Conversion Optimization
Convert Experiences
Rest of world Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 2 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Convert Insights, Inc. · www.convert.com
Compare with VWO → 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
Convert Experiences is a client-side A/B testing platform from Convert Insights, Inc. The strongest scores are for data and integrations: API access, an MCP server and 90+ integrations on all plans, plus raw-data CSV export. Experimentation scope rests on a test menu — A/B, split-URL, multivariate, multi-page, full-stack with feature flags — with a sample ratio mismatch check on the entry plan. The weakest criterion is performance impact, where the only published evidence is the claim that the Akamai CDN will 'deliver your content fast'; no script size, flicker handling or Core Web Vitals figures appear. That criterion is a genuine split: one judge at 4 credited Akamai delivery and the $1000/year CNAME custom-domain option; the rest scored 1-2, finding no measurements. Pricing transparency split from 4 to 7 over whether published overuse rates ($399 per 100K on Growth, $699 per 250K on Pro, switchable off) and VAT treatment offset unpublished base prices and a price-on-request Enterprise tier. Sovereignty scored a uniform 4: visitor data documented to stay in Europe on German servers, against a Delaware contract.
Speaks for it
- Data and integrations scored 5-6, the strongest criterion, with API access, an MCP server and 90+ integrations on all plans plus raw-data CSV export
- The test menu is named and specific — A/B and split-URL testing, multivariate, multi-page, behavioural targeting and full-stack with feature flags — with a sample ratio mismatch check on the entry plan
- Sovereignty scored a uniform 4, with visitor data documented to stay in Europe on German servers, Frankfurt servers on all plans and a published DPA
- Traffic-pricing mechanics are public: overuse at $399 per 100K on Growth and $699 per 250K on Pro, switchable off, VAT by billing location, and a $1000/year per domain custom-domain add-on
- Published tracking statements are specific — first-party-only cookies with a six-month non-PII lifetime, IP addresses not stored to work out identity, and an opt-out link customers can place
Held against it
- Performance impact scored 1-4, the weakest criterion, with the Akamai promise to 'deliver your content fast' the only performance evidence on the captured pages
- Statistical rigour scored 3-4 as no captured page names the method that decides a winner, or shows intervals, sample-size guidance or multiple-comparison handling
- Consent and tracking scored 2-4, with no public information on what the script does before consent, on consent-management platform integration, or on a consent-pending mode
- No base tier price is published, the Enterprise tier is price on request and the terms allow additional fees for some features, so the annual invoice is not computable from public pages
- The contract runs with Convert Insights, Inc. under Delaware law, customer account data is stored in the US under the Data Privacy Framework, and we found no published subprocessor list although the privacy notice says authorized third parties may track visitors including IP addresses
Best for
- You want results you can check outside the vendor's dashboard — API access, an MCP server, 90+ integrations and raw-data CSV export are on all plans
- You pitch EU-based hosting to clients — visitor data is documented to stay in Europe on German servers, Frankfurt servers ship on all plans, and a DPA is published
- You need governable traffic pricing — per-tier caps and switchable overuse ($399 per 100K on Growth, $699 per 250K on Pro) let you cap the cost of a traffic spike
- You want the full test menu before paying — the 15-day free trial includes all features of the chosen paid plan, with no credit card required
Avoid if
- You cannot put an unmeasured script on revenue-critical pages — performance impact scored 1-4 and the captured pages show no script size, loading behaviour, flicker handling or Core Web Vitals impact
- Your analytics sign-off must name how a winner is decided — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- Your DPO must know what the script does before consent is given — consent and tracking scored 2-4 and the captured pages give no public information on consent-pending behaviour or consent-management platform integration
- You need a computable annual invoice before contacting sales — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
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 plan pages list multivariate, multi-page, full-stack and feature-flag testing plus behavioural targeting, which is real breadth beyond URL splits. We found no public information on the SDKs behind the full-stack claim, on a visual editor my marketers could use without a developer, or on personalisation — two things my team would need on day one. 2 3
The E-Commerce Manager
The captured pages show a genuinely broad test menu — multivariate, multi-page, split-URL redirects, behavioural targeting and full-stack feature flags on the top tier — which covers most of what I would run on a shop. We found no public information on personalisation at all, let alone personalisation tested against a control, and full-stack appears as a feature name with no documented SDKs or languages. 2 3
The Product Engineer
The captured pricing pages list A/B and split-URL tests, multivariate and multi-page testing, behavioural targeting, and full-stack experiments with feature flags on the upper tiers — the right shape — but the evidence names no SDK languages and we found no public information on holdouts, mutually exclusive experiment groups, or personalisation, so the server-side half rests on a feature name alone. 2 3
The CRO Consultant
The test types I build programmes on are named and specific: A/B and split-URL testing with behavioural targeting on the entry plan, and multivariate, multi-page, full stack and feature flags, bandit and sequential testing one tier up. Server-side delivery is evidenced only as a feature name though, and we found no public information on documented SDKs, personalisation, mutually exclusive experiments or holdouts, so I stop at the middle of the road. 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
Client-side A/B and split-URL testing, multivariate and multi-page tests, behavioural targeting and a full-stack feature-flag tier are all listed on the vendor's own pages, but the SDKs behind the server-side tier are not documented in what we captured. We found no public information on mutually exclusive groups, holdouts, edge delivery of experiments, or personalisation that can itself be tested. 2 3
The Skeptic
The feature lists show client-side A/B and split-URL testing, multivariate and multi-page testing, behavioural targeting and a full-stack feature-flag tier — a broad programme — but everything I can see is a pricing-grid bullet: no documented SDKs for common languages, no personalisation, no mutually exclusive experiment groups or holdouts, and no published experiment lifecycle or searchable results library. 2 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
A sample ratio mismatch check ships on the Growth plan and sequential testing with a multi-arm bandit arrive on Pro, so the guardrail vocabulary exists. We found no public information naming the statistical method, offering a sample-size or duration calculator, or stating when a result may be read — exactly what I need before defending uplift to finance. 2
The E-Commerce Manager
A sample-ratio-mismatch check even on the entry tier, plus sequential testing and a multi-arm bandit on the top tier, are the guardrails I want before trusting a winner on my checkout. But we found no public information naming the statistical method, and no confidence intervals or sample-size calculator, so I cannot see what actually decides the winner. 2
The Product Engineer
An SRM check ships on every paid tier and sequential testing plus a multi-arm bandit arrive on Pro, which is more guardrail than most publish — but we found no public information naming the statistical method, confidence or credible intervals, sample-size guidance, or correction for multiple comparisons, so I cannot audit a winner call. 2
The CRO Consultant
Two genuine guardrails are published — an SRM check even on the entry plan and sequential testing one tier up — which is more than a bare winner badge. But the decision method is never named as frequentist or Bayesian anywhere I could point a client's analytics lead to, and we found no public information on intervals, a sample-size calculator, multiple-comparison handling or guidance on when a result may be read. 2
The Data Protection Officer
A sample-ratio-mismatch check, sequential testing and a multi-arm bandit appear as plan features, which shows guardrail functionality exists as a product; the statistics that decide a winner are not named on the captured pages. We found no public information on sample-size guidance, confidence or credible intervals, or correction for multiple metrics and variants. 2
The Skeptic
A sample ratio mismatch check ships on the entry plan and sequential testing and a multi-arm bandit are named features, so someone has read the literature — but no page names the estimation method, documents its assumptions, shows confidence or credible intervals or a sample-size calculator, or says how multiple metrics or variants are corrected. A 'Sequential Testing' bullet is a promise, not a protocol. 2
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
They publish first-party-only cookies with a six-month non-PII lifetime, that IP addresses are not stored to identify anyone, and an opt-out link customers can place. We found no public information on what the script does before consent, on consent management platform integration, or on the legal basis for testing under German consent rules. 2 3
The E-Commerce Manager
First-party cookies only with a six-month non-PII lifetime, no IP storage for identity, and an opt-out link my shop can place are a real start on ePrivacy. We found no public information on what the script does before consent is given, on consent-management-platform integration, or on how testing modes map to the German consent rule — and the privacy notice says authorised third parties may track visitors including IP addresses. 2 3
The Product Engineer
Cookies are documented as first-party only with a six-month non-PII lifetime, IP addresses are not stored for identity, and an opt-out link with do-not-track respect is described — genuinely privacy-forward — but we found no public information on what the script does before consent, consent management platform integrations, or a consent-pending mode. 2 3
The CRO Consultant
A DPO can start from what is published: only first-party cookies with a six-month non-PII lifetime, no IP addresses stored to work out identity, and an opt-out link customers can place on their site. What decides a §25 TDDDG sign-off is not addressed though — we found no public information on what the script does before consent, on consent management platform integrations, or on a cookieless mode. 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
The vendor publishes that only first-party cookies are used, with a six-month non-PII lifetime, and that IP addresses are not stored to work out a visitor's identity; customers can also place an opt-out link. But nothing in the captured pages says whether the test script may run before the consent banner is answered, and we found no public information on a consent-pending mode or integration with consent management platforms. 2 3
The Skeptic
First-party-only cookies with a six-month non-PII lifetime and a statement that IP addresses are not stored to identify anyone are published, which is more than most say about storage; but I found no public information on what the script does before consent is given, no consent-management integration, no cookieless or consent-pending mode, and no guidance on the legal basis for testing in the EU. 2 3
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
The only performance evidence on the captured pages is the claim that the Akamai CDN will deliver your content fast. We found no public information on script size, loading behaviour, flicker handling, or any measured effect on Core Web Vitals. 2
The E-Commerce Manager
My product pages cannot afford a flicker, and this is the thinnest story in the captures: Akamai delivery that will "deliver your content fast" is the whole of it. We found no public information on script weight, asynchronous loading, anti-flicker handling, or any published Core Web Vitals figures. 2
The Product Engineer
Snippets are delivered over the Akamai CDN and a first-party CNAME domain option is priced at $1000/year per additional domain beyond plan allowances, yet we found no public information on script size, asynchronous loading, flicker handling, or measured Core Web Vitals impact. 2
The CRO Consultant
Performance appears as a claim, not a measurement: the Akamai CDN "will deliver your content fast" and a CNAME custom-domain option exists. We found no public information on script size, loading behaviour, anti-flicker handling or any measured Core Web Vitals impact, so I cannot estimate what a client's pages would pay. 2
The Data Protection Officer
The only performance evidence is the vendor's statement that the Akamai content distribution network will deliver test content fast, plus Frankfurt-based servers. We found no published figures for script size or loading cost, no anti-flicker snippet described, and no measurement of the effect on Core Web Vitals. 2
The Skeptic
The only performance evidence on the captured pages is a marketing line that the Akamai CDN 'will deliver your content fast'; I found no public information on script size, loading behaviour, flicker handling, Core Web Vitals impact, self-hosting or per-project bundles. 2
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
API access and an MCP server are on all plans alongside 90+ integrations, and raw data export to CSV is published. We found no public information on warehouse streaming or warehouse-native analysis, or on stated API limits, so my cross-check against our own data would end at a CSV. 2 4
The E-Commerce Manager
Raw data export to CSV plus API access and ninety-plus integrations on every plan means a test result can be checked against my own numbers, which I insist on. We found no public information on visitor-level streaming to a warehouse, on API limits, or on warehouse-native analysis. 2 4
The Product Engineer
API access and an MCP server come on all plans alongside 90+ integrations and CSV plus raw data export — enough to start wiring internal tooling — but we found no public information on warehouse-native analysis, visitor-level streaming, or stated API limits. 2 4
The CRO Consultant
Every plan carries ninety-plus integrations, API access and an MCP server, and raw data export in CSV is on the pricing page — enough to get results and data out for a second opinion. But we found no public information naming the analytics and tag-management tools, on visitor-level streaming or warehouse-native analysis, or on stated API limits, which is where the re-analysis story would need to go next. 2 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
Ninety-plus integrations, API access and an MCP server are included on all plans, together with raw-data CSV export, so a buyer can pull results out of the dashboard. We found no public information on stated API limits, warehouse-native analysis on the customer's own metrics, or visitor-level streaming to a data warehouse. 2 3
The Skeptic
Raw-data CSV export and API access on every plan, with ninety-plus integrations and an MCP server, are enough to pull a result out of the vendor's dashboard and check it. What I found no public information on is warehouse streaming or warehouse-native analysis, the visitor-level granularity of the raw export, CDP audience integration, or stated API limits. 2 3 4
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
Visitor data from customer sites is stated to stay on German servers in Frankfurt on every plan, which is what matters most for our visitors. The contracting entity is Convert Insights, Inc. of Delaware, customer account data is stored in the US under the Data Privacy Framework, and snippet delivery runs on Akamai; we found no public information confirming a published subprocessor list. 2 3 4
The E-Commerce Manager
The line that matters to me is stated plainly — visitor data stays in Europe on German servers, and Frankfurt hosting ships on every plan. Against that, the contract is with a Delaware entity under Delaware law, my account data sits in the US under the Data Privacy Framework, the snippet rides Akamai, and the list of authorised third parties the privacy notice points to is not among the captured pages. 2 3 4
The Product Engineer
Visitor data is stated to stay on German servers in Europe with a published DPA, but the contracting entity is Convert Insights, Inc. under Delaware law with the FTC as regulator, customer account data sits in the US under the Data Privacy Framework, and we found no published subprocessor list for the service even though authorized third parties may track visitor information including IP addresses. 2 3 4
The CRO Consultant
The visitor-data half is stated plainly and would help in an EU pitch: EU-based Frankfurt servers on all plans, and visitor data stays in Europe on German servers. The contracting side pulls the other way — Convert Insights, Inc. of Delaware under FTC enforcement, customer data stored in the US under the Data Privacy Framework — and the third parties who may track visitors appear only as a list reference we could not see, so the chain is only partly defensible. 2 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
Visitor data is documented to stay in Europe on German servers, which is the part I weigh highest for a script that runs on every visitor; however the contracting entity is Convert Insights, Inc. of Wilmington, Delaware under Delaware law and FTC oversight, and customer account data is stored in the US under the Data Privacy Framework. We found no published subprocessor list that includes the Akamai CDN delivering the test content, while the privacy notice states that authorized third parties may track and store visitor information including IP addresses. 2 3 4
The Skeptic
The privacy notice says visitor data 'stays in Europe on German servers and does not leave Europe' and the pricing page lists Frankfurt servers on all plans. Against that, the contracting entity is Convert Insights, Inc. of Delaware under Delaware law, the notice states customer data 'is stored in the US' under the Data Privacy Framework, and it says authorized third parties may track and store visitor information including IP addresses — with no published list of service subprocessors and no statement on where the Akamai-delivered snippet sits. 2 3 4
Pricing transparency
panel disagrees
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
The traffic metric, tier limits, exact overuse rates ($399 per 100K on Growth, $699 per 250K on Pro, switchable off), VAT by billing location and the $1000/year per custom domain add-on are all public. The Enterprise tier is price on request and the terms allow unspecified additional fees, so I could compute our annual invoice only up to the Pro tier. 2 4
The E-Commerce Manager
The traffic metric, per-tier limits and overuse rates are public, overuse can be switched off, and legacy plans are honoured — that keeps a December traffic spike from re-tiering my invoice. But we found no public information on the base tier prices or seats, the terms say some features may require additional fees, and the Enterprise tier is price on request, so the annual invoice is not computable from public pages alone. 2 4
The Product Engineer
The traffic metric, per-tier tested-user limits, overage rates ($699 per 250K and $399 per 100K, with overuse that can be turned off), VAT treatment and add-on domain pricing are all public — but the captured pricing facts give no base plan price, enterprise is price on request, and some features carry unstated additional fees, so the annual invoice is still not computable. 2 4
The CRO Consultant
The criterion my clients care about most, and it mostly delivers: the traffic metric is monthly tested users with per-tier yearly caps, overuse is priced at "$399 per 100K" on Growth and "$699 per 250K" on Pro and Enterprise and can be turned off, VAT treatment is stated, and a "$1000/year per domain" add-on is published. Held below the top because the Enterprise tier is price on request, some features carry unspecified additional fees, multi-year discounts are something you ask about, and we found no public information on the base subscription figures for Growth and Pro. 2 4
The Data Protection Officer
The traffic metric and per-tier limits are published, overuse is priced at $399 per 100K or $699 per 250K and can be turned off, VAT treatment is stated, and additional custom domains carry a published $1000/year per domain price. But we found no public information on the base tier prices in the captured pages, the top tier is price on request only, and the terms reserve additional fees for some features — so a buyer cannot compute the full annual invoice from what we saw. 2 4
The Skeptic
The traffic metric with its per-tier limits, per-tier overuse rates, VAT treatment, the USD pricing and even the add-on custom-domain price of $1000/year per domain are all public — unusually honest for a traffic-priced category. But the captured pricing pages show no base price for any tier and the enterprise tier is price on request only, so the annual invoice still cannot be computed from public pages alone. 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
2 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 | US by default ⚠ unverified | 0/3 pts | 3 Report an error |
| Subprocessors | US CLOUD Act reach ⚠ unverified | 0/2 pts | 12 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.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. The pricing page (S2) lists 'EU-Based Servers Frankfurt' on all plans, so an EU region exists as an option for visitor data, while customer account data defaults to the US.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. The AWS region is not named (S7/S8 place the datacenter in Frankfurt), and Akamai CDN (S2) and Cloudflare Workers at the edge (S8) add further US-headquartered providers.
- 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.
- 17 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
- 10 legal 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
- 9 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
- 6 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
- 1 data 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 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
- 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 (15)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.convert.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.convert.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.convert.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service www.convert.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Security / trust page www.convert.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Experiment types & delivery — found from sitemap www.convert.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Experiment types & delivery — found from sitemap www.convert.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Statistical method & guardrails — found from sitemap www.convert.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Statistical method & guardrails — found from sitemap www.convert.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Consent & visitor tracking — found from sitemap www.convert.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Consent & visitor tracking — found from sitemap www.convert.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Snippet performance & flicker — found from sitemap www.convert.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Snippet performance & flicker — found from sitemap www.convert.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Analytics, data export & integrations — found from sitemap www.convert.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 15 Analytics, data export & integrations — found from sitemap www.convert.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →