In this series, we at GrowthPact try our best to break down how these tools work and present you with all the details you need to make an informed decision.

Last month, we reviewed Scrunch — and the verdict was mixed.

📚Read our honest Scrunch Review!

Profound was next on the list. Same category, different positioning, significantly higher ambitions.

So I did what I did with Scrunch — tested it end-to-end, tracked real prompts for a real brand, and asked the same uncomfortable question throughout: what’s this actually telling me that I couldn’t figure out myself?

Here’s what I found.

📌 TL;DR

• Why this review exists: Last month we tested Scrunch and found it useful at scale, unnecessary for most. Profound is next—same category, different execution.

• Topic-level visibility is the real differentiator: Most tools give you one visibility score. Profound breaks it down by theme, so you actually know where AI engines cite you vs. ignore you.

• Answer Engine Insights is the standout feature: Competitor benchmarking, sentiment mapping, citation sources, and platform-specific performance in one dashboard. This is where strategic decisions get made.

• Prompt quality is still your job: Auto-generated prompts are better than Scrunch’s, but not good enough to rely on. You’ll refine and add prompts yourself—this is a framework, not autopilot.

• Agent Analytics is weaker than competitors: Shows page categories, not exact URLs. Scrunch does this better. Knowing AI traffic hit “blog pages” isn’t actionable.

• Only worth it if you’re serious about AEO: The $99 Starter plan is too limited. Growth at $399/month makes sense if you’re tracking multiple topics, benchmarking competitors, and building content strategy around this. Solo marketers testing the waters should start manual.

What is Profound?

Profound is an Answer Engine Optimization (AEO) platform that tracks how your brand appears across AI engines — ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, and more.

At its core, it monitors:

• Where you’re being cited

• How visible you are relative to competitors

• What’s driving or hurting that visibility

But unlike traditional SEO tools that obsess over rankings, Profound is built around a different question: when someone asks an AI a question your brand should answer, does your brand show up?

• The Starter plan runs $99/month and covers ChatGPT tracking with 50 prompts.

• The Growth plan is $399/month and opens up three answer engines, 100 prompts, and content optimization features.

• Enterprise plan is custom-priced for larger teams and agencies.

I tested Profound on a real B2B brand, across its core features. Here’s an honest breakdown of what works, what doesn’t, and who this is actually built for.

Top Profound Features — My Honest Evaluation and Thoughts

#1: Dashboard and Visibility Score — More useful than it looks at first glance

The first thing you see when you log into Profound is the Visibility Score — a percentage trend chart showing how visible your brand is across AI and search engines over time. Below that, there’s a topic-level breakdown that splits visibility by theme or module.

For each topic, you get the current visibility percentage, your relative position, citation or share of voice, and the top pages being cited for that theme.

Say your product covers five different use cases, but you’re known for two. For a topic you’re not primarily associated with, your visibility might sit low — around position 25 or below.

But for a topic where you’ve built credibility, you could be in the top 10 with a solid share of voice. No individual article ranking. No traditional SEO signal. Just AI engines referencing your product because it’s relevant. Visibility without classic rankings.

That distinction matters. Most SEO tools conflate the two. Profound separates them, which gives you a more honest picture of where you actually stand.

Each topic also surfaces optimization suggestions, competitor comparisons, and content opportunities — which I’ll get into shortly.

📌 Does it work?

Yes. The topic-level visibility breakdown is genuinely useful, especially for B2B brands covering multiple product areas. It tells you which themes are working and which ones AI engines are largely ignoring you on.

⚖️ Verdict: One of the stronger parts of the platform. Worth paying attention to.

#2: Answer Engine Insights — The standout feature

This is where Profound pulls ahead of other tools I’ve tested.

The dashboard shows overall visibility, competitor visibility scores, share of voice, and average position — all in one view. You can also drill down by topic, which means you’re not just seeing how you compare to competitors broadly. You’re seeing where specifically you’re winning or losing.

Platform-level breakdowns add another layer. Depending on your brand, one engine might drive the highest visibility, while another might show better average position. For citations and sentiment, the split can look completely different again. That kind of granularity helps you prioritize — if AI Overviews are working, you double down there. If Perplexity is underperforming, you know where to focus next.

Sentiment analysis runs at the theme level, based on prompt frequency and mentions. A theme closely tied to your core product might show up as trending with positive sentiment. A peripheral topic — or one where there’s market confusion about what you do — could flag as negative. That’s a perception issue worth addressing through content. This kind of theme-level sentiment mapping is something most visibility tools skip entirely.

Citation source breakdown is the third piece. Profound shows where citations are actually coming from — earned media, your own site, social platforms, competitor blogs, third-party domains. You might find that an industry publication is your biggest citation source, or that Reddit threads are driving more references than your own blog. You can even see which competitor pages are getting cited for prompts where your brand doesn’t appear at all.

