Screaming Frog SEO Spider vs Sitebulb

Screaming Frog SEO Spider

This is the anchor-8/9 crawler evidence: unlimited URLs bound only by my own hardware, Chromium WRS rendering, scheduled and CLI-automated crawls, Search Console data fetched per URL, canonical and structured-data diagnosis, issues with type and impact-based priority, and crawl comparison including staging-versus-production so regressions can be tied to a deploy. It stops short of 10 only because nothing evidences crawl-budget analysis.

Sitebulb

This is the core product and it shows: Cloud crawls to 10m URLs with JavaScript rendering via headless Chrome, 300+ hints described as automatically checked and prioritised, and genuinely diagnostic indexation work — non-self-referential canonicals, the specific robots.txt rule behind every affected URL, and eleven indexing directives reported. Structured Data and Performance reports are Pro-licensed and audit comparisons exist between crawls; I found no public information on log-file analysis or crawl budget analysis, which is what keeps it short of the top.

Screaming Frog SEO Spider

There is no keyword research anywhere in this sheet — no discovery, volumes, intent, difficulty or SERP-feature data in any language, German included; what content features exist are on-page checks (meta data, duplicates, 25-language spell-check).

Sitebulb

The keyword report is my own Search Console data visualised well — brand vs non-brand split, device segmentation, clicks and CTR by position, keyword performance by HTML template — which is analysis of what I already rank for, not research. We found no public information on keyword discovery, volumes, difficulty, intent classification, SERP feature data, or any German-language database; I would still need a second tool to win a pitch.

Screaming Frog SEO Spider

The vendor documents no rank tracking and no proprietary backlink index at all; the only link data is pulled from the Majestic, Ahrefs and Moz APIs, which is other companies' indexes with other companies' methodology. Judged on what the vendor publishes about their own data — nothing — this sits at the bottom anchor.

Sitebulb

The index quality half is deep — every URL sorted into Indexable and Not Indexable, robots directives consolidated across three locations with conflicts flagged — but rankings and clicks arrive through the Search Console connection rather than any proprietary dataset. I found no public information on a backlink index, on proprietary rank tracking, or on a stated update frequency for ranking data, so there is nothing here for the vendor to be accountable for beyond their crawler.

Screaming Frog SEO Spider

Scheduled crawls auto-export to Google Sheets, there is a Looker Studio crawl report, and GA/Search Console/PageSpeed integrations exist — but the 'API integrations' are inbound only and nothing documents an outbound API with stated limits. For an agency there is no white-label client access and no multi-client management, so I would be assembling client reports myself instead of sending one unedited, which is the work I pay a tool to remove.

Sitebulb

This is the agency story: a multi-project template pulling my whole client portfolio into one dashboard with delta columns per audit, clients viewing Data Studio reports without needing a Sitebulb login, 271 columns of historical audit data auto-pushed to Sheets, and S3 export past the 1M-row standard limit. The gap is the API — beyond the MCP hook into Claude and ChatGPT I found no public information on a documented API with stated limits — and the S3 route sits behind contact sales on certain Cloud plans only.

Screaming Frog SEO Spider

The desktop model keeps the archive on my side: saved crawls and auto-export to any location are unmetered, and the vendor holds almost nothing (crawl data shared only on my instruction, Google data stored by the user only). But the free version restricts saving crawls, so what happens to my crawl history if a licence lapses is undocumented, and no retention or grace period is stated — so I stop between the bulk-export and designed-for-exit anchors.

Sitebulb

History is genuinely portable — bulk exports of historical audit data covering every metric, an audit share file any other Sitebulb user can import in full, automatic exports to a local folder or a shared drive like Dropbox, and desktop project transfer between machines, with the desktop edition keeping the data on my own hardware. I found no public information on retention of cloud data after cancellation, and the bigger-than-1M-row S3 export is a sales conversation rather than a published entitlement.

Screaming Frog SEO Spider

The contracting entity is England-and-Wales registered under English law, website and licence data sit in UK and US data centres with confirmed transfers outside the EEA, and no subprocessor list is published — that is a 0-to-3 anchor picture. The desktop deployment limits what the vendor ever touches (Google user data 'only available and stored by the user', crawl sharing user-initiated), which is the only reason this clears the floor.

Sitebulb

The contracting entity is Sitebulb Limited of Biddenden, Kent, with a UK company number, and I found no public information on cloud hosting location, ownership, or any subprocessor list. The desktop edition at least crawls on my own machines and saves export files locally, which keeps client crawl data in my hands, but on the published evidence the contracting chain is not European.

Screaming Frog SEO Spider

As a seat buyer this is the cleanest pricing sheet I could ask for: per-user licences at published volume bands (£199 down to £169 at 20+), a flat one-year term, unlimited URLs, and no keyword limits, crawl credits, API units or overages to model — my annual invoice for any team size is pure arithmetic with no 'contact us' anywhere. The only unstated item is whether the headline price is ex-VAT, which keeps it just off complete computability.

Sitebulb

Desktop pricing is refreshingly computable — Lite at $18 /month with 10,000 URLs per audit, additional users at a stated $11 per month, 15% off yearly, payment methods and the invoice-for-yearly-only rule all public — and a published per-seat number is exactly what I need to rebill a growing team. Cloud, which is what forty client sites actually needs, is published only as a span from £95/month to in excess of £20k/year, the S3 export add-on is contact sales (a margin problem in my world), and we found no public information on VAT treatment or minimum term, so the real annual invoice is not derivable.