Conversion Optimization
Crazy Egg
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Crazy Egg, Inc. · www.crazyegg.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
Crazy Egg at a glance
- Vendor
- Crazy Egg, Inc.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Crazy Egg 1/5, the mean of 6 judges. Crazy Egg is strongest on performance impact, the highest score at 4: asynchronous non-blocking loading, explained flicker with head-placement guidance and a support-issued anti-flicker code, and no published script-size figures. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Crazy Egg is strongest on performance impact, the highest score at 4: asynchronous non-blocking loading, explained flicker with head-placement guidance and a support-issued anti-flicker code, and no published script-size figures. Experimentation scope scores sit at 3: client-side A/B testing through a page editor, unlimited variants, wildcard URL patterns, plan-dependent targeting, and Multi-Arm Bandit or Classical Split allocation. Statistical rigour splits the judges at 2 to 3, turning on how much credit the two named allocation methods — Multi-Arm Bandit and Classical Split — deserve without public information on winner determination, intervals or sample-size guidance. Data and integrations score 2: a well-documented GA4 path — five custom dimensions, a GTM container import file — and no public information on result export or a documented API. Consent and tracking scores sit at 1: privacy pages document input masking and element exclusion in recordings, while we found no public information on the script's storage or behaviour before consent. Sovereignty scores run 0 to 1 — AWS hosting, no stated region, jurisdiction and subprocessor exposure unknown — and pricing transparency scores 0, common in this market.
Speaks for it
- Performance impact scores 4, the highest score awarded, on documented asynchronous, non-blocking script loading.
- Flicker is explained with remedies — head placement, removing inactive tests to shrink the snippet, and a support-issued site-specific anti-flicker code for editor-built tests.
- A GA4 path is documented end to end: a variant-view custom event with five custom dimensions and a ready-made GTM container import file.
- Unlimited variants, wildcard URL patterns and plan-dependent audience targeting are documented for editor-built A/B tests.
- Published data practices include input masking and an element-exclusion tool in recordings, tested daily, weekly and monthly backups, and a database accessible only from application servers inside an Amazon VPC.
Held against it
- Consent and tracking scores sit at 1: we found no public information on what the script stores or when it runs relative to consent.
- Statistical rigour scores split 2 to 3: the documented material stops at allocation choice, with no public information on winner determination, intervals or sample-size guidance.
- Sovereignty scores run 0 to 1: AWS S3 backups and Amazon VPC with no stated region, and jurisdiction, data residency and subprocessor exposure unknown.
- Data and integrations score 2: beyond GA4 we found no public information on result export, visitor-level data or a documented API.
- No published figures for script size or load cost; 'lightweight' appears as a description without numbers.
Best for
- You need client-side A/B tests built in a visual page editor on pages developed outside the tool, with unlimited variants and wildcard URL patterns for multi-page tests.
- You run Google Analytics 4 and want variant views pushed there as a custom event carrying five custom dimensions.
- Flicker on your marketing pages is a concern and you can work with a support-issued, site-specific anti-flicker code for editor-built tests.
Avoid if
- Your data protection officer must clear the test script before launch: the published privacy material covers recordings, and we found no public information on the script's storage, consent timing or consent-platform integration.
- You need a vendor-published winner-decision method, intervals or sample-size guidance before calling a result — the documentation names the allocation methods only.
- Your analysis depends on exporting results or querying a documented API beyond the single GA4 event path.
- Your procurement requires confirmed data residency, contracting-entity jurisdiction or a subprocessor list — all three are unconfirmed on the vendor's own pages as captured.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Experiment types & delivery | 1.5 of 5 |
| Statistical method & guardrails | 1.5 of 5 |
| Consent & visitor tracking | 0.5 of 5 |
| Snippet performance & flicker | 2 of 5 |
| Analytics, data export & integrations | 1 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0 of 5 |
Experiment types & delivery
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What can be tested and where: client-side changes through an editor, server-side and feature experiments through SDKs, multivariate and multi-page tests, and personalisation — judged on what the documentation shows rather than on the feature grid.
0 — Simple A/B split of one page element through a visual editor; no server-side option, no targeting beyond URL.
3 — Client-side A/B and split-URL tests with basic audience targeting, and no SDK or server-side delivery.
5 — Client-side and server-side experiments through documented SDKs for common languages, multivariate and multi-page tests, audience targeting on behaviour and attributes, and rule-based personalisation.
8 — Feature-flag-based experiments sharing one audience and metric model with web tests, mutually exclusive experiment groups, holdouts, edge or CDN delivery, and personalisation that can itself be tested against a control.
10 — One experimentation programme across every surface: web, app, server and edge from the same platform, experiment interactions managed, a documented experiment lifecycle from hypothesis to archived result, and a library of past results a team can search.
The Growth Lead
Client-side A/B tests with unlimited variants, a page editor for pages built outside the tool, wildcard URL patterns and plan-dependent audience options are documented, but I found no public information on server-side delivery, SDKs, multivariate tests or personalisation. The visual editor my team needs is evidenced; everything beyond the tested page is not. 2 3
The E-Commerce Manager
A/B testing with two or more page versions, unlimited variants, wildcard URL matching and plan-dependent audience targeting are documented, with a Multi-Arm Bandit or Classical Split allocation choice and even traffic split until the test is turned off. Everything runs through the visual page editor; I found no public information on server-side SDKs, feature flags, multivariate tests, or personalisation that can be tested against a control. 2 3
The Product Engineer
Tests are built in a page editor: A/B and split tests with unlimited variants, wildcard URL patterns for multi-page tests, and a choice of Multi-Arm Bandit or Classical Split allocation. Everything documented is client-side editor delivery — we found no public information on SDKs, server-side or edge delivery, feature flags, holdouts or mutually exclusive experiments. 2 3
The CRO Consultant
What is documented is client-side A/B testing with unlimited variants, a page editor for variants built outside the tool, plan-dependent audience targeting and wildcard URL patterns — serviceable for editor-built page tests. We found no public information on server-side or SDK delivery, multivariate tests, personalisation or feature flags, which caps this at simple client-side programmes. 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
What is documented is client-side A/B testing through a page editor, with unlimited variants, wildcard URL patterns, plan-dependent audience options, and a choice of classical split or multi-arm bandit allocation. We found no public information on server-side SDKs, feature flags, multivariate tests or personalisation, so the evidenced scope stops at client-side A/B with basic targeting. 2 3
The Skeptic
Documented delivery is client-side A/B testing through a page editor with unlimited variants, wildcard URL patterns and plan-gated audience targeting, plus two named allocation schemes (multi-armed bandit and classical split). I found no public information on server-side or SDK delivery, feature flags, multivariate tests, holdouts or personalisation, which places this squarely at the client-side-only level. 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
The help pages name two allocation approaches — Multi-Arm Bandit and Classical Split — but beyond naming them I found no public information on confidence or credible intervals, sample-size or duration guidance, peeking protection, or sample ratio mismatch detection. When finance asks where the promised revenue figure comes from, I would have nothing published to point at. 2 3
The E-Commerce Manager
The allocation methods are named — a Multi-Arm Bandit or a classical even split using random sampling — but I found no public information on confidence or credible intervals, sample-size or test-duration guidance, or when a result may be read. Nothing published stops a test being called while it is underpowered, which on my December traffic is exactly the mistake I need prevented. 2 3
The Product Engineer
The only statistical content is the allocation choice between Multi-Arm Bandit and Classical Split; the captured pages do not document how a winner is actually decided. We found no public information on confidence or credible intervals, sample-size or duration guidance, protection against peeking, sample ratio mismatch detection or guardrail metrics. 2 3
The CRO Consultant
Two allocation methods are named — Multi-Arm Bandit and Classical Split — and a simple random sampling algorithm assigns visitors, but we found no public information on the statistical method that decides a winner, intervals, or sample-size and duration guidance; traffic simply splits evenly until you turn the test off. I cannot let a client declare a winner on that basis. 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
Two methods — a classical split and a multi-arm bandit — are named, but their assumptions are not documented, and no confidence or credible intervals, sample-size guidance, or warning against stopping early accompany them. We found no public information on protection against peeking, correction for multiple comparisons, or sample ratio mismatch detection. 2 3
The Skeptic
Two methods are named — multi-arm bandit and classical split — but nothing documents the assumptions behind either, and there is no sample-size or duration guidance, no stated protection against peeking or multiple comparisons, and no sample ratio mismatch detection in the captures. A bandit that reallocates traffic mid-test with undocumented stopping rules is exactly how underpowered results get declared as wins. 2 3
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 pages describe input masking in recordings and an element-exclusion tool, but say nothing about what the script stores on the device or whether it runs before consent; I found no public information on a cookie or storage list, consent management platform integration, IP anonymisation, or anything mapping to §25 TDDDG. For a German team that is a blocker before the first test goes live. 4 5
The E-Commerce Manager
The privacy pages describe masked input fields and an element-exclusion tool in recordings, with handling of sensitive data described as the site owner's responsibility. I found no public information on what the tracking script stores on the device, whether it runs before consent is given, or any consent management platform integration — so §25 TDDDG behaviour cannot be assessed from these pages. 4 5
The Product Engineer
The privacy pages cover input masking and an element-exclusion tool for recordings plus backup and replication practices, and nothing says what the script stores on a device or when it runs relative to consent. We found no public information on a consent-pending mode, a cookieless option, a cookie and storage-key list, or IP anonymisation. 4 5
The CRO Consultant
The privacy pages describe input masking in recordings and an element-exclusion tool for sensitive content, which governs what gets captured rather than what the test script does on the device. We found no public information on what the script stores, its behaviour before consent, consent-platform integration, IP handling or retention — nothing here a client's data protection officer could sign off. 4 5
The Data Protection Officer
I have to ask whether the test script may run before the consent banner is answered, and I found no public information on it: nothing on the timing of the script relative to consent, a list of cookies or storage keys, a consent-pending mode, integration with consent management platforms, IP anonymisation, or the legal basis for testing in the EU. The privacy pages document input masking and an element-exclusion tool for recordings and describe handling of sensitive elements as something the customer controls and is responsible for, which leaves the §25 TDDDG questions unanswered. 4 5
The Skeptic
The privacy pages document input masking in recordings and an element-exclusion tool, but I found no public information on what the script stores on the device, whether it runs before consent, consent-platform integration, IP anonymisation or visitor-data retention. Nothing in the captures addresses when tracking begins relative to visitor consent. 4 5
Snippet performance & flicker
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The cost the client-side snippet imposes on the page it tests: blocking load, flicker of original content, script weight and the effect on Core Web Vitals — scored on what the vendor measures and publishes, not on "lightning fast".
0 — A synchronous snippet with no stated size, no flicker handling and no mention of performance.
3 — An anti-flicker snippet that hides the page until the test loads, with a timeout, and no published figures for script size or load cost.
5 — Script size and loading behaviour documented, asynchronous loading option, flicker handling explained with its trade-off, and CDN delivery of the snippet.
8 — Published performance figures including impact on Core Web Vitals, a self-hosting or first-party-domain option for the script, per-project bundles containing only active experiments, and a server-side or edge alternative for flicker-sensitive tests.
10 — Performance is a stated commitment: measured overhead published and maintained, flicker eliminated by edge or server-side rendering as a documented path, and tooling that shows the customer what their own configuration costs the page.
The Growth Lead
Flicker is explained with concrete remedies — script in the head element, a site-specific flicker code obtained from support, removing inactive tests to shrink the snippet — and the script is documented as asynchronous and non-blocking on the main thread. I found no public information with published figures for script size or load cost, so I cannot quote a number at the board. 6 7
The E-Commerce Manager
Flicker is explained plainly with head-installation guidance, a recommendation against tag managers, and a site-specific anti-flicker code supplied by support — though only for tests built in the A/B editor — and the script is documented as asynchronous, non-blocking on the main thread, and shrinkable by removing inactive tests. I found no published figures for script size or load cost, and the CDN advice concerns my page rather than their snippet's delivery, so I cannot put a number on what a tenth of a second would cost me. 6 7
The Product Engineer
Flicker is explained with cause and trade-off — install the script in the head, avoid tag managers, remove inactive tests to shrink the snippet — and an anti-flicker code is available from support for editor-built tests. The script is documented as asynchronous and non-blocking, but we found no published figures for script size or Core Web Vitals impact; "lightweight" appears only as a claim without numbers. 6 7
The CRO Consultant
Flicker is explained with concrete mitigations — head installation, removing inactive tests to shrink the snippet — and a support-issued flicker code exists for editor-built tests, alongside documented asynchronous loading that does not block the main thread. We found no published figures for script size or measured load cost, only "lightweight" as a description, so I cannot quantify what the snippet costs a page. 6 7
The Data Protection Officer
Asynchronous, non-main-thread loading is documented, flicker is explained with its cause, and a site-specific flicker code is obtainable from support for tests built in the A/B editor, together with guidance to install the script in the head and remove inactive tests to shrink the snippet. We found no published figures for script size or Core Web Vitals impact, and the CDN advice addresses the customer's own page rather than delivery of the snippet. 6 7
The Skeptic
Loading behaviour is documented qualitatively — asynchronous, non-blocking, with flicker explained and mitigated by head placement and support-issued flicker code for editor-built tests. No published figures exist for script size or load cost, and the only size guidance given is to remove inactive tests to shrink the snippet. 6 7
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
The Google Analytics 4 path is genuinely well documented — a variant-view custom event, five custom dimensions and a ready-made GTM container import file — but beyond that single path I found no public information on result export, a documented API, or visitor-level data. One analytics pipe means a result can be pushed to GA4 but not independently checked in our own data. 8 9
The E-Commerce Manager
A documented Google Analytics 4 integration sends a variant-view custom event with test and variant dimensions, and a ready-made Tag Manager container import file is provided — a genuinely useful single path. I found no public information on exporting results or visitor-level data, a documented API, or warehouse-native analysis, so results live in their dashboard plus GA. 8 9
The Product Engineer
One integration is documented end to end: a variant-view custom event with five custom dimensions pushed into GA4, including a GTM container import file. We found no public information on export of aggregated or visitor-level results, a documented API, or warehouse and CDP integrations — so a result cannot be checked in the customer's own data. 8 9
The CRO Consultant
There is a genuine, well-documented GA4 path: a variant-view custom event carrying five custom dimensions, extra steps for Google Tag Manager installs and a container import file, so a client can check variants in their own analytics. We found no public information on results export, a documented API, or visitor-level data, so the independent verification I insist on is not evidenced. 8 9
The Data Protection Officer
One analytics integration is documented in depth: a variant-view event with five custom dimensions sent to Google Analytics, including a ready-made Google Tag Manager container import file. We found no public information on export of results, visitor-level data, a documented API with limits, or delivery to a data warehouse. 8 9
The Skeptic
A documented Google Analytics (GA4) integration with five custom dimensions and a GTM container import file is essentially the whole export story. I found no public information on export of visitor-level or aggregated results, a documented API, or warehouse delivery — so a variant view can be pushed to GA as an event but the experiment cannot be re-analysed in the customer's own data. 8 9
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 only hosting facts on the captured pages are daily AWS S3 backups and an Amazon VPC; jurisdiction of the contracting entity, data residency and subprocessors are unconfirmed, and I found no public information on an EU processing safeguard for the visitor behaviour the script records. I cannot tell the works council where our visitors' data lands. 1 5
The E-Commerce Manager
Visitor and usage data is held in an Amazon VPC with daily S3 backups replicated across multiple data centers, and authentication runs over TLS. I found no public information confirming the contracting entity's jurisdiction, EU data residency, a subprocessor list, or a DPA covering the visitor data the script collects, and the named infrastructure is Amazon Web Services. 5
The Product Engineer
We found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, data residency or any subprocessor list; the only hosting detail is AWS storage with VPC isolation and cross-datacenter replication, with no region stated. Nothing in the captured pages evidences EU processing of the visitor data the script records. 5
The CRO Consultant
Hosting details name Amazon S3 storage and replication across multiple data centres but state no region, and we found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, a subprocessor list, EU residency for visitor data, or a data processing agreement covering what the script collects. For a snippet that runs on every visitor, I have nothing European to point a client's data protection officer at. 5
The Data Protection Officer
Visitor data sits on AWS — S3 backups and VPC-isolated database servers with replication across multiple data centers — yet we found no public information on the region of that infrastructure, the contracting entity's jurisdiction, EU residency, or a subprocessor list that would let me check the CDN. Nothing captured describes a safeguard for visitor data reaching a non-EU party. 5
The Skeptic
Legal entity jurisdiction, data residency and subprocessor exposure are all unconfirmed on the vendor's own pages, while the documented infrastructure runs in Amazon VPC with backups on AWS S3 and no stated region. No subprocessor list, no DPA detail and no safeguard for visitor data leaving the EU appears in the captures. 5 1
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
The captured vendor page gives only positioning — "See what's wrong with your website" — and I found no public information on tier prices, the traffic metric, its limits, overage or module pricing. I cannot compute an annual cost from anything published here. 1
The E-Commerce Manager
The only pricing signal on the captured pages is that audience-targeting options "depend on your Crazy Egg plan"; I found no public prices, no traffic metric, no limits, no overage terms and no seat or module pricing. For a shop whose visitor count jumps every December, the annual invoice is not computable in advance. 1 3
The Product Engineer
We found no public information on pricing — the captured vendor page shows no tier prices, traffic metric, limits or overage terms — so no part of an annual invoice can be computed from public pages. 1
The CRO Consultant
We found no public information on prices, tiers, the traffic metric or what happens at the limits — nothing a client could use to estimate an annual invoice before signing. In a category priced by traffic, that leaves the invoice unknowable from public pages alone. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages tell a buyer only that audience targeting options depend on the plan; no prices, traffic metric, limits, overage terms or seat costs are public in what was captured, so the annual cost is not computable from public information. 3
The Skeptic
I found no public information on prices, tiers, the traffic metric, limits or a free tier in the captured pages. Nothing in the evidence lets a buyer estimate even the starting invoice, let alone an annual cost. 1
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Crazy Egg
Is Crazy Egg European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Crazy Egg is based.
Where does Crazy Egg store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Crazy Egg have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Crazy Egg?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates GrowthBook (3.5/5), Convert Experiences (3.5/5) and Webtrends Optimize (3/5) highest among the other 31 Conversion Optimization products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is Webtrends Optimize (UK / wider Europe). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Crazy Egg alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency, Subprocessors. 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.
- We could not confirm any pricing information on the vendor’s own pages as captured, so this page shows none rather than a statement we cannot stand behind. Know more? Tell us
- 4 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
- 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
- 3 hosting 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 subprocessors 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
- 2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are 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 (9)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.crazyegg.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Experiment types & delivery — found from sitemap support.crazyegg.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Experiment types & delivery — found from sitemap support.crazyegg.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Consent & visitor tracking — found from sitemap support.crazyegg.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Consent & visitor tracking — found from sitemap support.crazyegg.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Snippet performance & flicker — found from sitemap support.crazyegg.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Snippet performance & flicker — found from sitemap support.crazyegg.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Analytics, data export & integrations — found from sitemap support.crazyegg.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Analytics, data export & integrations — found from sitemap support.crazyegg.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →