Comparison
The question your listening platform answers badly.
If you already run Meltwater, Brandwatch or Sprinklr, you have archives, coverage and PR workflow we do not have and are not building. What you probably do not have is confidence that the numbers survive being questioned in a review. That is the gap this page is about.
Where the incumbents are genuinely stronger
Written first, on purpose. A comparison page that claims we win at everything is worth nothing to you.
Scale and history
Far larger archives, longer historical depth, and more sources. If you need to analyze five years of conversation, they can and we cannot.
Media relations
Journalist databases, press distribution and PR workflow. We do none of that and have no plans to.
Enterprise reporting
Mature dashboards, established exports, and the governance features a large organization needs.
Global coverage
Broader language and regional coverage than ours, which matters if you operate in many markets.
What you are actually choosing between
| If you keep the incumbent | If you add BrandVelocity |
|---|---|
| Years of archive | Months, and growing |
| Journalist database and PR workflow | None, and none planned |
| Language and region coverage | Narrower than theirs |
| A number you defend on trust | A number you can trace to its mentions |
| Filtered at report time | Judged before it is ever stored |
| Conversation in a dashboard | Conversation reaching the people writing |
The first three rows are theirs. The last three are the reason anyone adds us alongside.
What BrandVelocity built differently
A filter that explains itself
Every mention we set aside stays visible with the reason attached, and you can overrule it. We built this after finding four separate ways our own numbers had been technically correct and useless.
Relevance judged before storage
A mention that shares a word with your brand name but is not about you does not enter the count in the first place.
It feeds the work
What listening learns is available to the creative and campaign work on the same platform, including the language your customers actually use.
One competitor set
The competitors tracked in listening are the same ones tracked in research and in AI visibility.
What you get by connecting it to the rest
Every module reads the same brand definition and the same competitor set. These are the things that stop being separate work once listening sits next to the others.
Conversation that reaches the creative
The language customers actually use is available to the people writing, in the same place.
One competitor set, so the numbers agree
Share of voice and AI answer visibility are measured against the same list of competitors, which is the only way the two can be compared at all.
A rise in mentions with a cause attached
A spike arrives next to what your competitors published and what your own campaigns were doing that week, so the first question in the review is already answered.
What it changed, and what followed from it
Conversation joined back to the campaign that ran and the segment it targeted, so there is something to compare it with.
Which should you choose?
If you need deep historical archives, PR workflow and media relations, buy an established platform. Those are real requirements, BrandVelocity does not meet them, and plenty of brands are better served by the incumbents. We are built for a narrower problem: a number you can defend, and a conversation that reaches the work. Every mention we set aside stays visible with the reason attached and you can overrule it, so a share-of-voice figure can be traced back to the mentions behind it in a review. Relevance is judged before storage, so a mention that merely shares a word with your brand name never enters the count in the first place. And because the same platform holds your segments, your competitor set and your brand voice, what the conversation teaches actually reaches the people writing: the language customers use becomes copy, a spike arrives next to what your competitors published that week, and the campaign that followed is measured against the segment it targeted. Put plainly: an incumbent gives you more conversation, and gives you more of it than we can. We are built so the conversation you already have changes what you make next.
Bring your hardest question
The one your current tools have not been able to answer.
See where your answers come from