Conversion Optimization
Contentsquare
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Contentsquare SAS · contentsquare.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
Contentsquare reads as an experience-analytics layer rather than a testing engine. Statistical rigour scored 0 with no spread, and experimentation scope runs 0 to 2: the vendor's guide defines A/B, split, multivariate and funnel testing, then points to integrations with AB Tasty, Omniconvert and Optimizely to monitor tests, with no public information on a visual editor, experiment SDK or variant delivery. Strengths are published, not promised: data and integrations scored 7 to 8 for syncs into Snowflake, BigQuery, Databricks, Redshift or S3 with retroactive backfill; consent and tracking 5 to 7 for a published cookie inventory, first-party-only cookies and thirteen-month deletion; performance 6 to 7 for a 2.5 KB gzipped tag and stated Total Blocking Time ranges. Sovereignty sits at 3 to 4 — a French parent and a published data processing agreement, but we found no public information on where visitor data is hosted or on a subprocessor list. Pricing transparency shows no spread at 4: a $0 free tier and a $79 Voice of Customer Growth plan, yet every paid analytics tier reads "Let's talk". The bench computed no disagreements.
Speaks for it
- Data Connect syncs behavioural, performance and error data into Snowflake, BigQuery, Databricks, Redshift or S3 with retroactive backfill
- Performance costs are measured and published — a 2.5 KB gzipped tag cached 15 minutes, with Total Blocking Time impact stated as 0–50 ms on desktop and 25–100 ms on mobile
- Cookie documentation lists storage keys with lifetimes, first-party-only scope, an opt-out command, and four consent states that fully mask sessions when consent is not expressed or withdrawn
- Visitor data is deleted or anonymised within thirteen months by default under the published terms
- Contract mechanics are published, including a $0 free plan and a $79 Voice of Customer Growth plan at 500 monthly responses, with renewal increases capped at the greater of 3% or CPI
Held against it
- Testing is positioned as monitoring of tests run in AB Tasty, Omniconvert and Optimizely, and we found no public information on a native visual editor, experiment SDK or variant delivery
- We found no public information on a statistical method, confidence or credible intervals, or sample-size and duration guidance behind any test outcome
- Every paid analytics tier is priced "Let's talk" and over-usage is invoiced at an unpublished rate, so an annual invoice cannot be computed from public pages
- We found no public information on where visitor data is hosted or on a subprocessor list, and the contracting entity's jurisdiction is not shown on the captured pages
- We found no public information on self-hosting or a first-party-domain option for the tag
Best for
- You run experiments in AB Tasty, Omniconvert or Optimizely and need session replay, heatmaps and journey analysis to explain the results
- Your team wants behavioural data in its own warehouse — Snowflake, BigQuery, Databricks, Redshift or S3 — to re-check results next to CRM and purchase history
- You must defend a tag's page-weight cost with published measurements rather than adjectives
- You want to start free — the Free plan covers up to 200k monthly sessions in Experience Analytics
Avoid if
- You need one platform that builds, targets and delivers experiments itself — the bench found testing positioned as monitoring of third-party tools
- You must defend a winner figure with documented statistics — method, intervals, sample size — to the board
- Your DPO requires a named hosting location and a subprocessor list before signature
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 vendor's guide defines A/B, split, multivariate and funnel testing as methods and then points to integrations with AB Tasty, Omniconvert and Optimizely to monitor tests, while the homepage module list names analytics, monitoring and voice-of-customer products with no testing module among them. I found no public information on a visual editor, server-side experiment delivery, audience targeting or personalisation my team could operate. What the pages evidence is a platform that watches tests run in other tools, and I see nothing here we could build or run a test with. 7 1
The E-Commerce Manager
The captured pages explain A/B, split, multivariate and funnel testing as methods, and position the product as a way to monitor tests run in tools like AB Tasty, Optimizely and Omniconvert, rather than to run them; we found no public information on a visual editor, server-side or feature-flag delivery, or personalisation that can be tested against a control. Heatmaps and session replay can be paired with a running test, which supports a programme but does not deliver one. 7 1 2
The Product Engineer
The captured pages treat testing as something Contentsquare measures rather than delivers: the product experimentation guide defines A/B, split, multivariate and funnel testing as methods and pairs them with heatmaps, journey analysis and surveys, while the documented way to monitor A/B tests is integration with AB Tasty, Omniconvert and Optimizely. The module list shows analytics, monitoring, voice of customer and conversation intelligence products, and the SDK documentation we captured covers SDK stability annotations, not experiment delivery. We found no public information on a visual editor, variant targeting, feature flags, mutually exclusive experiments or server-side delivery. 1 6 7
The CRO Consultant
The vendor's own experimentation guide defines A/B, split, multivariate and funnel testing as methods and then says you monitor A/B tests "thanks to our integrations with tools like AB Tasty, Omniconvert and Optimizely" — delivery sits with third-party tools, and the pricing page's tiers cover analytics, monitoring and voice-of-customer with no testing tier among them. We found no public information on a visual editor, an experiment SDK, audience targeting or personalisation delivery of its own, so this reads as an analytics layer over someone else's experiments, not a platform that runs them. 7 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The experimentation guide defines A/B, split, multivariate and funnel testing, then says you monitor those tests through integrations with AB Tasty, Omniconvert and Optimizely — the delivery engine named is a third party's. We found no public information on a visual editor, SDK or server-side delivery of variants, or audience targeting for experiments, and the homepage module list names analytics, monitoring, feedback and mobile products while we found no public information on a native testing module. 7 1
The Skeptic
The captured guide pages define A/B, split, funnel and multivariate testing as methods and describe monitoring tests run in AB Tasty, Omniconvert and Optimizely — the testing itself happens elsewhere. We found no public information on Contentsquare delivering its own experiments of any type: no editor, no experiment SDK, no targeting model, and personalisation appears only as a possible downstream use of the data. 7 2 1
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
Across the captured pages I found no public information on a statistical method behind any test result: nothing naming a frequentist or Bayesian approach, no confidence or credible intervals, no sample-size or duration guidance, and nothing on early stopping, multiple comparisons or sample ratio mismatch. Nothing in this material would let me defend a winner figure to the board. 7 1
The E-Commerce Manager
Nothing we found names a statistical method, sample-size or duration guidance, or any protection against stopping a test early — the testing pages explain the concepts without documenting how a winner would be decided. We found no public information on confidence or credible intervals, handling of multiple metrics or variants, or sample ratio mismatch detection. 7 2
The Product Engineer
We found no public information on how a winning variant would be decided — no named statistical method, confidence or credible intervals, sample-size or duration guidance, or protection against reading a test early. The experimentation guide describes methods without documenting any statistics, and nothing on the captured pages addresses peeking, multiple comparisons, sample ratio mismatch or guardrail metrics. 1 7
The CRO Consultant
Nothing in the captured pages names a frequentist or Bayesian method, offers a sample-size or duration calculator, or says anything about peeking, multiple comparisons or sample ratio mismatch; the experimentation guide is definitional and the only result figure I found is a case-study conversion claim with no method behind it. A result here would be uncheckable, and I found no public information on how a winner would be decided. 7 13
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information naming a statistical method, a confidence or credible interval, sample-size or duration guidance, or any protection against reading a test early. The experimentation guide describes what testing is without saying how a winner is decided, and sample ratio mismatch, multiple-comparison correction and variance reduction go unmentioned on every captured page. 7 13
The Skeptic
The only quantitative outcome in the evidence is a bare 6.8% conversion lift with no documented method, no interval, no sample-size guidance and no warning against stopping early — a winner figure without assumptions is marketing, not statistics. We found no public information on any statistical method for testing on the vendor's pages. 13 7
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 documentation publishes a full list of cookies and local storage with their lifetimes, maps four consent states to masking behaviour before and after consent, offers an opt-out command, and states a first-party-only and cookieless mode alongside the vendor's written position on consent exemption — scoped to France — with visitor data deleted within thirteen months. I found no public information on documented integration with consent management platforms or on IP anonymisation, so I cannot call it a complete consent-pending setup for a German rollout. 9 8 4
The E-Commerce Manager
The documentation is concrete: four consent states with defined masking behaviour, a published list of cookies and storage keys with lifetimes up to 13 months, first-party-only cookies, a cookieless option, an exemption mode for France, an opt-out command, default deletion or anonymisation of visitor data within 13 months, and the vendor's written position that first-party audience measurement should be exempt from prior consent. We found no public information on IP anonymisation or an integration with common consent management platforms, and the stated stance is an exemption argument rather than a mode that holds tracking until consent is given. 9 8 4
The Product Engineer
The cookie documentation is concrete: every storage key is listed with purpose and lifetime, from the 13-month visitor identifier to the 30-minute session key, all first-party, with an opt-out command and per-consent-state masking of session replay. The privacy centre documents a cookieless option, a France-only exemption mode and the vendor's written position that its audience-measurement cookies should be exempt from prior consent, and the terms commit to deleting visitor data within thirteen months. We found no public information on a consent-pending mode that holds tracking until consent, on IP anonymisation, or on guidance for markets that read consent law more strictly than the French exemption. 4 8 9
The CRO Consultant
The strongest area for a DPO conversation: a published cookie and storage inventory with lifetimes per plan, a four-state consent model that fully masks sessions when consent is not expressed or is withdrawn, first-party-only analytics cookies, a written position on the French consent exemption alongside a cookieless feature, and a default thirteen-month deletion of visitor data. What I could not find is a mode that holds tracking entirely until consent — the visitor identifier cookie still carries a 13-month lifetime on all plans — nor consent-management-platform integrations or any description of IP anonymisation. 9 8 4
The Data Protection Officer
The storage keys are published with lifetimes and first-party-only scope, a cookieless mode and a consent-state masking model exist, and visitor data is deleted by default within thirteen months. What the pages never answer is what the tag collects before the banner is answered: the consent page argues the solution should be exempted from prior consent and offers an exemption mode scoped to France only, which asserts the pre-consent question away rather than documenting it. We found no public information on consent management platform integration or IP anonymisation either. 9 8 4
The Skeptic
A published cookie inventory with lifetimes, first-party-only storage, four documented consent states that fully mask sessions without consent, an opt-out command, thirteen-month retention and a written legal position including a France-only Exemption Mode — more than most vendors show. Docked because we found no public information on consent-management-platform integration, IP anonymisation, or a mode that holds tracking until consent rather than masking after the fact. 9 8 4
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
The published figures are unusually concrete: a 2.5 KB gzipped tag loaded asynchronously from the vendor CDN with a fifteen-minute local cache, quantified Total Blocking Time impact by device class, named Core Web Vitals affected and unaffected, and a measured mobile SDK with size, RAM and CPU under stated test conditions. I found no public information on self-hosting or first-party-domain delivery, per-project bundles, or a server-side alternative, so the published numbers stop at the standard tag. 11 10
The E-Commerce Manager
The cost is measured and published, not promised: the web tag is 2.5 KB gzipped, loaded with defer in the head, cached for 15 minutes, with a stated Total Blocking Time impact of between 0 and 50 ms on desktop and 25 to 100 ms on mobile, First Input Delay named as the only Core Web Vital affected, and TTFB, FCP, LCP and CLS explicitly stated to be unaffected; the mobile SDK publishes size, RAM and CPU figures with test conditions. We found no public information on a self-hosting or first-party-domain option for the script, and flicker is not discussed — consistent with a measurement tag rather than a variant-delivery snippet. 11 10
The Product Engineer
This is the best-evidenced area: the web tag is documented at 2.5 KB compressed, delivered from the vendor CDN with a defer attribute and a 15-minute browser cache, and the docs publish measured impact ranges — 0 to 50 milliseconds of Total Blocking Time on desktop, 25 to 100 on mobile — with an explicit statement of which Core Web Vitals are and are not affected and requests typically under 500 bytes; the mobile SDK gets installed size, RAM, CPU and batch figures with test conditions. We found no public information on a self-hosting or first-party-domain option for the script, or on tooling that shows a customer what their own configuration costs the page. 10 11
The CRO Consultant
The published figures are unusually concrete: a 2.5 KB gzipped tag from the vendor's CDN, a defer attribute with placement in the head, a 15-minute local cache, stated Total Blocking Time impact of 0–50 ms on desktop and 25–100 ms on mobile, named Core Web Vitals the tag should never affect, and a mobile page with SDK size, RAM and CPU figures. For control of the cost itself, we found no public information on a self-hosting or first-party-domain option, per-project script bundles, or a server-side delivery alternative. 11 10
The Data Protection Officer
The vendor publishes measured impact rather than adjectives: a 2.5 KB gzipped tag from the Contentsquare CDN, cached fifteen minutes, deferred in the head, quantified effects on blocking time per device class, a statement of which Core Web Vitals are untouched, and a full mobile SDK measurement under stated test conditions. We found no public information on self-hosting or a first-party-domain option, per-project bundles, or a server-side or edge alternative. 11 10
The Skeptic
Measured figures are published, not asserted: a 2.5 KB gzipped tag deferred in the head, a fifteen-minute browser cache, batched requests typically under 500 bytes, and named Core Web Vitals effects with device-conditioned ranges for blocking time, plus a benchmarked mobile SDK with its test conditions stated. We found no public information on a self-hosting option, per-project bundles or a server-side delivery path. 11 10
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
This is the strongest area for my programme: documented sync of behavioral, performance and error data into Snowflake, BigQuery, Databricks, Redshift or S3 with retroactive backfill, unlimited historical storage for year-over-year analysis, segment sync to marketing automation platforms, and named Google Analytics, Adobe Analytics and Piano integrations. An API appears among the product features with per-plan tool-call limits. I could re-check a claimed uplift in my own warehouse, which is exactly what I need when finance asks where the revenue went. 13 2 9
The E-Commerce Manager
Data Connect syncs behavioural, performance and error data into Snowflake, BigQuery, Databricks, Redshift or S3 with retroactive backfill and unlimited historical storage, segments can sync to email and marketing automation platforms, integrations with Google Analytics, Adobe Analytics and Piano Analytics are documented, and an APIs feature with stated MCP tool-call quotas per plan shows programmatic access. The general API is the thinnest part: we found no public information on API versioning or full historical export in open formats. 13 2 1 9
The Product Engineer
The warehouse story is real: Data Connect syncs behavioural, performance and error data to Snowflake, BigQuery, Databricks, Redshift or S3 as query-ready datasets with retroactive backfill, so a team can compute metrics next to CRM and purchase history instead of trusting the dashboard. There is a documented API in the developer docs for building integrations, connectors for Google Analytics, Adobe Analytics and Piano, segment syncing to marketing automation platforms, and stated tool-call limits per plan for the AI agent. We found no public information on metrics defined once and computed exclusively in the customer's warehouse, or on a versioned API a team could build programme tooling on. 2 9 12 13
The CRO Consultant
The warehouse story is real and well evidenced: data syncs into Snowflake, BigQuery, Databricks, Redshift or S3, blends there with CRM and purchase history, and can be backfilled retroactively, with named integrations for Google Analytics, Adobe Analytics and Piano Analytics plus the testing tools named above. It sits shy of the top of my range because the captured pages list "APIs" as a feature with tool-call quotas but state no API limits, and I found no public information confirming export of raw per-visitor data rather than aggregated behavioural datasets. 13 9 2 7
The Data Protection Officer
Data Connect streams behavioural, performance and error data into Snowflake, BigQuery, Databricks, Redshift or S3 with retroactive backfill and warehouse-side joining against CRM and purchase data, segments sync out to marketing automation, and APIs appear in the plan grid with per-plan tool call limits. This is a credible warehouse-first posture; we found no public information on metrics defined once and computed solely in the customer's own warehouse. 13 12 2
The Skeptic
Warehouse sync to Snowflake, BigQuery, Databricks, Redshift and S3 with retroactive backfill, and named analytics integrations with Google, Adobe and Piano, make results checkable in the customer's own data. We found no public information on CDP integration, stated API limits, or export of full historical data in open formats. 13 9 2 12
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 vendor's own legal pages identify a French parent company headquartered in France with a UK subsidiary, a data processing agreement framed around GDPR and the e-Privacy Directive covering visitor data, and deletion of visitor data within thirteen months — a genuinely European footing. What holds it back is that the independently sourced sovereignty information marks data residency, ownership and subprocessor exposure as unknown, and I found no public information on where visitor data is hosted, where the tag's CDN sits, or a subprocessor list. 5 4 11
The E-Commerce Manager
The contracting side is European and evidenced — Content Square SAS headquartered in France, a published data processing agreement with standard contractual clauses deemed executed on signing, and visitor data deleted or anonymised within 13 months by default. But we found no public information on where visitor data is processed or hosted, on the subprocessor list, or on where the CDN that delivers the tag to every visitor operates, and that is the part I need named before I put this on my product pages. 5 4 11
The Product Engineer
The confirmed facts are a French parent company, Content Square SAS, a published data processing agreement with Standard Contractual Clauses incorporated, and a thirteen-month visitor-data retention commitment — an EU-flavoured legal posture. However, the contracting entity's jurisdiction could not be confirmed from the captured pages, and we found no public information on where visitor data is hosted, where the CDN that delivers the tag operates, or any published subprocessor list. Because the tag runs on every visitor and sets 13-month identifiers, those gaps matter more here than in a tool that only holds a team's own data. 4 5 9 11
The CRO Consultant
The parent, Content Square SAS, is headquartered in France and legal statements are made on its behalf, but that is where the evidence stops: we found no public information on where visitor data is hosted or processed, the contracting entity is only referenced as "set forth in Section 11.11" without its jurisdiction shown, and no subprocessor list appears in the captured pages. I cannot confirm EU processing of visitor data as standard, so I could not hand a client's DPO a defensible chain. 5 4
The Data Protection Officer
The parent company's headquarters in France is stated in a signed legal notice, and that is where the certainty ends. The contracting entity is defined in a section of the terms the captured pages do not show, hosting and residency for visitor data are unstated, and we found no public information on a subprocessor list — the CDN that serves the tag on every pageview appears only as the Contentsquare CDN, with no published location. Standard Contractual Clauses deemed executed on signature are a safeguard mechanism, not an answer to where the data sits. 5 4 11