One recurring limitation worth flagging: prompt quality is still the biggest dependency. Profound’s auto-generated prompts are better than what I saw in Scrunch — broader, more realistic, closer to how users actually ask questions. But they’re still not precise. In several cases, the tool treated a specialized platform as a generic product category, skewing results.

📌 Does it work?

Yes — and this is the feature that justifies taking Profound seriously. Competitor benchmarking, sentiment mapping, and citation source breakdowns are genuinely useful for a B2B content strategy.

⚖️ Verdict: The strongest feature on the platform. If this is the only thing you use Profound for, it’s still worth evaluating.

#3: Agent Analytics — Useful, but Scrunch does one thing better

To use this feature, you connect Profound to Google Analytics. Once set up, it shows AI-driven traffic over time — which engines sent users, how many sessions there were, and which page categories they landed on.

It’s a solid baseline view of how AI traffic behaves across your site. The problem is the word “categories.” Profound shows you that users landed on blog pages or solution pages. Scrunch showed exact URLs.

That’s not a small gap. Knowing AI traffic hit “blog pages” tells you very little.

📌 Does it work?

As a general overview, yes. As an actionable insight tool, it falls short of what Scrunch offers here.

⚖️ Verdict: Useful for tracking AI traffic trends. Less useful for understanding which specific content is driving it.

#4: Additional Features — Early, but worth watching

A few other features round out the platform, though most are either in beta or depend heavily on the quality of the setup.

The Opportunities feature identifies articles where AI engines are pulling ideas or content from without explicitly citing your brand. It then suggests outreach targets. In testing, it flagged a Reddit thread around tool integrations as a participation opportunity — partially relevant, not strongly aligned. The concept is solid, the execution feels early.

Content Creation and Optimization tools generate ideas and improvement suggestions based on your tracked prompts. The quality here scales directly with how well your prompts are defined — generic prompts produce generic suggestions.

Brand Hub is where you build a brand kit: ICP, competitors, point of view, writing style. The idea is that feeding Profound this context improves output quality across the platform. Worth setting up properly if you’re committing to the tool.

The Workflow feature exists but wasn’t accessible during my trial.

⚖️ Verdict: Treat these as supporting features for now, not reasons to buy.

Subscribe now

Pros and Cons of Profound from the POV of a Content Marketer

What works:

• Topic-level visibility breakdown — Profound doesn’t just tell you how visible you are overall. It breaks visibility down by theme, which means you can see exactly where AI engines are referencing you and where they’re ignoring you. For brands with multiple product areas or use cases, this is genuinely useful.

• Answer Engine Insights are the real differentiator — Competitor benchmarking, sentiment mapping, citation source breakdown, and platform-specific performance in one dashboard. This is the feature that separates Profound from most tools in this category. If you’re building a content strategy around AEO, this is where the useful decisions get made.

• Prompts are more realistic than competitors — Profound’s auto-generated prompts are broader and closer to how users actually search. That means the visibility data you’re looking at reflects reality more closely, not a best-case scenario engineered around your brand name.

• Sentiment and theme mapping helps with prioritization — Knowing which themes are trending positively and which are flagging negatively gives you a content roadmap. Double down on what’s working, address what isn’t. Most visibility tools don’t give you this.

What doesn’t work:

• Prompt quality is still your responsibility — The auto-generated prompts are better than Scrunch’s, but they’re not good enough to rely on entirely. You’ll still need to manually refine and add prompts to get accurate, meaningful insights. The tool is only as good as the prompts you feed it.

• Agent Analytics lacks specificity — Scrunch shows exact URLs being visited by AI-driven traffic. Profound shows page categories. That’s a meaningful gap. Knowing AI traffic landed on “blog pages” is interesting. Knowing it landed on a specific article is actionable.

• Several features are still early — Opportunities is in beta and not yet reliable enough to act on consistently. Content generation quality depends heavily on prompt setup. The Workflow feature wasn’t even accessible during testing. These feel like features to watch, not features to buy for.

• The Growth plan is a significant jump — Going from $99/month to $399/month for three answer engines and content features is a steep step up. For smaller teams or solo marketers, that’s a hard sell unless you’re already committed to AEO as a channel.

When Should You Use Profound?

Profound makes sense when AEO is something you’re taking seriously, not just experimenting with. Here’s when it’s worth considering:

• You’re managing visibility across multiple topics or product areas — If your brand covers several use cases and you need to understand where AI engines are referencing you and where they’re not, the topic-level breakdown justifies the cost. One broad visibility score tells you nothing. Theme-level visibility tells you where to act.

• You’re doing competitor benchmarking at scale — Casually checking what AI says about your competitors is free. Systematically tracking citation share, sentiment, and platform-specific performance across dozens of prompts is where Profound earns its place.

• You’re building a content strategy around AEO — If you’re actively deciding what to create, what to optimize, and what to deprioritize based on AI visibility data, the Answer Engine Insights dashboard gives you the foundation to make those calls with something more than gut feel.

• You can commit to the Growth plan — The Starter plan at $99/month covers ChatGPT only with 50 prompts. That’s too narrow for serious tracking. The Growth plan at $399/month opens up three engines and 100 prompts. That’s the tier where Profound starts making sense. If that number doesn’t fit your budget, manual tracking is still a viable option.

• You have the bandwidth to manage prompts properly — This is the honest caveat that applies to every tier. Profound rewards investment. If you set it up, add well-defined prompts, and refine them over time, the insights get sharper. If you rely entirely on auto-generated prompts and check in occasionally, you’ll get generic data and wonder why you’re paying for it.

My Final Honest Take on Profound — Is It Worth Your Time?

Profound is the most complete AEO tool I’ve tested so far.

• The Answer Engine Insights dashboard is genuinely useful

• The topic-level visibility breakdown is something I haven’t seen done this well elsewhere

• The sentiment mapping adds a layer of strategic clarity that most tools in this category skip entirely

But “most complete” doesn’t automatically mean “worth it for you.”

If you’re a solo marketer or a small team still figuring out whether AEO even belongs in your strategy, Profound isn’t where you start. A ChatGPT Plus subscription, a spreadsheet, and thirty minutes a week will tell you most of what you need to know at this stage. Save the $399/month for when you’ve outgrown that.

If you’re at a growing company where AEO is already part of the conversation, where you’re tracking visibility across multiple topics, benchmarking competitors, and making content decisions based on what AI engines are citing, Profound starts making real sense.

The Growth plan is a significant investment, but it’s focused. You’re not paying for bloat. You’re paying for a cleaner, faster way to do things you’d otherwise do manually across five different tabs.

The one thing to go in clear-eyed about: Profound is a framework, not a magic answer. The quality of what you get out scales directly with the quality of the prompts you put in. Set it up properly, refine your prompts regularly, and it compounds over time. Treat it as a set-and-forget tool, and you’ll be disappointed.

So — is it worth your time?

If you’re serious about AEO and have the budget for the Growth plan, yes.

But if you’re still testing the waters, start manual. Come back to Profound when you know exactly what questions you need it to answer.

Next up, we’re reviewing Amplitude — stay tuned.

Sreyashi & Ekta 🌻

Follow GrowthPact on LinkedIn

Cool. But which one of these tools actually works? Or more importantly, how do these platforms work?

What insights do they even surface? Are these insights accurate or just an eyewash?

No idea? Yeaaah! Thought so!

That’s why we’re starting this series at GrowthPact—honest reviews of AI search tools from a content marketer’s perspective. It is our attempt to help content marketers, SEO professionals, founders, and anyone trying to navigate this mess.

Because let’s be real, there is a LOT of noise related to GEO out there, and you don’t want to spend your very valuable marketing budget on this.

We’re kicking off with Scrunch.

In this review, I’ll walk you through what it is, which features matter to content marketers, the honest pros and cons, when to opt for Scrunch, and my take on whether it’s worth your time and the HUGE investment!

Let’s go!

📌 TL;DR

• Why this review exists: Every AI tool claims to “10x visibility.” We’re testing them ourselves to show what actually works—starting with Scrunch.

• Prompt monitoring requires manual work: Auto-generated prompts are too branded. You’re adding valuable BOFU/MOFU prompts yourself—might as well track citations manually too.

• GA4 AI traffic dashboard is the best feature: Clean, presentation-ready visualizations of bot crawl activity. Saves time for client reporting.

• Most insights you can get for free: Run prompts yourself, note citations and competitor mentions. Scrunch consolidates this, but doesn’t discover anything new.

• Only worth it at agency/enterprise scale: Makes sense if you’re managing 5+ clients with $500+/month budgets and dev support. Solo marketers can skip it.

What is Scrunch?

Scrunch is an AI visibility-tracking tool that shows you how your brand appears across LLMs like ChatGPT, Perplexity, and AI Overviews.

Scrunch monitors where you’re getting cited, tracks your performance against competitors, and gives you insights on why AI engines are (or aren’t) recommending your content.

But that’s just surface-level information that you’ll find on Scrunch’s website.

I did my research, tried this tool end-to-end, and here are my honest thoughts on Scrunch.

Top Scrunch Features - My Honest Evaluation and Thoughts

#1: Prompt Monitoring – A lot of manual work is involved!

Scrunch’s core feature is prompt tracking. You add prompts, it searches them across AI engines (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude), and creates a dashboard showing mentions, citations, and competitor performance.

📌 Does it work?

Sort of. The problem is that you have to add prompts manually. If you let Scrunch auto-generate them, it creates very specific, branded prompts like “best [your product category] like [your brand]”—where obviously your brand will show up.

For actual valuable BOFU/MOFU prompts like “best [category] software” or “[category] tools for [use case],” you have to add them by yourself and keep tracking/adding/removing regularly.

The bigger question: what’s stopping you from tracking this manually?

Unless location-based AI results vary significantly (which Scrunch doesn’t guarantee it accounts for accurately), I don’t really see the value here. The $100/month plan only gives you 100 prompts for one user—not nearly enough for serious tracking.

⚖️ Verdict: Not worth it unless you’re tracking hundreds of prompts.

#2: Insights Feature – Somewhat useful

This is where Scrunch analyzes why AI engines are citing (or not citing) your content. It offers optimization suggestions based on what it finds.

In my testing, it surfaced something interesting: ChatGPT was pulling content from our site as a source, but not explicitly mentioning us. Scrunch offered optimization suggestions and showed which tools were being cited instead.

📌 Does it work?

Yes, but with a caveat. Since you’re providing the prompt anyway, you could manually analyze the AI response and figure out the same insights. The value here is that Scrunch packages the “why” for you—saving time if you’re tracking many prompts.

⚖️ Verdict: Useful if you’re analyzing dozens of prompts and want insights aggregated. Not essential if you’re only tracking a handful of queries.

#3 Citations Feature – Also doable manually

For each prompt you track, Scrunch shows you which other domains get cited, your citation share percentage, competitors’ shares, and third-party platform mentions (G2, Capterra, Gartner).

📌 Does it work?

Yes, it surfaces the data. But again, you can track this manually. Run the same prompt yourself, note which brands get mentioned, and you have the same information. The only advantage is that Scrunch aggregates this across multiple prompts in one dashboard.

⚖️ Verdict: Convenient for bulk tracking, but not a groundbreaking feature. You’re essentially paying for consolidated reporting of data you could gather yourself.

#4: GA4 Analytics Dashboard for AI Traffic – Actually useful

This was the standout for me. Scrunch tracks AI bot traffic across engines—ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude—and visualizes crawl activity over time in a clean, presentation-ready dashboard.

I could see a year’s worth of AI referral data formatted for client reports, LinkedIn posts, or case studies. GA4 and customer journey tracking tools have this data, but not in this format. And it really saves your time when a tool centralizes it all in one dashboard.

📌 Does it work?

Yes. If you’re running AI optimization experiments and need something presentable fast, this actually saves time.

❌ What’s missing: It doesn’t show which specific blog/landing page got traffic from which engine, or which prompts drove visits.

⚖️ Verdict: Worth it if you’re doing regular reporting on AI traffic. Not essential if you’re just tracking internally.

#5: Page Audit Report – Semi-useful

Scrunch audits your pages for AI-friendliness and flags technical issues that might prevent LLM crawlers from reading your content properly.

In my testing, it flagged one issue: “Is the non-JavaScript version of the page substantially the same as the JavaScript version?” This is a real technical problem, but not something most content marketers can fix without developer involvement.

📌 Does it work?

Technically, yes—it spots crawlability issues. But these are developer-level fixes, not content marketer fixes. You must have dev resources to act on these.

⚖️ Verdict: Helpful for technical SEO teams with dev support. Less useful for content marketers working solo.

Share GrowthPact

Pros and Cons of Scrunch from the POV of a Content Marketer

What works:

• Presentation-ready AI traffic reporting – The GA4 analytics dashboard is genuinely useful if you’re doing client reporting or sharing AI optimization results. The visualizations are polished enough to use as-is in decks, LinkedIn posts, or case studies without additional creative work.

• Consolidated tracking in one place – If you’re tracking AI visibility across multiple prompts, competitors, and engines, having everything in one dashboard saves time over manual tracking. You’re not jumping between ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Gemini to check citations.

• Insights into why you’re not getting cited – Scrunch surfaces optimization suggestions based on why AI engines are skipping your content or citing competitors instead. It’s not an exceptional analysis, but it packages the “why” for you, which helps if you’re managing multiple clients or brands.

What doesn’t work:

• You’re still doing manual work – The $100/month plan gives you only 100 prompts for one user. If you want serious tracking, you need the $500/month plan. And either way, you’re manually adding non-branded prompts because Scrunch’s auto-generated ones are too specific to be useful.

• Most insights are replicable manually – Citations, competitor mentions, share percentages—you can track all of this yourself by running prompts and analyzing responses. Scrunch’s value is consolidation, not discovery. If you’re only tracking a handful of prompts, paying for this feels unnecessary.

• Generic trend data – The AI Search Trends feature sounds useful, but the categories are too broad to matter for niche B2B industries. You can request custom categories, but that defeats the point of having ready-to-use trend insights.

When should you opt for Scrunch?

Scrunch makes sense if you’re managing AI visibility at scale. Here’s when it’s worth considering:

• You’re an agency managing multiple clients – If you’re tracking AI visibility for 5+ brands and need presentation-ready reports, Scrunch’s dashboard saves manual compilation time.

• You can afford the $500/month plan – The $100/month tier is too restrictive (100 prompts, one user). If you can’t commit to $500+, manual tracking works better.

• You’re running ongoing optimization experiments – If you’re actively testing what gets cited and tracking performance over months, centralized reporting helps. For occasional checks, manual tracking is fine.

• You need competitor benchmarking at scale – Tracking citation share vs. 10+ competitors across dozens of prompts justifies the cost. For casual competitive analysis, it’s overkill.

My Final Honest Take on Scrunch - Is It Worth Your Time?

Scrunch is a good tool, but whether it’s worth it depends entirely on your organization’s size, budget, and use cases.

If you’re a one or two-person marketing team at an early-stage startup, you don’t need Scrunch. You can do this manually. A ChatGPT Plus subscription is all you need. Run your prompts, track citations yourself, and analyze competitor mentions. It takes more time, but it’s free.

But if you have the resources—money, time, and developer support—Scrunch starts making sense. Specifically:

• If you’re an agency managing multiple client projects and need consolidated dashboards, the time savings justify the cost

• If you work at an enterprise or larger company with a budget allocated for AI optimization and dev resources to implement the fixes, Scrunch becomes a productivity tool rather than an expense.

The key is actionability. If you can’t implement the strategies Scrunch recommends, or if you’re only tracking a handful of prompts (because you’re working on one brand), paying for Scrunch doesn’t make sense.

But then again, it’s our opinion.

I hope this was helpful.

Stay tuned for our next review—we’ll be testing Profound next.

Sreyashi & Ekta 🌻

Follow GrowthPact on LinkedIn

When a user searches for a generic query just to get information, it only makes sense that they read the details mentioned in AI overviews and back off.

But that’s NOT the case for Bottom of the funnel (BOFU) content. When a user searches for “best Asana alternatives” or “Mailchimp vs Klaviyo,” they’re past the research phase—they’re ready to make a decision. These queries signal purchase intent, not just curiosity.

If your content addresses their specific frustration—whether it’s pricing concerns, missing features, or implementation challenges—at that exact moment, you’re not just getting a click. You’re influencing the decision when it matters most.

In fact, people usually ask similar questions to AI engines, and no wonder AI engines are also looking for content that actually answers these high-intent questions.

That’s why BOFU content is the future of B2B content marketing. It’s the easiest way to influence your target audiences.

Being someone who always talks about BOFU content, here are 10 BOFU blog examples that I absolutely admire. Bonus: There are tips to reverse-engineer the same articles with actionable tips.

📌 TL;DR

• TOFU is dying, BOFU is thriving: AI Overviews are cannibalizing 90-99% of informational content, but bottom-of-funnel content (comparisons, alternatives, solution pages) is what LLMs actually cite and recommend

• 10 BOFU examples analyzed: From Zapier’s unbiased Klaviyo vs Mailchimp comparison to Dock’s customer enablement guide—each with reverse-engineering tactics you can steal

• Key patterns that work: Lead with buyer pain points, use actual user complaints as social proof, structure content around outcomes (not features), and include honest pros/cons even for your own product

• The LLM advantage: When users ask ChatGPT “best X tools” or “X vs Y,” AI engines scrape Google’s top 10 rankings for citations. Rank there with BOFU content = LLM visibility

• Your AEO strategy = BOFU SEO: Stop chasing traffic volume. Focus on revenue-driving content that influences decisions when buyers are ready to choose

BOFU Content Types At-A-Glance

✅ Comparison Blogs - X vs. Y

#1 Klaviyo vs. Mailchimp - Published by Zapier

Article link

When it comes to BOFU blogs, I consider this article golden. I was introduced to this article about a year ago by an ex-client, back when I was freelancing as a BOFU writer. And, I kept going back to it for inspiration. In fact, I wrote about it in my newsletter too.

Zapier publishes this article - a tool that offers integrations with both Klaviyo and Mailchimp. Yet, Zapier has written this article from a completely neutral perspective and created a detailed comparison of all essential use cases that might matter to an email marketer.

The result? An unbiased comparison between two popular email marketing tools that actually help you make a decision.

How can you reverse-engineer it?

• A no non-sense introduction that sets the context straight in the first sentence and establishes clearly that an email marketer has compared these two tools, i.e, the right ICP

• Honestly, the “At a glance” comparison is specific enough for you to make a decision, it’s so carefully created. At the same time, for someone who wants to dive deeper, this comparison table is like an invitation to read further

• The sub-heads are to-the-point. Each pointer gives you enough context on different use cases and which tool is better at it (along with relevant product screenshots)

• Finally, a short yet convenient description of which tool you should select and why

#2 Supermetrics vs Whatagraph: Which is Right for You? - Published by Whatagraph

Article link

Though a comparison article, this one takes a completely different approach from the above Zapier article. This article is published by Whatagraph. However, unlike what might sound obvious, Whatagraph doesn’t really straightaway explain why it is a better choice than Supermetrics.

Instead, it shows examples and an honest comparison. By the end of this article, you will know exactly when Supermetrics is relevant and when Whatagraph is.

How can you reverse-engineer it?

• The shortest intro followed by a quick list of pointers to establish the context

• I liked this approach of discussing the fundamental differences. Since a lot of people make decisions based on these, it makes sense to keep this section at the top

• Including “Who is Supermetrics and Whatagraph for?”, this section is also a good idea, so someone reading this can confirm whether the article matches their intent

• Needless to say, the feature-based comparisons are detailed and on point along with annotated product screenshots

#3 Ahrefs vs Semrush: Which SEO Tool Should You Use - Published by Backlinko

Article link

Before coming across this article, I would have honestly thought that Ahrefs and Semrush are the mirror images of each other. However, that’s not the case, and this very impartial BOFU blog explains that. It follows a simple structure where it shortlists the key features content marketers and SEO professionals will be interested in, like keyword research, LLM visibility, backlink analysis, etc.. It provides you with an honest overview of which tool is better at what.

How can you reverse-engineer it?

• I love a simple BOFU article structure that shows precisely what it promises - a feature by feature comparison along with product screenshots

• The tone is humorous, easy to understand and to the point

• Since pricing is always a key decision-making factor for tools this close to one another, this article does a great job comparing both tool’s pricing plans

✅ Alternatives - X Alternatives

#4 13 Asana Alternatives to Manage Your Projects Better in 2025 - Published by ProProfs

Article link

I have always admired ProProfs’ content. ProProfs’ BOFU content stands out because it’s well-structured, unbiased (there’s no bias towards their own product), and most importantly, they don’t shy away from talking about the actual cons of their own tool (Read “What you may not like” section under ProProfs).

How can you reverse-engineer it?

• A simple introduction that addresses the advantages of Asana and respectfully moves on to talk about its potential challenges for a particular use group

• A brief, defined structure that’s followed for all tools (including ProProfs)

• Towards the end, this article explains the evaluation criteria for each tool. This is super important, so you don’t target a generic audience group

• A smart approach to shortlist three tools at the end and explain which is suitable for whom

#5 Top 13 ClickUp Alternatives and Competitors in 2025 - Published by ClickUp

Article link

Why would ClickUp write about ClickUp alternatives, right? Well, that absolutely makes sense if you start reading the article. It’s ClickUp’s way of addressing the common reasons why people may switch from ClickUp to other tools.

While this might backfire for new startups, ClickUp pulled this off gracefully if you ask me. This article, targeted at small teams, clearly explains why ClickUp can be a good option for them. To add to that, it also delivers what it promised - a list of ClickUp alternatives.

How can you reverse-engineer it?

• An honest “what should you look for in a ClickUp alternative” section that rightly explains some of the features that people think ClickUp might not offer

• A detailed “Things to Consider Before Looking for a ClickUp Alternative” section that explains in the most detailed way about the ClickUp features that you wouldn’t want to miss out

• While discussing about the alternatives, there is a dedicated section for every tool where its mentioned why ClickUp stacks up against that particular tool

• Finally, at the end there is a product plug but that’s not fluff. It rightfully explains why ClickUp is still a better choice in the list

📚 BOFU Blog (Comparison and Alternatives) Templates you can use:

• Template type 1

• Template type 2

  ---

✅ BOFU Blog Types beyond Alternatives and Comparisons

#6 How Medtech Companies Can Improve User Experience with Userpilot - Published by UserPilot

Article link

This is a use-case specific BOFU article that targets a niche vertical (medtech) and walks through exactly how Userpilot solves their unique challenges.

What makes this brilliant is that it doesn’t force-fit generic product features. Instead, it addresses real medtech pain points—78-fold pandemic adoption spike, 34.5% Month-1 retention (12.4 points below industry average), strict regulations, specialized training needs—and maps Userpilot features directly to those problems.

How can you reverse-engineer it?

• Lead with industry-specific data that creates urgency. For example, in this case, McKinsey’s pandemic stats immediately signal “we understand your world”

• Structure around customer outcomes, not product features. I love how each section is titled by what users can achieve (”Onboard and train users”), followed by the pain point with data (23.8% activation vs 37.5% average), then how Userpilot enables it

• Use hyper-specific examples that speak to the ICP - not generic ones. For example, instead of “create walkthroughs,” the article uses headlines like, “Equip ICU teams with step-by-step walkthroughs so nurses can confidently use life-support dashboards in under ten minutes”

#7 5 Reasons Why You Should Not Manage Compensation in SAP SuccessFactors - Published by Compport

Article link

I might be biased for adding this, but hear me out on why I included it.

This is a contrarian BOFU piece that takes a bold stance: here’s why you shouldn’t use the market leader. It’s published by Compport, a SuccessFactors alternative (+ it integrates with the tool too), but it doesn’t read like a hit piece.

Instead, it methodically breaks down legitimate scenarios where SuccessFactors falls short—and by extension, where Compport excels. The title alone (”Why You Should NOT...”) is tempting enough to get clicks from people already frustrated with SuccessFactors.

How can you reverse-engineer it?

• Open by validating the obvious choice before dismantling it (”Picture this: Your company already runs SAP SuccessFactors... the obvious choice seems clear”)

• Address objections upfront with a dedicated “Common Hesitations” section before diving into problems

• Use actual user complaints as social proof - Reddit screenshots and G2 quotes lend credibility since you’re not inventing problems

• Structure each reason as Problem → What it means → The alternative for scannable, persuasive flow

• Close with “The solution isn’t abandoning SAP entirely” to respect existing investments while positioning your product as a complement

#8 How We Use AirOps to Grow AirOps - Published by AirOps

Article link

This is the “dogfooding” playbook—showing how AirOps uses its own product internally. It’s meta, transparent, and incredibly credible because it answers every prospect’s question: “Does this actually work, or is it just marketing?”

By pulling back the curtain on their own growth tactics (6 webinars, 12 newsletters, 50% increase in followers, 30+ growth experiments), AirOps demonstrates product value while creating a replicable framework that readers can adapt.

How can you reverse-engineer it?

• Lead with concrete results upfront (6 webinars, 50% follower increase, 30+ experiments) before explaining how

• Frame it as “Challenges We Faced” before solutions to acknowledge shared pain points

• Structure each workflow identically: The Need → Input → How it works → Output → Impact with time saved

• Include actual workflow screenshots showing real internal configurations, not polished marketing images

• End with actionable framework (map content flow, spot bottlenecks, define inputs/outputs) readers can replicate

• Multiple CTAs for different intent levels (strategy session, cohort, webinar, demo)

#9 6 transactional email services compared (and how to pick the right one) - Published by Postmark

Article link

Postmark has always been good with its BOFU strategy, and this article is one of the best ones.

Postmark doesn’t just compare itself to five competitors—it creates a genuine buying guide that helps developers and product teams evaluate transactional email providers based on what actually matters: deliverability, speed, developer experience, pricing models, and support.

The genius here is that Postmark positions itself as the trusted advisor who happens to also be an option, rather than being aggressively salesy about its product.

How can you reverse-engineer it?

• Include yourself in the comparison without favoritism, with honest pros/cons in the same format as competitors

• Add “What we’ve heard from customers who switched” boxes after direct competitors to subtly reinforce advantages

• Write for your audience. For example, here the target readers are dev people, and hence Postmark uses technical language that they understand (webhook reliability, SMTP authentication, bounce handling)

• Create an evaluation framework section at the end that helps readers decide while highlighting what you do well

• Back up claims with verifiable data (public delivery stats, G2 reviews, Trustradius scores)

#10 How to introduce Dock to your customers - Published by Dock

Article link

This is an enablement guide by Dock for its existing customers. A BOFU article aimed not at prospects, but at users who’ve already bought Dock and need to drive adoption with their own customers.

It’s brilliant because it removes a massive activation barrier: “I bought this collaborative workspace tool, but how do I get my clients to actually use it?”

By creating this guide, Dock increases product stickiness, reduces churn, and generates word-of-mouth as their users successfully onboard their customers.

How can you reverse-engineer it?

• Start by addressing the post-purchase anxiety with questions customers are actually asking (”How should I refer to Dock? When’s the best time to introduce it?”)

• Structure advice chronologically around customer touchpoints (end of sales call, before kickoff, in standard emails)

• Feature customer quotes from recognizable brands (Loom, Assignar, Champify) explaining what works for them

• Break best practices into numbered, actionable tactics with specific “Bad vs. Good” examples

• Add visual screenshots showing exactly how to execute tactics

• End with support resources rather than a sales CTA since these are already customers

Share GrowthPact

🤖 BOFU Content is What LLMs Actually Prefer

Here’s something most content teams miss: while top-of-funnel informational content gets cannibalized by AI Overviews (90-99% of AI Overviews are triggered by informational intent), bottom-of-funnel content is actually “LLM preference content.”

When users ask ChatGPT or Perplexity questions like “best project management tools for remote teams” or “Asana vs Monday.com,” these AI engines need to cite sources—and they’re scraping Google’s top 10 rankings to do it.

The Data Backs This Up

From Clearscope’s webinar:

• LLM preference content = comparison content, product pages, solutions pages, features pages, “X vs Y,” and “X alternatives”

• LLMs don’t retrieve information independently—they scrape Google and Bing rankings

• Perplexity’s citation order almost perfectly mirrors Google search rankings

• The conversion pattern for B2B SaaS: AI search for discovery/narrowing down → Google for brand search → conversion

What This Means for Your Content Strategy

Focus on tracking AI prompts that actually recommend tools and solutions. Don’t waste time tracking prompts like “what is project management?” because those just spit out answers from training data without citing sources.

Instead, track bottom-of-funnel prompts:

• “What are the best ABM platforms with AI capabilities?”

• “Is X a good alternative to Y for [specific use case]?”

• Classic BOFU queries that require brand recommendations

Want to explain your AEO strategy to executives? It’s simple: it’s BOFU SEO. That’s the content LLMs prefer, cite, and recommend.

✨ What’s Next?

BOFU content isn’t just surviving the AI era—it’s thriving.

While informational content gets buried under AI Overviews, comparison pages, alternative articles, and solution-specific content, LLMs cite and recommend exactly that.

The examples above prove one thing: the future of B2B content isn’t about creating more—it’s about making what actually influences decisions when buyers are ready to choose.

Found something useful? Tag along by subscribing to the GrowthPact newsletter.

Need help with building and scaling a BOFU content strategy?

Give us a call/DM or wait for the next edition!

Sreyashi & Ekta 🌻

Follow GrowthPact on LinkedIn

Thanks for taking the time to read this! Before we start publishing more here, let’s discuss a bit on why GrowthPact exists in the first place!

Our story starts with our passion and obsession related to organic growth.

Organic growth didn’t become outdated. Our expectations of it did.

Somewhere along the way, organic became synonymous with:

• publishing more

• ranking higher

• shipping faster (thanks to AI)

And yet, inside real B2B SaaS teams, a different conversation keeps coming up:

“We’re getting traffic… but it’s not changing deals.”
“Sales isn’t using this content.”
“Buyers are researching, but not with us.”

That gap is what GrowthPact is about.

What we at GrowthPact are actually obsessed with

GrowthPact is a Substack about how organic marketing participates in buying decisions.

❌Not how it performs on dashboards.
❌Not how it looks on LinkedIn.

But how it shows up when a buyer is:

• shortlisting vendors

• pressure-testing claims

• asking internal “should we trust this?” questions

We write for that moment.

Where this perspective comes from

GrowthPact is shaped by years of working inside B2B SaaS, owning on-page, off-page, content, AI workflows, and BOFU strategy while being accountable to pipeline, not impressions or traffic.

We’ve seen:

• Comparison pages rank and still lose deals

• “Helpful” content gets ignored by sales

• AI scale output while flattening differentiation

And we’ve also seen what does work, often quietly, often not-so-fashionable, and almost never in public playbooks.

That’s the work we document here.

What you’ll find inside GrowthPact

Each issue focuses on one sharp problem that content marketing and SEO teams actually struggle with, such as:

• GEO / AI Engine Optimization: get cited in ChatGPT/Perplexity/Gemini via entity-led pages, FAQ blocks, schema, and “answer-ready” formatting

• Content strategy: pipeline-led content roadmap, prioritization, and a publishing plan that matches your sales motion

• On-page SEO: topic clusters, intent mapping, briefs, content refreshes, internal linking, titles/meta, and CTR fixes

• Off-page SEO: authority-building plans, digital PR angles, partner placements, and brand mentions that actually stick

• Backlinks: targeted link acquisition + clean link strategy (pages-to-links mapping, anchor strategy, and quality control)

No larger-than-life frameworks. No recycled advice.

Just clear thinking you can apply to your own funnel.

Who this is for

GrowthPact is for:

• B2B SaaS founders & marketing leads → who want organic, SEO, and LinkedIn to drive qualified demand, not vanity traffic

• SEO & content owners in scaling SaaS teams → who already publish but need better on-page, off-page, and backlink impact

• Teams investing in AI but lacking structure → who need GEO + AI engine visibility without breaking SEO fundamentals

• SaaS companies with a sales motion in place → who want organic content to support buyer research and sales conversations

If you’ve ever felt that organic should be doing more than it currently is, you’re in the right place.

Leave a comment

How we approach AI (very intentionally)

We don’t treat AI as a silver bullet. And we don’t pretend it’s optional either.

Here, AI is discussed as:

• A leverage tool, not a strategy

• Something to be constrained, reviewed, and designed around

• Useful only when paired with human judgment and context

If a manual process is better, we’ll say that too.

GrowthPact is here to help you think better about how organic actually works in modern B2B buying journeys.

If that’s a problem you’re actively trying to solve, you’ll find value here.

Subscribe to GrowthPact to get the first issue when it drops.

— Ekta and Sreyashi

Share GrowthPact

Subscribe now