Screaming Frog SEO Spider vs Sitebulb

Screaming Frog SEO Spider

This is the product's real substance: Chromium rendering, crawl comparison against staging via URL mapping, structured-data validation against Schema.org, issues typed with an estimated priority based on potential impact, and Search Console and PageSpeed data pulled into the crawl. It holds at 8, not higher, because nothing in the evidence documents log-file or crawl-budget analysis, and the URL limit is 'unlimited, dependent on allocated memory and storage' — stated, which I respect, but not an analysed budget.

Sitebulb

Every limit I look for is stated and checkable: 10,000 URLs on Lite, 500,000 default with a documented raise to 2 million, 10 million on Cloud, a 10-second TTFB default, configurable render timeout and threads — with JavaScript rendering via headless Chrome and daily, weekly or monthly scheduling. Canonical and robots diagnosis goes deep — non-self-referential canonicals, canonicals pointing at noindexed URLs, conflicting robots declarations across head, header and robots.txt — alongside structured-data validation on Pro and audit comparisons to catch regressions between crawls. We found no public information on log-file analysis, crawl-budget analysis, or the basis on which the 300+ prioritised hints are ranked.

Screaming Frog SEO Spider

No keyword volumes, difficulty, intent or SERP-feature data exist anywhere in the evidence — there is no keyword database in this product at all, which sits below even the anchor-0 baseline of a list with volumes from one source. The only content-adjacent features evidenced are meta title/description length checks, duplicate detection and a spellcheck in 25+ languages.

Sitebulb

Every keyword figure in this product is the customer's own Search Console data re-cut inside an audit — brand versus non-brand, device splits, template breakdowns — and we found no public information on keyword volumes, difficulty, intent classification, SERP feature analysis, or any German-language keyword database of the vendor's own. Content guidance amounts to duplicate content detection and a spell checker. This is reporting on data you already own, not research.

Screaming Frog SEO Spider

No rank tracking of any kind is evidenced, and the vendor owns no index: the only link metrics are explicitly pulled from Majestic, Ahrefs and Moz APIs. Honest not to claim 'the largest index' like the rest of the market — but it means there is no proprietary data, no methodology and no refresh cadence to hold anyone to, which is rubric level 0 territory.

Sitebulb

We found no public information on a proprietary ranking index or any backlink index; the vendor's own export guide describes blending audit data with other sources for 'keyword, rankings or backlink data', which tells you where those live. Rankings shown are Search Console performance with desktop, mobile and tablet and brand segmentation, and the collection method — a Search Console connection with keyword analysis enabled — is documented. The pages make no proprietary-data claims to hold the vendor to: no index size, no freshness cadence, no methodology.

Screaming Frog SEO Spider

Data does get out — bulk exports, scheduled auto-export to any location including Google Sheets, and Looker Studio crawl reports — but every 'API integration' listed is the Spider consuming Google's and the link vendors' APIs, not exposing one of its own, and command-line automation is not a documented API with stated limits. No white-label, no warehouse export, no per-endpoint credit costs — because there is no API to charge for.

Sitebulb

The out-of-the-box reporting is real: a live Data Studio connector with per-crawl dashboard updates, automated Google Sheets pushes that append a row per audit, a 271-column historical export, portfolio dashboards clients can view without a Sitebulb login, and S3 export on certain Cloud plans. But we found no public information on a REST API, its rate limits, or per-endpoint costs — the only programmatic surface documented is an MCP hook for Claude and ChatGPT — and the S3 export itself is a sales contact rather than a published price.

Screaming Frog SEO Spider

The desktop deployment does what rubric level 8-10 ask in spirit: crawls are saved and reopened as local files, everything bulk-exports, and scheduled exports land wherever the user points them — the vendor physically cannot hold the history hostage, and there is no credit metering to price an exit out of reach. Held below 9 because saving crawls is a licensed feature and the evidence never states whether saved crawls remain openable once a licence lapses, nor what format the native files take.

Sitebulb

Exports are bulk and unmetered: CSV and multi-sheet XLSX across 271 columns described as every metric, historical audit data exportable, automated delivery to a local folder or cloud drive, project transfer between machines, and a share file that gives any other user the entire audit. The catches are scale and price: standard exports stop at 1 million rows, and the S3 route past that is limited to certain Cloud plans via a sales contact. We found no public information on retention after cancellation, and nothing in the captured pages describes a way to mirror the archive continuously.

Screaming Frog SEO Spider

The contracting entity is UK, not EU, and the privacy policy itself confirms storage in UK and US data centres with transfers outside the EEA; subprocessors are unnamed beyond a promise that DPAs have been 'requested' from service providers. The one genuinely sovereign property is the deployment model — crawl data stays on the user's machine and leaves only when the user initiates it — which lifts this just above the floor.

Sitebulb

The contracting entity is plainly published — Sitebulb Limited of Biddenden, Kent, company number 12125600 — but that jurisdiction is the UK, outside the EU, and we found no public information on hosting location, ownership, or any named subprocessor despite the tool ingesting Google Analytics and Search Console data. Every question a sovereignty review would ask is answered with silence.

Screaming Frog SEO Spider

This is the invoice a buyer can actually compute: £199 per user per year with published volume tiers down to £169, per-user licensing explicit, one-year term stated, and no keyword limits, crawl credits or API units because nothing is metered. Short of the top only because VAT treatment is never stated (they collect your VAT number at purchase) and the GBP 199 / USD 279 duality comes with no published rule for which one you pay.

Sitebulb

The holdable parts: Lite at $18/month with 10,000 URLs per audit, additional users at $11 per month, the Pro URL limit of 500,000 raiseable to 2 million, a 15% yearly discount, and payment terms including purchase order for yearly plans. The parts that make the invoice unknowable: we found no public information on the Pro tier's own price, and Cloud is quoted only as 'plans starting from £95/month' rising 'in excess of £20k/year' — a spread, not a computable bill — while the S3 export add-on is a sales conversation and VAT treatment goes unstated.