of these platforms is built so a pooled allowance gets cheaper per client as you scale. One charges almost linearly per client workspace, no matter how light that client's reporting needs are. And one seems to be mid-redesign of its own pricing page, which is its own kind of answer.
How each platform structures multi-client access
Promptwatch: pooled, unlimited projects, flat agency tiers
Promptwatch sells agencies a separate track from its brand plans, with three tiers: Kick-off at $199/month, Growth at $399/month, and Scale at $799/month. The structural choice that matters here is that all three tiers include unlimited client and pitch projects and unlimited prompts, with the difference between tiers coming down to total monthly responses (10,000 on Kick-off, 25,000 on Growth, 65,000 on Scale) and seats. Every tier tracks all of Promptwatch's roughly nine to eleven supported AI platforms at once, rather than making you pick a subset the way its brand-facing plans do.
That pooled model is why an independent cost analysis found Promptwatch's per-client cost at roughly $10/month when spread across 20 clients on the Kick-off tier, assuming a light reporting cadence of around four prompts on four models daily per client. It's the cheapest per-client number in that comparison by a wide margin, precisely because one flat fee gets divided across every client you onboard instead of multiplying with each new logo.
The Agencies solutions page also leans into things that matter once you're actually managing client relationships day to day: a white-label dashboard, API and MCP access on every tier, a Looker Studio connector, and a client portal. One agency co-founder, quoted on Promptwatch's own site, put it plainly: it "makes it easy to monitor AI visibility across multiple clients, with an intuitive dashboard, rapid product improvements, and a highly responsive customer success team." I'd normally discount a vendor-sourced quote, but it tracks with what the workspace model actually enables, since unlimited projects mean you're not negotiating a new line item every time you win a pitch.
Profound: per-workspace pricing that scales linearly, maybe too linearly
Profound took a different route, and it's a notable one because the company pulled its public self-serve brand plans entirely around September 2026. What's left on the public pricing page is a free 7-day trial (50 prompts, limited to ChatGPT, Gemini, and Google AI Overviews) and a custom-quoted Enterprise tier. For agencies specifically, Profound runs a separate, only partly published structure: Agency Growth at a $99/month base, plus $399/month per client workspace. That's confirmed across several independent reviewer sites rather than Profound's own scraped pricing markdown, which suggests it's gated behind an "agencies" tab that isn't fully public.
Each full client workspace on Agency Growth gets 100 prompts tracked daily across three engines (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews), 400 AI Marketer/Agent credits a month, and the base plan includes ten lighter pitch workspaces (25 prompts, three engines, a seven-day window) meant for prospecting rather than ongoing client delivery.
Run the math at 20 full client workspaces and you land around $404 per client per month, which independent cost modeling flags as among the most expensive options in a cross-platform agency comparison, by a factor of roughly 40 compared to Promptwatch's pooled Kick-off tier. That's not necessarily a bad deal if your clients need Profound's deeper analytics and content-generation credits and you're pricing your retainers accordingly. But it means Profound's agency economics are the opposite of Promptwatch's: cost per client stays roughly flat (or climbs) no matter how light a given client's needs are, because every client gets its own metered slice rather than sharing a pool.
Profound also gates its full nine-engine coverage, API, SSO, and all-time history behind Enterprise, so the Agency Growth tier you're actually likely to buy into is capped at three engines per client workspace unless you negotiate up.
Scrunch: a pricing page that's still finding its shape
Scrunch is the trickiest of the three to pin down, and I mean that descriptively, not as a knock. Live pricing scrapes in late 2026 show a Core tier at $250/month (125 unique prompts, four engines: ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, Copilot, five site audits, five user licenses, basic content generation) with a custom-quoted Enterprise tier above it that adds Claude, Gemini, Meta AI, Google AI Mode, and Grok, plus its Agent Experience Platform (AXP), Query API, and MCP access.
The complication is that third-party sources from earlier in 2026 cite a distinct Agency Core tier at $500/month (250 prompts, unlimited seats, three brand workspaces plus three pitch workspaces), while another independent review from July 2026 names Starter at $300/month and Growth at $500/month as the two paid consumer tiers. Taken together, that's a pricing structure that has changed names and numbers multiple times within a single year, and the live toggle for "For agencies" at the time of research only showed Core versus Enterprise, with no distinct agency price break visible. If you're evaluating Scrunch for a multi-client rollout, get current numbers in writing before you build a client proposal around them.
What is consistent across sources: Scrunch's agency program emphasizes an API-first, headless architecture ("power your own dashboards, or fully white-label outputs"), prospecting environments for pitches, and a referral commission up to 20% for referred customers. One source also notes Scrunch's agency pricing historically hasn't included a volume discount, meaning running the platform for five clients on Core-equivalent pricing could mean paying close to five times over unless you negotiate something custom. MCP, the Query API, and Looker Studio access are Enterprise-only, so a Core-tier agency won't get much data portability out of the box.
Side-by-side: agency structure at a glance
| Promptwatch | Profound | Scrunch | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agency entry price | $199/mo (Kick-off) | $99/mo base + $399/mo per client workspace | $250/mo Core (agency-specific pricing unclear/shifting) |
| Pricing model | Pooled, unlimited client projects and prompts | Per-client workspace, metered prompts/credits | Per-workspace, reportedly no volume discount |
| Approx. cost at 20 clients | ~$10/client/month | ~$404/client/month | Varies; likely linear with client count |
| Engines included at entry | All ~9-11 tracked platforms, every tier | 3 engines (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews); full 9 Enterprise-only | 4 engines (ChatGPT, Perplexity, AI Overviews, Copilot); 9 on Enterprise |
| API / MCP | Included on every paid tier | Enterprise only | Enterprise only (Custom) |
| White-label dashboard | Yes, agencies page | Not clearly published at agency tier | API-first/headless, white-label outputs |
| Pitch/prospecting workspaces | Unlimited, pooled in | 10 included on Agency Growth | Included, varies by source |
| Content execution | Content Agents publish to CMS | AI Marketer credit-based agents | Basic generation on Core; AXP on Enterprise |
What this means if you're actually pricing a retainer
The pooled-versus-per-workspace distinction is the single most important thing to understand before you sign an agency contract with any of these three. If most of your clients only need light, ongoing monitoring (a handful of prompts tracked daily across the major engines, periodic reporting, not daily content generation), a pooled plan like Promptwatch's Agencies tiers lets your margin improve as your client count grows, because you're spreading one flat cost across more accounts. If instead you have a smaller number of large clients who each need deep, dedicated tracking with high prompt volumes and content credits, a per-workspace model like Profound's might actually make more sense, because you're not trying to force heavy usage through a shared pool.
Where it gets uncomfortable is the middle: an agency with 15-30 clients of mixed size, which is exactly the profile where Profound's linear per-workspace pricing starts to hurt and where Scrunch's unclear agency pricing makes it hard to model your margin at all. That's also the segment where Promptwatch's unlimited-project structure shows its biggest advantage, since the flat $399 or $799 fee doesn't change whether you add a tiny client or a mid-size one.
A second factor worth weighing separately from price: what you can actually hand a client once you've found a gap. Promptwatch's own comparison materials note that Scrunch tends to hand back recommendations while leaving execution to the agency, and that Profound locks full API and MCP access behind Enterprise contracts. If part of your retainer pitch involves showing clients a content roadmap that gets built and published, not just flagged, the platform's execution layer (Content Agents publishing to Webflow, Framer, or WordPress, versus credit-metered AI Marketer runs, versus Scrunch's AXP on Enterprise only) matters as much as the per-client cost.
A note on reporting what actually changed for clients
Whatever platform you choose, the content of your client reports is going to lean on citation and crawler data that shifts meaningfully month to month. Promptwatch's own crawler data shows OpenAI's share of verified AI crawler requests falling from 94.8% the week of June 8-14, 2026 to 79.8% the week of August 31-September 6, 2026, which is the kind of trend an agency needs to flag proactively rather than let a client discover on their own in a quarterly review. If you're building out GEO reporting for multiple clients, it's worth checking Promptwatch's ongoing data releases for exactly this kind of context before you write the narrative section of a report.
If you want to look beyond these three, the GEO software directory at bestgeosoftware.com rounds up other agency-oriented platforms worth comparing on a similar basis.
Bottom line
Promptwatch's agency tiers are the cheapest per-client option by a wide margin once you cross into double-digit client counts, mainly because the pooled, unlimited-project structure rewards scale instead of penalizing it. Profound is the deepest tool per client if you need heavy daily prompt volume and content generation credits for a smaller number of large accounts, but its $399-per-workspace model gets expensive fast and its best features sit behind Enterprise contracts. Scrunch sits in between on paper, but its agency pricing has moved enough times in 2026 that I'd treat any number you find online as a starting point for a sales conversation, not a figure to build a client proposal around. Get the current numbers in writing, model your specific client mix against each structure, and pick the one whose economics actually improve as your roster grows rather than erode.