Purpose: We examined whether there were differences among speech-language profile groups of children with cerebral palsy (CP) in age of crossing 25%, 50%, and 75% intelligibility thresholds; age of greatest intelligibility growth; rate of intelligibility growth; maximum attained intelligibility at 8 years; and how well intelligibility at 36 months predicts intelligibility at 96 months when group membership is accounted for. Profile groups were children with no speech motor impairment (NSMI), those with speech motor impairment and language comprehension that is typically developing (SMI-LCT), and those with speech motor impairment and language comprehension impairment (SMI-LCI). Method: Sixty-eight children with CP were followed longitudinally between 24 and 96 months of age. A total of 564 time points were examined across children (M = 8.3 time points per child, SD = 2.6). We fitted a nonlinear random effects model for longitudinal observations, allowing for differences between profile groups. We used the fitted model trajectories to generate descriptive analyses of intelligibility growth by group and to generate simulations to analyze how well 36-month intelligibility data predicted 96-month data accounting for profile groups. Results: Children with CP who have NSMI have different growth and better intelligibility outcomes than those with speech motor impairment. Children with SMI-LCT tend to have better outcomes but similar intelligibility growth as children with SMI-LCI. There may be a subset of children that cut across SMI-LCI and SMI-LCT groups who have severe speech motor involvement and show limited growth in intelligibility. Conclusions: Intelligibility outcomes for children with CP are affected by profile group membership. Intelligibility growth tends to be delayed in children with speech motor impairment. Intelligibility at 3 years is highly predictive of later outcomes regardless of profile group. Intervention decision making should include consideration of early intelligibility, and treatment directions should include consideration of augmentative and alternative communication.