The Skeptic
The contracting side is European — Content Square SAS headquartered in France, a published Data Processing Agreement, and Standard Contractual Clauses deemed executed on signature — but the capturing found no hosting location for visitor data and no subprocessor list, so the processing chain behind the tag cannot be verified from public pages. 5 4 11
Pricing transparency
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
A free tier at $0 and a Voice of Customer Growth plan at $79 for 500 monthly responses are public, per-tier session ranges are defined, and the contract mechanics are unusually clear — annual advance invoicing, over-usage billed annually in arrears, a renewal increase cap and ninety-day notice. But the core product tiers on the pricing page are all 'Let's talk', and I found no public rate for the over-usage fees, so I can describe the shape of the bill to the board but not compute the number. 2 4 13
The E-Commerce Manager
The traffic metric is at least honest — monthly sessions per tier from up to 200k on the free plan to 1m - unlimited, survey responses, and page views per year in the terms — and a Free plan at $0 plus a Voice of Customer Growth plan at $79 are public, but every core product tier says "Let's talk" and a captured product page links only to "Start for free" with no prices stated. Over-usage is invoiced annually in arrears at a then-applicable rate, so my December invoice is not computable from public pages; the one comfort is that renewal increases are capped at the greater of 3% or CPI. 2 4 13
The Product Engineer
A free tier at $0 and one published product price — Voice of Customer Growth at $79 for 500 monthly responses — sit on a pricing page that defines the traffic metric as monthly sessions with ranges per plan and offers a slider to estimate cost, but the analytics products themselves read 'Let's talk'. The terms fill in the mechanics — annual invoicing in advance, over-usage billed annually in arrears at the vendor's then-applicable rate, renewal increases capped at the greater of 3% or CPI, taxes excluded, non-cancellable order forms — without publishing the rates. A buyer cannot derive a real annual invoice from public pages, and we found no public information on the price of the Data Connect or Sense Analyst add-ons. 2 4
The CRO Consultant
A free plan at $0, a $79 Voice of Customer Growth plan at 500 monthly responses, and per-plan monthly session ranges (for example "7k - 10m") let me place a client's traffic before contract — but every analytics tier shows "Let's talk", over-usage is billed at "Contentsquare's then-applicable rate", add-ons such as Data Connect are unpriced, and fees are invoiced annually in advance on non-cancellable order forms. The annual invoice for a given traffic volume is therefore not computable from public pages alone. 2 4 13
The Data Protection Officer
A $0 free tier and one published price — $79 for Voice of Customer Growth at 500 monthly responses — stand against "Let's talk" on every paid analytics tier, with session ranges shown per plan but no prices attached. The terms add annual invoicing in advance, over-usage billed at a rate the public pages do not state, non-cancellable order forms and a renewal cap of the greater of 3% or CPI, so a buyer can see the shape of the invoice but cannot compute it. 2 4 13
The Skeptic
A free tier at $0 and one published price — Voice of Customer Growth at $79 with 500 monthly responses — sit beside monthly-session limits per tier, overage invoiced at an unpublished rate, annual invoicing in advance, ninety-day renewal notice and taxes excluded. The paid analytics tiers themselves are all "Let's talk", so the real annual invoice for the core products is not computable from public pages. 2 4 13
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 ⚠ unverified | — | 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 |
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. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- 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.
- 5 pricing 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
- 3 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 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (13)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage contentsquare.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page contentsquare.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy contentsquare.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service contentsquare.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Legal notice contentsquare.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Experiment types & delivery — found from sitemap docs.contentsquare.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Experiment types & delivery — found from sitemap contentsquare.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Consent & visitor tracking — found from sitemap contentsquare.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Consent & visitor tracking — found from sitemap docs.contentsquare.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Snippet performance & flicker — found from sitemap docs.contentsquare.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Snippet performance & flicker — found from sitemap docs.contentsquare.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Analytics, data export & integrations — found from sitemap docs.contentsquare.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Analytics, data export & integrations — found from sitemap contentsquare.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →