Dokeo vs Profound
Profound helps you draft.
Dokeo scores the finished piece
We gate our own blog. Scored 17 October 2026 with the same engine you get, glossary rules, balanced strictness.
Teams that have already published content and want to know which pages are being cited (or not) by AI search.
Teams that want to catch citation-readiness issues BEFORE shipping - so they don't have to ask Profound what went wrong after.
Profound tells you weeks later. Dokeo prevents the failure before it ships.
The gate is deterministic: the same draft returns the same verdict every time, which is what makes it safe to block a CI pipeline on.
- SEO, AEO, and GEO checks run in a single pass, across all 17 supported content types.
- Every FAIL names the specific check that failed and why.
- 100 free scans a month, no credit card, same gate as production.
When in the workflow
Profound runs AFTER publish, on a schedule, and reports citation frequency across engines. Dokeo runs BEFORE publish, in CI or the editor, and reports whether the draft will be citation-ready. One tells you what happened; the other tells you what will happen.
| Feature | Profound | Dokeo |
|---|---|---|
| When | After publish (monitoring) | Before publish (gate) |
| Frequency | Daily/weekly polls of AI engines | Every CI run, every commit |
| Output | Citation counts, share of voice | Pass/Flag/Fail + inline issues |
| How it scores | LLM read, can vary run to run | Deterministic checks, no LLM in the loop |
| Can block a build? | ✗ (post-hoc only) | ✓ (CI integration) |
Where each one fits
Dokeo and Profound are not substitutes - they live at different points in the workflow. Dokeo enforces the citation-readiness bar at publish time; Profound tells you weeks later whether the bar held. Together: ship clean content with Dokeo, then prove it got cited with Profound.
| Feature | Profound | Dokeo |
|---|---|---|
| Engineers (CI/CD) | Not listed | ✓ (CLI, MCP, public GitHub Action) |
| Writers (in-editor) | Not listed | Roadmap (Google Docs add-on) |
| Manager (QBR) | Post-publish SOV charts | Pre-publish pass-rate trends |
| Citation causation | Correlation only | Roadmap (Outcome Loop) |
Why most teams end up using both
If you only have Profound, you find out 2-4 weeks after publish that a piece didn't get cited - too late to fix without a content update. If you only have Dokeo, you enforce citation-readiness but never measure actual citation lift. The combination is what makes content marketing work.
| Feature | Profound | Dokeo |
|---|---|---|
| Fail-fast on publish | ✗ | ✓ |
| Measure post-publish | ✓ | Roadmap (Outcome Loop) |
| Audit log + exports | Not listed | ✓ |
| Pricing | Custom (prices not published); free 7-day trial | From $0 free tier to $499/mo |
FAQ
If I use Dokeo, do I still need Profound?
Dokeo enforces citation-readiness at publish time. Profound tracks what actually got cited. They answer different questions. For a complete loop, use both - Dokeo prevents the failure, Profound confirms the success.
Is Dokeo trying to replace Profound?
No. They live in different parts of the workflow. The two-camp competitive model (editor vs monitor) leaves a gap: the pre-publish gate. That's Dokeo.
Does Dokeo score against the same AI engines Profound tracks?
Dokeo scores against the documented ranking signals of ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, and Gemini. Profound observes what they actually cite. Different methods, overlapping target.
Can I use Dokeo + Profound together?
Yes. Common pattern: Dokeo gates every piece in CI; Profound confirms citation lift weeks later. The team dashboard shows pass-rate vs actual citation - that's how you prove content marketing ROI.
Ready to pass the gate?
100 free scans every month, no credit card, and you can cancel anytime.