Conversion Optimization
ABsmartly
EU-Made Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 3 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by ABsmartly B.V. · absmartly.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
ABsmartly, a server-side experimentation platform sold by demo only by ABsmartly B.V. of Amsterdam, is strongest on experimentation scope — scored 4 with no spread, on experiments across native apps, websites, email, CRM and algorithms via SDKs — and statistical rigour, scored 3 to 4, where Group Sequential Testing is named as a protection against peeking, though no assumptions, sample-size guidance or sample-ratio-mismatch detection are documented. Consent and tracking, at 1 to 2, and data and integrations, at 1 to 2, are weakest: no captured information on what the test script stores or when it runs relative to consent, none on a documented API or visitor-level export, and the terms place securing consents on the customer. The genuine split is performance impact, scored 1 to 4: the growth lead credits the server-side, build-on-your-own-stack architecture, while the lower scores reflect no published script-size, loading or Core Web Vitals figures. Sovereignty ran 2 to 4 — a Dutch entity, but the privacy policy states data may be stored on servers in the USA, and the subprocessor page contents were not captured. No prices are published.
Speaks for it
- Experimentation scope scored 4 with no spread, spanning native apps, websites, email, CRM and algorithms via SDKs.
- Group Sequential Testing is named in the published features list and addresses repeated looks at live data by design.
- The contracting entity is ABsmartly B.V. at Keizersgracht 520 H, 1017 EK, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, with standard contractual clauses cited for international transfers.
- Custom metrics, real-time data and one-click programme reporting are claimed on the homepage.
- Server-side delivery and a build-on-your-own-stack option are pitched to engineering teams.
Held against it
- Consent and tracking scored 1 to 2, with no public information on what the test script stores or when it runs relative to consent, and the terms place securing consents on the customer.
- Data and integrations scored 1 to 2, with no public information on a documented API, visitor-level export or named analytics and warehouse integrations.
- The privacy policy states collected data may be stored on servers in the USA, and the subprocessor page linked in the footer was not captured with its contents.
- We found no published figures for script size, loading behaviour, flicker handling or Core Web Vitals impact.
- Purchase runs only through a demo form, the terms reserve the right to change prices at any time, and after a 14-working-day cooling-off period the subscription is 100% non-refundable.
Best for
- You need server-side experiments across native apps, websites, email and CRM, delivered by an engineering team working through SDKs.
- You are buying for engineers who want to build on their own stack and want a named sequential-testing guard against peeking.
- You run an experimentation programme that needs searchable documentation of tests, decisions and past results.
Avoid if
- Your marketing team needs a visual editor or audience targeting without depending on engineers for every test.
- You must cross-check experiment results in your own data, via an API or export, before shipping a winner.
- Your data protection officer must see confirmed EU residency of visitor data and a captured subprocessor list before sign-off.
- You need to compute your annual invoice from published prices before committing.
The scores
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 homepage promises experiments wherever you have code — native apps, websites, email and CRM, even algorithms — backed by multiple SDKs, and the searchable experiment hub points to a documented lifecycle of decisions and past results. But I found no public information on a visual editor, audience targeting beyond the URL, personalisation or multivariate testing, so my marketing team would depend on engineers for every single test. 1 3
The E-Commerce Manager
"Experiment wherever you've got code" across apps, websites, email, CRM and algorithms with "SDKs for days" is a strong pitch, and the terms list Group Sequential Testing, but I found no public documentation of which languages the SDKs cover, multivariate or multi-page tests, audience targeting, or any personalisation — let alone personalisation tested against a control. Marketing breadth without the underlying documentation lands this below what the claims imply. 1 3
The Product Engineer
The pitch is server-side experiments wherever you've got code — native apps, web, email and CRM, algorithms — delivered through SDKs, which is exactly the shape I want to see. But we found no public information on feature-flag experiments with a shared audience and metric model, holdouts, mutually exclusive groups, multivariate tests, or edge delivery, so it stops short of a full programme. 1 3
The CRO Consultant
The homepage positions a server-side programme across native apps, websites, email and CRM, and algorithms with multiple SDKs and a searchable experiment hub for documentation and decisions, which is broader than client-side-only tools. But the SDKs are marketing copy rather than documentation, and we found no public information on multivariate or multi-page tests, audience targeting, personalisation, or feature-flag mechanics such as holdouts and mutual exclusion, so I cannot tell a client which test types the platform actually supports. 1 3
The Data Protection Officer
The homepage advertises experiments across native apps, websites, email and CRM, and algorithms with multiple SDKs, plus a searchable hub for documentation, analysis and past decisions. The captured pages are marketing copy, though: we found no public information naming the SDK languages, feature flags, holdouts, mutually exclusive groups or a visual editor, so delivery mechanics cannot be verified from what is published. 1 3
The Skeptic
The homepage claims experimentation "wherever you've got code" across native apps, websites, email and algorithms with multiple SDKs, which reads as SDK-driven multi-surface delivery. We found no public information on client-side editing, multivariate or multi-page tests, audience targeting, feature flags, holdouts or personalisation — the captured pages are marketing and legal copy, not product documentation. 1 3
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
Group Sequential Testing is named in the feature list, which is a real protection against peeking and more method-naming than many vendors give. Beyond that I found no public information on confidence or credible intervals, sample-size or duration guidance, sample ratio mismatch detection, multiple-comparison correction or guardrail metrics — precisely the figures finance will ask me to defend. 3 1
The E-Commerce Manager
Group Sequential Testing is the one method the captured terms name, and a sequential approach speaks to the peeking problem, but I found no public information on its assumptions, sample-size or duration guidance, handling of multiple metrics or variants, or sample-ratio mismatch detection. A method name alone does not tell me when it is safe to ship a winning variant onto my revenue pages. 3
The Product Engineer
Group Sequential Testing is named as a feature, which by design addresses peeking — better than an unnamed winner figure. Beyond that name, we found no public information on method assumptions, sample-size guidance, handling of multiple metrics or variants, or sample ratio mismatch detection. 3
The CRO Consultant
Group Sequential Testing is named in the published feature list, which is a method built for repeated looks at live results, but its assumptions are not documented and we found no public information on sample-size guidance, multiple-comparison correction, or sample ratio mismatch detection. A named method with no visible methodology is exactly what I would struggle to defend to a data-minded client. 3
The Data Protection Officer
Group Sequential Testing is named as a feature — a recognised protection against repeated looks at the data — and real-time results are claimed for catching bugs. Beyond that name, we found no public information on confidence or credible intervals, sample-size guidance, handling of multiple metrics or variants, sample ratio mismatch detection or guardrail metrics. 3 1
The Skeptic
Group Sequential Testing is named in the features list, a design that at least addresses peeking by name — more than a bare "Bayesian" badge. We found no public information on its assumptions, confidence or credible intervals, sample-size or duration guidance, multiple-comparison corrections or sample ratio mismatch detection. 3 1
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 privacy policy states GDPR adherence and a right to withdraw consent, and the terms place securing consents for personal data squarely on the customer. I found no public information on what the test script stores on a device, whether it runs before consent, a cookieless mode, or a published cookie list — and the retention policy is available only on request rather than published. 2 3
The E-Commerce Manager
The privacy policy states GDPR adherence, consent withdrawal and data-subject rights including portability, but I found no public information on what the test script stores on a visitor's device or when it runs relative to consent, nor on any cookieless or consent-pending mode. The terms place the duty of securing consents for personal data transferred to ABsmartly on the customer. 2 3
The Product Engineer
We found no public information on what the testing code stores on a visitor's device or whether it runs before consent, and the terms put securing consents for transferred personal data squarely on the customer. The privacy policy offers GDPR rights and consent withdrawal, and retention details exist only in a policy you must request by email. 2 3
The CRO Consultant
The terms put the consent burden on the customer — the user must have "all necessary appropriate consents and notices" — and we found no public information on when the test script runs relative to consent, what it stores on the device, cookieless modes, or consent management platform integrations. The privacy policy does cover GDPR rights, withdrawable consent and a requestable retention policy, but it also states collected data may be stored on servers in the USA, which is a conversation I would need to have with a client's DPO before signing anything. 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
Nothing captured says what the test script stores on the visitor's device or whether it may run before the consent banner is answered — we found no public cookie or storage-key list and no consent-pending mode. The terms put the burden on the customer, who must hold "all necessary appropriate consents and notices to enable lawful transfer of such personal data to ABsmartly", and retention is obtainable only as a policy on request. 3 2
Snippet performance & flicker
panel disagrees
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
Server-side delivery and a self-hosted stack option are the right architecture for flicker-sensitive pages, and the site tells engineering to keep their vitals performant. But I found no public information with measured figures — script weight, load cost, Core Web Vitals impact or flicker-handling trade-offs — so I cannot quantify what a test costs my pages. 1 3
The E-Commerce Manager
Engineering teams are told they can build on their own stack and "keep your vitals performant", which addresses my flicker worry in spirit, but I found no public figures for script size or load cost and no description of flicker handling. On a page where a tenth of a second shows in the conversion rate, a tagline about performant vitals is a promise, not a measurement. 1 3
The Product Engineer
Performance is sold as the point — keep your vitals performant, build on your own stack — but we found no published figures for script weight, flicker handling, or Core Web Vitals impact. The self-hosted claim is a one-line pitch to engineers rather than a documented option with any measurements behind it. 1 3
The CRO Consultant
"Keep your vitals performant" is positioning, not measurement, and we found no published figures for script size, loading behaviour, flicker handling or Core Web Vitals impact. The server-side, build-on-your-own-stack story implies a light client footprint, but nothing on the captured pages quantifies it, so I cannot set a client's expectation of page cost. 1 3
The Data Protection Officer
Performance appears only as a pitch to engineers — "Keep your vitals performant" and "Build on your own stack" — with no published script size, loading behaviour, flicker handling or Core Web Vitals figures. We found no public information on a documented self-hosting path or a server-side alternative for flicker-sensitive pages. 3 1
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
Custom metrics, real-time data and one-click programme reporting all live inside the vendor's own hub, with SDKs advertised for delivery. I found no public information on export of visitor-level results, analytics or warehouse integrations, or a documented results API; the only machine-readable data-out I can find is the GDPR portability right over personal data — and a result I cannot check in my own data is a claim, not a finding. 1 2
The E-Commerce Manager
Custom metrics, real-time data and a searchable experiment hub are claimed, but I found no public information on a documented API, export of visitor-level results, or named analytics and tag-manager integrations. An experiment result I cannot cross-check in my own shop data is a claim, not a finding. 1
The Product Engineer
Users can craft their own metrics, and real-time data, an activity feed and program reporting are pitched, but we found no public information on an API, visitor-level export, warehouse integration or analytics connectors. Without a documented API this is a dashboard claim I cannot verify or build internal tooling against. 1 3
The CRO Consultant
Multiple SDKs, user-crafted metrics, real-time data and one-click programme reporting are claimed on the homepage, but the SDKs are not documented with languages, and we found no public information on an API, export of visitor-level results, or named analytics, tag manager or warehouse integrations. An experiment result I cannot check against a client's own data is a claim rather than a finding, so this gap weighs heavily in any recommendation I would make. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Custom metrics, one-click program reporting and building on your own stack are advertised, but we found no public information on a documented API, export of visitor-level results, warehouse-native analysis or named analytics and tag-manager integrations. "We've got SDKs for days" names no integration and says nothing about getting raw data out. 1 3
The Skeptic
Custom metrics, multiple SDKs and real-time data are claimed, and the own-stack positioning hints data could sit on the customer's infrastructure. We found no public information on results export, a documented API, analytics or warehouse integrations, or visitor-level data access — without those, an effect size is a dashboard claim I cannot re-analyse. 1 3
European sovereignty
panel opinion
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 entity is ABsmartly B.V. in Amsterdam, but the privacy policy states data may be stored on servers in the USA, with European Commission standard contracts offered as the safeguard and adherence to the EU-US Privacy Shield frameworks also stated. The subprocessors page is linked in the footer yet its contents were not captured, so I cannot verify where the snippet is delivered from or who else touches visitor data — a chain I would have to interrogate before sending German traffic through it. 2 1 3
The E-Commerce Manager
The contracting entity is ABsmartly B.V. at a Keizersgracht address in Amsterdam and standard contractual clauses are cited for transfers, but the captured privacy policy says data "may be stored, with appropriate technical and organizational security measures applied to it, on our servers in the USA", and I found no public information confirming EU residency for the experimentation data or for delivery of the script. For code that runs on every visitor to my shop, that US-server sentence is the fact that decides it; the subprocessors page linked in the footer was not captured with its contents. 1 2 3
The Product Engineer
The contracting entity is ABsmartly B.V. at an Amsterdam address on every captured page, and standard contractual clauses are invoked for international transfers, yet the privacy policy itself states collected data may be stored on servers in the USA. A subprocessors page is linked but its contents are not shown, and we found no public information confirming EU hosting of visitor data. 1 2 3
The CRO Consultant
The contracting entity is ABsmartly B.V. of Amsterdam, which is what I want to see, but the captured privacy policy states collected data may be stored on servers in the USA, with standard contractual clauses cited as the safeguard, and the contents of the linked subprocessors page are not captured. Visitor-data residency is therefore not confirmed, and US storage is not something I can hand a European client's DPO unchallenged. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity is ABsmartly B.V. at a Keizersgracht, Amsterdam address, but the privacy policy states collected data "may be stored... on our servers in the USA", and visitor data being processed in the EU is not evidenced. A subprocessors page is linked in the footer, yet we found no public information on its contents, including whether the content delivery provider appears there. Standard contractual clauses are the stated transfer safeguard, and the captured pages give no hosting statement for the experimentation data itself. 2 1 3
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is ABsmartly B.V. of Amsterdam and the privacy policy invokes standard contractual clauses for transfers, but the same policy states data may be stored on servers in the USA, platform hosting is unstated, and the linked subprocessor page's contents were not captured. An EU entity with possible US storage and an unverified subprocessor chain sits mid-table, not high. 1 2 3
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
I found no public prices at all: the product is sold by demo, the vendor reserves the right to change prices at any time, and after a cooling off period of 14 working days the subscription is 100% non-refundable. Annual cost planning is impossible from public pages, and card provider fees are borne by the customer on top. 1 3
The E-Commerce Manager
The captured homepage routes every purchase through a demo request form with no prices shown, and the terms reserve the right to change prices at any time while subscriptions are "100% non-refundable" once a 14-working-day cooling-off period ends. A buyer cannot compute a single month's invoice from public pages, so the traffic tier and overage questions I need answered have no public answer. 1 3
The Product Engineer
There are no public prices at all — the only path given is a demo request form, and the terms reserve the right to change prices at any time. Cancellation, cooling-off and refund mechanics are published, but nothing lets a buyer estimate an invoice. 1 3
The CRO Consultant
The only path to a price is a demo request form, and we found no public information on tiers, the traffic metric, or what happens above the limits — so there is no way to estimate a client's annual invoice before the contract. The terms at least give a 14-working-day cooling-off period with a refund within 30 days of a written cancellation letter, but after that the subscription is "100% non-refundable" and prices can be changed "at any time". 1 3
The Data Protection Officer
No price is published anywhere: the sole path is a demo form — "fill out this form. We'll contact you to schedule a product demo" — and the terms reserve the right to change prices at any time. Cancellation mechanics are public (a cooling-off period of 14 working days, refunds within 30 days, 100% non-refundable thereafter), but no traffic metric, tier or figure exists to compute an invoice. 1 3
The Skeptic
Purchase starts with a demo form and we found no published prices, traffic metric, tier limits or overage terms on the captured pages. The terms add that prices can change at any time and the service is 100% non-refundable after a 14-working-day cooling-off period — the annual invoice is unknowable in advance. 1 3
European sovereignty — proven facts
3 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 | Incorporated in NL ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 1 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | US by default ⚠ unverified | 0/3 pts | 2 Report an error |
| Subprocessors | US CLOUD Act reach ⚠ unverified | 0/2 pts | 4 Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 22 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity. The address appears in the homepage footer rather than a formal imprint page, and no trade-register number is given; the Netherlands derives from the address and the Dutch B.V. legal form.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. The policy only says data "may" be stored in the USA rather than naming it a firm default, and no EU region or alternative hosting location is offered anywhere on the site.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. The 'USA' column may denote the provider's location rather than server region, and other listed US-headquartered providers (Microsoft, Google, HubSpot) also process customer, analytics or support data.
- 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.
- 13 subprocessors 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
- 5 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
- 4 compliance 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 integrations 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 legal 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 (7)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage absmartly.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy absmartly.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Terms of service absmartly.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Subprocessor list absmartly.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Experiment types & delivery — found from sitemap absmartly.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Statistical method & guardrails — found from sitemap absmartly.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Consent & visitor tracking — found from sitemap absmartly.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →