Conversion Optimization
AB Tasty
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by AB Tasty SAS · www.abtasty.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
AB Tasty at a glance
- Vendor
- AB Tasty SAS
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates AB Tasty 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. AB Tasty's bench results are strongest on data and integrations, where scores run 6 to 7: a public API with role-based revocable credentials, BigQuery, Redshift and Snowflake connectors with daily exports, and all collected data exportable through the Data Explorer API. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
AB Tasty's bench results are strongest on data and integrations, where scores run 6 to 7: a public API with role-based revocable credentials, BigQuery, Redshift and Snowflake connectors with daily exports, and all collected data exportable through the Data Explorer API. Statistical rigour scores sit level at 6 on a named Bayesian framework with a documented Frequentist mode, sequential testing and a sample-ratio-mismatch check. Experimentation scope spans 5 to 7 across visual and code editors, multivariate tests and server-side SDKs. The genuine splits are sovereignty, 0 to 3, and performance impact, 4 to 6. Sovereignty split the judges over how much a French corporate form and first-party cookies weigh when we found no public information on hosting, a subprocessor list or a data-processing agreement, and the SDK connects to the closest CDN endpoint regardless of physical location. Performance scores divided between crediting the documented architecture — server-side flag fetching, local bucketing, 304 polling — and that no published script-size or Core Web Vitals figures appear. No prices appear on the captured pages, and that score is excluded from the weighted verdicts.
Speaks for it
- Warehouse connectors export to BigQuery, Redshift and Snowflake, with daily exports that can be run as often as needed
- All collected data can be exported through the Data Explorer API, and the public API grants role-based, revocable credentials
- Statistical rigour scored level at 6 on a named Bayesian framework, a documented Frequentist mode, sequential testing and sample ratio mismatch in the reporting
- A server-side rendering path fetches flags per page request to avoid flicker, and bucketing assigns variations locally after a one-time CDN fetch with 304 polling
- Cookie and storage lifetimes are published alongside three consent modes, and all stored visitor data is erased when consent is lost
Held against it
- Sovereignty scored 0 to 3 — the flagged disagreement among the judges — and we found no public information on where visitor data is hosted, on any subprocessor list, or on a data-processing agreement
- No published figures for script size, load cost or Core Web Vitals impact appear on the captured pages, and we found no public information on self-hosting the script
- We found no public information on holdouts, mutually exclusive experiment groups, a sample-size or duration calculator, multiple-comparison correction, or guardrail metrics
- A documented consent configuration displays campaigns and tracks data without requesting consent, and we found no public information on IP anonymisation or a cookieless mode
- The SDK connects to the closest CDN endpoint regardless of physical location, and session storage keeps temporary data from external services such as geolocation and weather
Best for
- You need experiment results in your own stack, where warehouse exports and the export API form the strongest-scoring area at 6 to 7
- Your team combines no-code web testing with server-side delivery and needs assignments consistent across platforms on a shared visitor ID
- You assess vendors on documented statistical method — the Bayesian primary framework with a mapped Frequentist mode scored level at 6
- Your consent flow runs through a tag manager, with published cookie lifetimes and erasure of stored data on consent withdrawal documented
Avoid if
- You must verify where visitor data is hosted or name subprocessors before contracting — sovereignty scored 0 to 3 and is the judges' flagged disagreement
- You need warehouse-native analysis on your own metrics — the documented flow designs reports from AB Tasty-collected data and exports them
- You require published script-size or Core Web Vitals figures before deploying a client-side tag — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Experiment types & delivery | 3 of 5 |
| Statistical method & guardrails | 3 of 5 |
| Consent & visitor tracking | 3 of 5 |
| Snippet performance & flicker | 2.5 of 5 |
| Analytics, data export & integrations | 3.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0.5 of 5 |
Experiment types & delivery
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What can be tested and where: client-side changes through an editor, server-side and feature experiments through SDKs, multivariate and multi-page tests, and personalisation — judged on what the documentation shows rather than on the feature grid.
0 — Simple A/B split of one page element through a visual editor; no server-side option, no targeting beyond URL.
3 — Client-side A/B and split-URL tests with basic audience targeting, and no SDK or server-side delivery.
5 — Client-side and server-side experiments through documented SDKs for common languages, multivariate and multi-page tests, audience targeting on behaviour and attributes, and rule-based personalisation.
8 — Feature-flag-based experiments sharing one audience and metric model with web tests, mutually exclusive experiment groups, holdouts, edge or CDN delivery, and personalisation that can itself be tested against a control.
10 — One experimentation programme across every surface: web, app, server and edge from the same platform, experiment interactions managed, a documented experiment lifecycle from hypothesis to archived result, and a library of past results a team can search.
The Growth Lead
The visual editor plus a code editor, multivariate tests with unlimited subtests, and targeting on pages, audience, conditions and recurrence give my team what it needs without a developer, and server-side delivery is documented through SDKs for seven languages with a bucketing mode that assigns variations locally. Personalisation campaigns appear alongside tests in the same workflow. We found no public information on holdouts, mutually exclusive experiment groups, or edge delivery for web tests. 1 2 7 8 9
The E-Commerce Manager
Client-side A/B and multivariate tests come with a visual and code editor, layered where/whom/when targeting and scheduling, and the server-side side is real: eight documented SDKs, a local bucketing mode fed from the nearest CDN endpoint, and a Next.js server-side rendering path. Personalisation shows up as a campaign type alongside tests, but we found no public information on holdouts or mutually exclusive experiments, so the web and SDK sides don't show one shared audience and metric model. 1 2 7 8 9
The Product Engineer
The server-side delivery I care about is genuinely documented: seven SDKs that pull a bucketing file from the closest CDN endpoint and assign variations locally with MurmurHash, kept consistent across platforms on one visitor ID, plus an SSR integration that fetches flags server-side. The web side has visual and code editors, multivariate tests with subtests, and behavioural targeting, but we found no public information on mutually exclusive experiment groups, holdouts, or personalisation tested against a control — the flag-platform tier of scope stays unevidenced. 1 2 7 8
The CRO Consultant
The documentation shows a full web programme — visual and code editors, multivariate tests with unlimited sub-tests, targeting on pages, audience, conditions and recurrence, scheduling and QA — plus server-side SDKs in seven languages with a documented SSR path that fetches flags per page request to avoid flicker, and assignments that stay consistent across platforms on a shared visitor ID. We found no public information on holdouts, mutually exclusive experiment groups, or personalisation tested against a control, so this sits at the middle mark. 1 2 7 8
The Data Protection Officer
The documentation shows client-side visual and code editors, multivariate tests with unlimited subtests, targeting by page, audience, condition and recurrence, and server-side SDKs across seven platforms with a bucketing mode that keeps assignments consistent for the same visitor. We found no public information on mutually exclusive experiment groups, holdouts, or a searchable library of past results. Personalisation appears only as a campaign type the public API can monitor and duplicate, not as a documented capability. 1 2 7 8 9
The Skeptic
The captured documentation shows visual and code editors, multivariate tests with sub-tests, audience and behavioural targeting, and server-side delivery through SDKs for seven environments with a shared visitor ID keeping assignments consistent across platforms. We found no public information on mutually exclusive experiment groups, holdouts, or personalisation tested against a control, which is what would separate a full programme from a broad toolkit. 1 2 7 8
Statistical method & guardrails
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Which statistics decide the winner and what protects the customer from misreading them. Scored on what the vendor documents: the method by name, how peeking and multiple comparisons are handled, and whether sample ratio mismatch is detected.
0 — A "winner" or "probability to beat" figure with no documented method, no stated sample-size guidance and no warning against stopping early.
3 — The method is named (frequentist or Bayesian) but its assumptions are not documented, and nothing prevents a test from being called while it is still underpowered.
5 — Documented method with confidence or credible intervals, a sample-size or test-duration calculator, and stated guidance on when a result may be read.
8 — Sequential testing or an equivalent documented protection against peeking, correction for multiple metrics or variants, sample ratio mismatch detection, variance reduction such as CUPED, and guardrail metrics that can stop a harmful test.
10 — The statistics are auditable: methodology published in enough detail to reproduce a result, the choice of method explained per use case, raw per-visitor data available for independent re-analysis, and the interface refuses to present an underpowered result as a conclusion.
The Growth Lead
The primary framework is named as Bayesian with a chance-to-win figure and confidence intervals, a frequentist mode with a stated 0.05 significance level is documented, sequential testing can stop doomed experiments early, and sample ratio mismatch has its own reporting check. We found no public information on a sample-size or duration calculator, correction for multiple metrics or variants, variance reduction, or guardrail metrics, which is what I need to defend a number to finance. 1 3 4
The E-Commerce Manager
The method is documented by name — Bayesian as the primary framework with an optional Frequentist mode, confidence intervals as a core output, and sequential testing to catch experiments unlikely to succeed — and the reporting documentation names sample ratio mismatch. We found no public sample-size or test-duration calculator, and no public information on correcting for multiple metrics or variants, on variance reduction, or on guardrail metrics that could stop a harmful test. 1 3 4
The Product Engineer
The method is named twice over — Bayesian as primary with a frequentist mode a CSM must switch on — with confidence intervals, thresholds (95% chance to win or p under 0.05), sequential testing for futility, and sample ratio mismatch addressed in the reporting documentation. We found no public information on a sample-size or duration calculator, multiple-comparison correction, variance reduction, or guardrail metrics that stop a harmful test, which keeps it a notch below the top tier. 1 3 4
The CRO Consultant
Bayesian is the stated primary framework with chance-to-win figures and confidence intervals as a core output, and a documented Frequentist option whose p-value cut-offs are explicitly mapped to the Bayesian ones; sequential testing exists to flag experiments unlikely to succeed, and sample ratio mismatch has its own place in the reporting documentation. Before advising a client to trust a read, I would still need what is missing: we found no sample-size or duration calculator, and no public information on multiple-comparison correction, variance reduction, or guardrail metrics that stop a harmful test. 1 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
The primary Bayesian framework is named, a Frequentist option is documented with confidence intervals and a stated significance level, and both sequential testing and sample ratio mismatch appear in the reporting documentation. We found no public information on a sample-size or test-duration calculator, correction for multiple metrics or variants, variance reduction, or guardrail metrics that could stop a harmful test. 1 3 4
The Skeptic
The method is named both ways — a Bayesian primary framework with an optional frequentist mode giving p-values and confidence intervals — and the documentation explains how the two outputs map onto each other, which is more than most vendors show, and sample ratio mismatch is addressed in the reporting pages with a sequential-testing option for futility. We found no public information on sample-size or test-duration planning, the assumptions behind the Bayesian figures, or any correction for multiple metrics or variants. 1 3 4
Consent & visitor tracking
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the test script respects §25 TDDDG and the ePrivacy rules as evidenced on the vendor's own pages: when the script runs relative to consent, what it stores on the device, whether a cookieless or consent-free mode exists, and how visitor identifiers are handled.
0 — Nothing on the vendor's pages says what the script stores on the device or whether it runs before consent; consent is described as the customer's problem.
3 — Cookies or local storage are listed, and a consent integration is mentioned, but the documentation does not say what the script does before consent is given.
5 — Documented behaviour before and after consent, integration with common consent management platforms, a published list of cookies and storage keys with their lifetime, and IP anonymisation described.
8 — A documented consent-pending mode that holds tracking until consent while variants can still be served, a cookieless or first-party-only option, retention of visitor data stated, and guidance on the legal basis for testing in the EU.
10 — Built for §25 TDDDG: the default configuration stores nothing on the device without consent, a server-side or cookieless mode documented end to end, per-visitor data deletable on request, and the vendor states in writing how each mode maps to consent requirements.
The Growth Lead
The consent page is unusually concrete: three documented consent modes including delegation to the tag and management in a tag manager, a published list of first-party cookies with lifetimes (13 months for the visitor cookie), what local and session storage record, and erasure of all stored data when consent is lost. We found no public information on a consent-pending mode that serves variants while holding tracking, a cookieless web option, IP anonymisation, or guidance on the legal basis for testing in the EU. 5 6
The E-Commerce Manager
This is genuinely documented: a published cookie and storage list with lifetimes (a 13-month first-party visitor cookie, a 30-minute session store), three consent modes including delegation to the tag, which checks consent before tracking and erases all stored visitor data if consent is lost. It stops short of more: we found no public information on a cookieless mode, on IP anonymisation or on written guidance for the legal basis of testing in the EU, and an unrestricted mode that displays campaigns and tracks without asking consent remains a documented option. 5 6
The Product Engineer
The consent page is unusually concrete: three consent configurations including delegation to the tag, erasure of all stored data when consent is lost, an opt-out URL parameter, and a published inventory of cookies and storage with lifetimes — a 13-month first-party visitor cookie, session storage for geolocation and user agent, local storage for navigation history. We found no public information on a mode that serves variants while holding tracking for consent, a cookieless option, stated data retention, or IP anonymisation, and the no-restriction option is described as depositing cookies without asking. 5 6
The CRO Consultant
This is a page a DPO can work with: every cookie and storage key is listed with its lifetime — a 13-month first-party visitor cookie, a session cookie, technical cookies living milliseconds — and three consent modes are documented, including consent managed in a TMS and consent checked by the tag before any tracking, with all stored data erased if consent is withdrawn. It stops short of the top marks: we found no public information on IP anonymisation, a cookieless mode, or guidance on the legal basis for testing in the EU, and one documented mode runs with no consent requested at all. 5 6
The Data Protection Officer
The storage keys are published with their lifetimes — the main visitor cookie at thirteen months, the session cookie at thirty minutes of inactivity, technical cookies at milliseconds, plus the contents of local and session storage — and consent can be handled in a tag manager or delegated to the tag, which erases all stored data for a visitor who withdraws. What the script does between page load and the consent answer is not stated: we found no public information on a consent-pending mode that holds tracking while variants are still served, on a cookieless mode, or on IP anonymisation, while the "no restriction" configuration describes automatic display and tracking with no consent requested. 5 6
The Skeptic
The captured pages publish a first-party cookie inventory with lifetimes — thirteen months for the main cookie, a session cookie, millisecond technical cookies — plus storage purposes and three consent configurations, including delegation to a tag manager or to the tag itself, which checks consent before tracking. Consent loss is documented to trigger erasure of all stored visitor data; we found no public information on IP anonymisation, a cookieless mode, or guidance on the legal basis for testing in the EU. 5 6
Snippet performance & flicker
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The cost the client-side snippet imposes on the page it tests: blocking load, flicker of original content, script weight and the effect on Core Web Vitals — scored on what the vendor measures and publishes, not on "lightning fast".
0 — A synchronous snippet with no stated size, no flicker handling and no mention of performance.
3 — An anti-flicker snippet that hides the page until the test loads, with a timeout, and no published figures for script size or load cost.
5 — Script size and loading behaviour documented, asynchronous loading option, flicker handling explained with its trade-off, and CDN delivery of the snippet.
8 — Published performance figures including impact on Core Web Vitals, a self-hosting or first-party-domain option for the script, per-project bundles containing only active experiments, and a server-side or edge alternative for flicker-sensitive tests.
10 — Performance is a stated commitment: measured overhead published and maintained, flicker eliminated by edge or server-side rendering as a documented path, and tooling that shows the customer what their own configuration costs the page.
The Growth Lead
Flicker is addressed through a documented server-side rendering path that fetches flags before the page is served, campaign loading methods are selectable, and SDK delivery runs from the closest CDN endpoint. We found no published figures for script size or Core Web Vitals impact, and no self-hosting or first-party-domain option for the web snippet. 1 7 8
The E-Commerce Manager
For a product page there is a real path to no flicker — a documented Next.js server-side rendering integration that fetches the visitor's flags before render — and the SDK bucketing pulls its configuration file from the closest CDN endpoint with 304 polling. But no figures are published at all: we found no public information on snippet size, load cost or Core Web Vitals impact, so I cannot see what the client-side tag costs my conversion rate before I commit to it. 1 7 8
The Product Engineer
The architecture is the one I'd want to ship — a one-time fetch of the bucketing file with 304 polling, assignment computed locally, hit-sending asynchronous, and an SSR path that passes flags as props to avoid flicker — and campaign loading behaviour is selectable. But we found no published figures for script size or Core Web Vitals impact on any captured page, and no self-hosting or first-party-domain option for the snippet. 1 7 8
The CRO Consultant
The engineering is documented rather than marketed: an SSR integration passes flags as props server-side to avoid flicker, and bucketing replaces per-visitor decision calls with a one-time CDN fetch using 304 polling, so assignment runs locally and event tracking is asynchronous. But we found no published figures for script size, load cost, or Core Web Vitals impact, and no public information on self-hosting or per-project bundles containing only active tests. 1 7 8
The Data Protection Officer
Flicker is addressed through a documented server-side rendering path that fetches the visitor's flags before the page is served, and the bucketing mode delivers assignments from the closest CDN endpoint with asynchronous event calls. We found no public information on script size, load cost, Core Web Vitals impact, or a self-hosting option for the script. 7 8
The Skeptic
A documented server-side rendering path fetches flags per request and passes them as props specifically to avoid flicker, and the bucketing mode replaces per-visitor decision calls with a CDN-delivered file polled for changes, which is a real alternative for flicker-sensitive tests. We found no published figures for script size, load cost, or Core Web Vitals impact, and no self-hosting or first-party-domain option on the captured pages. 7 8
Analytics, data export & integrations
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Getting results and raw data out: integration with analytics and tag management, export of visitor-level results, warehouse-native analysis, and an API — because an experiment result that cannot be checked in the customer's own data is a claim, not a finding.
0 — Results visible in the vendor's dashboard only; no export, no analytics integration, no API.
3 — CSV export of aggregated results and one analytics integration, with no visitor-level data and no documented API.
5 — Integrations with common analytics and tag managers, export of results, and a documented API for managing experiments and reading results.
8 — Visitor-level raw data export or streaming to a data warehouse, warehouse-native analysis on the customer's own metrics, CDP integration for audiences, and an API with stated limits.
10 — The platform treats the customer's warehouse as the source of truth: metrics defined once and computed there, full historical experiment data exportable in open formats, and a versioned API a team can build its own programme tooling on.
The Growth Lead
A public API with credential, role and revocation management covers campaign monitoring and user administration, results export from reporting exists, and a warehouse integration ships daily exports to BigQuery, Redshift or Snowflake with a data explorer API through which all collected data can be exported. We found no public information confirming visitor-level granularity of those exports, warehouse-native analysis on our own metrics, or audience sync from a CDP. 4 9 10
The E-Commerce Manager
Results get out: a documented public API with role-based, revocable credentials for managing and reading campaigns, export from the reporting, and a Data Warehouse integration with BigQuery, Redshift and Snowflake connectors plus scheduled daily exports, with all collected data exportable through the Data Explorer API. The warehouse flow is designing a report on the vendor side and shipping it out rather than computing on my own metrics, and beyond quota-estimating tools we found no stated API rate limits or CDP integration. 4 9 10
The Product Engineer
Warehouse export is properly documented: BigQuery, Redshift and Snowflake connectors, daily exports you can run as often as needed, all collected data through the Data Explorer API, and quota tooling with syntax-checked payloads. The public API handles campaign monitoring, scheduling and user management with roles and revocable credentials, but we found no stated rate limits, no CDP integration, and metrics are still computed by the vendor rather than defined once and computed in my own warehouse. 2 4 9 10
The CRO Consultant
Results and data get out cleanly: a public API covers campaign monitoring and management with role-based credentials, revocation and third-party access, warehouse connectors exist for BigQuery, Redshift and Snowflake with daily and repeated daily exports, and the documentation states all collected data can be exported through the Data Explorer API. It falls short of warehouse-native analysis: metrics computed on the customer's own data and CDP audience syncs are not evidenced, whether exports are visitor-level is not stated, and API limits appear as in-product quota tooling rather than published numbers. 4 9 10
The Data Protection Officer
A documented public API manages and monitors campaigns with role-based, revocable access, and all collected data can be exported through the Data Explorer API into BigQuery, Redshift or Snowflake with daily warehouse exports. We found no public information on warehouse-native analysis on the customer's own metrics or on CDP-based audiences, and API limits appear only as quota-estimation tooling rather than stated figures. 4 9 10
The Skeptic
A public API covers campaign monitoring and account management with role-based credentials and revocation, warehouse connectors exist for BigQuery, Redshift and Snowflake with daily exports, and the Data Explorer API is stated to export all collected data. We found no public information on warehouse-native analysis on the customer's own metrics, CDP integration for audiences, or stated API limits. 4 9 10
European sovereignty
panel opinion
panel disagrees
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where visitor data is processed and stored and who the contracting entity is. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; weighted higher here than in categories that hold only the customer's own data, because the script runs on every visitor to the customer's site and their behaviour is what the platform records.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors unnamed, and visitor data leaving the EU without a stated safeguard.
3 — EU data residency offered as an option or an enterprise add-on while the contracting entity is non-EU, or the subprocessor list is absent.
5 — EU processing of visitor data as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — CDN, support access, analytics — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure including the delivery of the snippet, EU contracting entity, subprocessor list published, and a DPA covering the visitor data the script collects.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, entity, hosting, snippet delivery and every subprocessor European, certification published, and no visitor data reaching a non-EU party at any point.
The Growth Lead
The contracting name reads as a French company and cookies are described as first-party on the customer's own domain, but the captured pages state no hosting location for visitor data, publish no subprocessor list and show no data processing agreement; the SDK merely connects to the closest CDN endpoint regardless of physical location. We found no public information on where visitor data is processed or stored. 5 8
The E-Commerce Manager
We found no public information on where visitor data is processed or hosted, on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, or on any subprocessor list — for a script that runs on every visitor to my shop and records their behaviour. The only locality fact captured is that tracking cookies are first-party on my own domain, which says nothing about where that behaviour data is handled downstream. 5 6
The Product Engineer
Nothing here is confirmed: we found no public information on where visitor data is processed or hosted, the captured pages name no infrastructure for the CDN endpoints the SDK connects to, and no subprocessor list or DPA appears anywhere in what was captured. For a script that records every visitor's behaviour, the absence of any stated residency or safeguard is disqualifying for now. 5 8
The CRO Consultant
Beyond a vendor line carrying a French corporate form, we found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, where visitor data is processed or hosted, any subprocessor list, or a data-processing agreement covering the visitor data the tag collects. The captured delivery architecture connects to the closest CDN endpoint regardless of physical location and stores data received from unnamed external services such as geolocation and weather, so nothing on the captured pages localises the chain to Europe. 5 8
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, where visitor data is hosted, or any named subprocessor — including the CDN. The only related fact says the SDK connects to the closest CDN endpoint regardless of physical location, and nothing captured evidences EU processing of visitor data or a stated safeguard for where the identifiers travel. 8
The Skeptic
We found no public information on where visitor data is processed, the contracting entity's jurisdiction, hosting, or any subprocessor list. The captured pages name external services feeding session storage (geolocation, weather) and closest-CDN-endpoint delivery regardless of physical location, without stating where those run or what safeguard applies. 5 8
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
A category priced by traffic — monthly tracked users, visitors or impressions — where the tier a site lands in depends on numbers the buyer has to estimate. Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost including traffic limits, overage, server-side or personalisation modules and seats — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A starting price or a free tier exists, but the traffic metric, the limits and what happens above them are unstated — the invoice is unknowable.
5 — Tier prices public with the traffic metric and its limits defined, but at least one commonly needed piece (server-side SDKs, personalisation, overage) is unpriced or "contact sales".
8 — Every tier priced publicly with the traffic metric defined, limits, overage rates, module prices, minimum term and VAT treatment stated.
10 — Complete price computability: annual invoice derivable for a given traffic volume, set of modules and team size, with overage and every add-on published.
The Growth Lead
We found no public information on prices, the traffic metric a tier is priced on, limits, or overage on any captured page; the only cost-related content is tooling that estimates API request quota. From what is published, an annual invoice cannot be computed at all. 10
The E-Commerce Manager
No prices appear anywhere in the captured pages: nothing on tiers, the traffic metric, its limits, overage or module pricing, so the annual invoice is unknowable and a December traffic jump cannot be budgeted for. The only cost-related fact anywhere is a tool for estimating API request quota, which is not pricing. 10
The Product Engineer
We found no public pricing information on any captured page — no tiers, no traffic metric, no limits, no overage terms, so an annual cost is not computable from this evidence. The only cost-adjacent item is tooling to estimate export request quota, which is an operational quota rather than a price. 10
The CRO Consultant
The only cost-related material on the captured pages is in-product tooling to estimate API request quotas for data-warehouse exports, which is not product pricing. We found no public information on tier prices, the traffic metric a client would be billed on, limits, overage, modules, seats or term, so no annual cost can be estimated before the contract. 10
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on prices, tiers, the traffic metric they are priced by, limits, overage or seats. The only cost-related documentation concerns API request quota and remaining quota tools, not what a buyer pays for the product. 10
The Skeptic
We found no public prices, tier structure, traffic metric, limits, or overage terms on any captured page; the only cost-adjacent item is tooling to estimate the cost and remaining quota of data warehouse export requests. The annual invoice is not derivable from public information. 10
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about AB Tasty
Is AB Tasty European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where AB Tasty is based.
Where does AB Tasty store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does AB Tasty have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to AB Tasty?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates GrowthBook (3.5/5), Convert Experiences (3.5/5) and Webtrends Optimize (3/5) highest among the other 31 Conversion Optimization products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is Webtrends Optimize (UK / wider Europe). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: AB Tasty alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- 11 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 compliance fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 hosting fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 support fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (10)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Experiment types & delivery — found from sitemap docs.abtasty.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Experiment types & delivery — found from sitemap docs.abtasty.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Statistical method & guardrails — found from sitemap docs.abtasty.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Statistical method & guardrails — found from sitemap docs.abtasty.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Consent & visitor tracking — found from sitemap docs.abtasty.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Consent & visitor tracking — found from sitemap docs.abtasty.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Snippet performance & flicker — found from sitemap docs.abtasty.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Snippet performance & flicker — found from sitemap docs.abtasty.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Analytics, data export & integrations — found from sitemap docs.abtasty.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Analytics, data export & integrations — found from sitemap docs.abtasty.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →