Screaming Frog SEO Spider vs Sitebulb

Screaming Frog SEO Spider

The crawler is the product: unlimited URLs bounded only by the customer's own memory and storage, Chromium rendering, custom JavaScript execution, structured-data validation against Schema.org, GA/GSC/PageSpeed joins, and crawl comparison with staging-vs-production URL mapping so regressions trace to a deploy. Issues carry a type and estimated priority, but the evidence never documents crawl-budget analysis or log-file work, which is what separates this from the top anchor.

Sitebulb

Crawl scale is documented and real: up to 10 million URLs per audit in the cloud edition, a 500,000-URL desktop default raiseable to 2 million, JavaScript rendering through headless Chrome, and daily, weekly or monthly scheduling. Diagnosis runs deep — non-self-referential canonicals, robots directives consolidated across the HTML head, HTTP header and robots.txt with the specific triggering rule per URL, structured-data and hreflang reports, audit comparisons between crawls, and a Response vs Render report. We found no public information on log-file analysis or prioritisation tied to traffic impact, which is what the top of this scale asks for.

Screaming Frog SEO Spider

There is no keyword research anywhere in this sheet — no volumes, no intent, no difficulty, no SERP feature detail, and no German-language data of any kind. The single point is for adjacent on-page content analysis: titles/meta, exact and near-duplicate detection, and spelling/grammar in 25+ languages.

Sitebulb

The keyword material documented is analysis of the customer's own Search Console data — brand versus non-brand segmentation, desktop, mobile and tablet splits, a clicks-and-CTR-by-position chart for the top ten, and a breakdown by HTML template, blendable with crawl data in a configurable explorer. We found no public information on keyword discovery, volumes, difficulty, intent classification, SERP feature analysis or German-language keyword data. This is reporting on data the customer already owns, not research.

Screaming Frog SEO Spider

No rank tracker and no proprietary backlink index exist in the evidence — link metrics are pulled live from the Majestic, Ahrefs and Moz APIs, so there is no vendor-owned dataset to be held accountable for. Honest architecture, but by this criterion's yardstick there is nothing proprietary to score.

Sitebulb

We found no public information on proprietary rank tracking or a backlink index; the ranking and click views shown are Search Console data presented with device splits and position mapping. Since the vendor appears to collect none of this data itself, there is no methodology, update frequency or index size to be accountable for. The index-quality work that is evidenced is indexability diagnosis of the customer's own site, which sits under the audit criterion.

Screaming Frog SEO Spider

Exports are real — bulk error export, spreadsheet export, scheduled auto-export to any location including Google Sheets, CLI automation, and automated Looker Studio crawl reports — but every 'API' on the evidence is an outbound call the tool makes to Google or link providers, not an inbound API I can build against. No documented product API, no stated limits, no credit costs anywhere.

Sitebulb

Data-out is strong where it counts: a live Data Studio connector that refreshes dashboards on every crawl, automated pushes of the full historical audit dataset — 271 columns covering every metric — into Google Sheets, multi-project portfolio dashboards clients can view without a login, and automated CSV delivery to S3-compatible storage past the one-million-row standard cap. The S3 route is an add-on on certain cloud plans through sales contact, and we found no public information on a documented HTTP API, its limits or per-endpoint costs — the connector into Claude and ChatGPT is the only programmatic surface shown. The warehouse path is S3 and Sheets rather than an API a team builds on.

Screaming Frog SEO Spider

The crawl history never lived on their servers: it's a desktop tool, crawls are saved and reopened locally, and scheduled auto-export pushes crawl data to any location with no credit metering to price the exit. One point off because the evidence documents spreadsheet export of 'key onsite SEO elements' and bulk error lists rather than a stated open format for the full-fidelity crawl database.

Sitebulb

History does leave with the customer: bulk exports of historical audit data in CSV and XLSX, automatic saving of export files to a local folder or shared cloud drive, a share file that packages the entire audit for import by any other user, and project transfer between machines. The S3 export covers big sites — all internal URLs with their data columns — but it is gated to certain cloud plans via a sales conversation, and we found no public information on retention or a grace period after cancellation. The standard export routes shown carry no credit metering, which holds this above the middle.

Screaming Frog SEO Spider

The contracting entity is Screaming Frog Ltd, England and Wales, hosting is stated as UK and US with confirmed transfers out of the EEA for account and licence-telemetry data, and there is no subprocessor list — only an assurance that DPAs 'have been requested'. The desktop model keeping crawl data on the customer's machine is genuinely sovereign where it counts, but non-EU entity plus absent subprocessors lands this at the anchor regardless.

Sitebulb

The contracting entity is Sitebulb Limited, a UK company (Company No. 12125600, Biddenden, Kent), which sits outside the EU; we found no public information on hosting location, data residency or any subprocessor list. For a tool that mainly holds the customer's own crawl strategy rather than personal data the stakes are lower, but nothing captured evidences where cloud crawl data physically sits.

Screaming Frog SEO Spider

Flat £199/$279 per user per year with published tier discounts at 5, 10 and 20 licences, a 500-URL free tier with its restrictions itemised, and no metering anywhere — no crawl credits, no API units, no overages — so the annual invoice is arithmetic. Held below 10 because VAT treatment of the £199 is not stated, and the link-metric integrations imply third-party API subscription costs the evidence never prices.

Sitebulb

Desktop is computable from public pages: Lite at $18 /month with 10,000 URLs per audit and one user, Pro at 500,000 URLs with additional users at $11 per month, a stated 15% yearly discount, and card, PayPal or invoice-on-yearly payment. The cloud edition is quoted only as plans 'starting from £95/month, and going up in excess of £20k/year', and the S3 export is priced through sales contact. We found no public information on VAT treatment or minimum terms, so a cloud buyer's annual invoice is not derivable from the captured pages.