Conversion Optimization
CUX
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by CUX sp. z o.o. · cux.io
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.
CUX at a glance
- Vendor
- CUX sp. z o.o.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates CUX 1/5, the mean of 6 judges. CUX is a digital experience analytics platform, and the vendor's own knowledge base states it "is not a tool for creating A/B tests", with setup and traffic distribution assigned to a testing platform, so experimentation scope and statistical rigour both range 0 to 0 — its documented role is analysing experiments through goals, waterfalls and heatmaps. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 3 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 4 Nov 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
CUX is a digital experience analytics platform, and the vendor's own knowledge base states it "is not a tool for creating A/B tests", with setup and traffic distribution assigned to a testing platform, so experimentation scope and statistical rigour both range 0 to 0 — its documented role is analysing experiments through goals, waterfalls and heatmaps. Sovereignty is its strength at 4 to 5: CUX Research Sp. z o.o. of Wrocław, EU-based data storage, and the vendor states it hosts only in ISO 27001-certified data centres in Frankfurt, Warsaw, Roubaix and Strasbourg; we found no public information on a data processing agreement or subprocessor list. Data and integrations score 3 to 4, led by the read-only dataLayer capture; performance impact is flat at 2, with no public information on script weight or Core Web Vitals impact. Consent and tracking spread 2 to 4: the privacy documentation is concrete — cookie lifetimes, random identifiers, anonymised IPs, masking in the browser — but no consent-platform integration or pre-consent behaviour is documented, and judges weighed that gap differently. Only a free trial is documented on pricing.
Speaks for it
- Sovereignty scores cluster at 4 to 5, resting on a named Polish entity (CUX Research Sp. z o.o., Wrocław) with published KRS, NIP and REGON registration numbers.
- The vendor states it hosts only in ISO 27001-certified data centres in Frankfurt, Warsaw, Roubaix and Strasbourg, with EU-based data storage presented as standard.
- The privacy documentation is concrete: session and persistent cookies with their lifetimes, random localStorage and sessionStorage identifiers, anonymised IPs with the full address stated as not stored, and masking applied in the browser before sending.
- The dataLayer capture integration is documented in depth and is read-only, with limits stated (event names stored once per visit, no backfill, user data fields removed before storage).
- Enterprise clients are offered client-side script hosting and access to the tracking logic, and CSP configuration is provided during onboarding.
Held against it
- Experimentation scope scores range 0 to 0 — the vendor states CUX is not a tool for creating A/B tests and that test setup and traffic distribution must be done in a testing platform of your choice.
- Statistical rigour scores range 0 to 0 — we found no public information on a statistical method, significance figures, sample-size guidance or sample ratio mismatch detection, and the A/B testing article page carries no article text.
- Performance impact is a flat 2 — we found no public information on script weight, loading behaviour or Core Web Vitals impact, and the snippet installation article body is absent.
- We found no public information on an API, webhooks or visitor-level export, so results live inside the vendor's dashboard.
- We found no public information on a consent management platform integration, a hold-until-consent mode, or behaviour before consent — the gap behind the 2-to-4 spread on consent and tracking.
Best for
- You already run A/B tests in a dedicated testing platform and want a behavioural analysis layer — goals, waterfalls and heatmaps — over the resulting variants.
- Your procurement requires EU-based storage and a European contracting entity with published registration numbers and named ISO 27001-certified data centres.
- You install via Google Tag Manager and want to find visits containing specific events pushed to window.dataLayer, filtering them inside the product.
- You are an enterprise buyer who wants client-side script hosting and access to the tracking logic for internal audits.
Avoid if
- You need one tool that splits traffic and serves variants — the vendor's documentation assigns test setup to a testing platform of your choice or your own development framework.
- You need a statistically decided winner — significance figures, sample-size guidance or sample ratio mismatch detection — to defend to finance.
- You must budget a tracking script's performance cost before installing it on conversion-critical pages.
- You need to reconcile results against your own order data in a warehouse — the documented integrations are inbound, and we found no public information on export.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Experiment types & delivery | 0 of 5 |
| Statistical method & guardrails | 0 of 5 |
| Consent & visitor tracking | 1.5 of 5 |
| Snippet performance & flicker | 1 of 5 |
| Analytics, data export & integrations | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 2.5 of 5 |
Experiment types & delivery
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What can be tested and where: client-side changes through an editor, server-side and feature experiments through SDKs, multivariate and multi-page tests, and personalisation — judged on what the documentation shows rather than on the feature grid.
0 — Not an experimentation tool; the product cannot split traffic or serve variants (analytics, heatmaps or session recording only).
3 — Client-side A/B tests built in a visual editor, with a traffic split and targeting by URL or device.
5 — A/B, split-URL and multivariate tests through a visual or code editor, audience targeting on behaviour and attributes, and either rule-based personalisation or server-side experiments through a documented SDK.
8 — Client-side and server-side experiments through documented SDKs for common languages, multi-page tests, feature-flag experiments sharing one audience and metric model with web tests, mutually exclusive experiment groups, holdouts, 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 own knowledge base states "CUX is not a tool for creating A/B tests" and that test setup and traffic distribution must be done in a testing platform of your choice or your own development framework; what it offers is analysis of experiments run elsewhere through waterfalls, goals and heatmaps. For my team there is no editor to use, no traffic split, and no variant delivery documented anywhere on the captured pages. 3 4 10
The E-Commerce Manager
The vendor states plainly that CUX is not a tool for creating A/B tests and that setup and traffic distribution must be done in a testing platform of my own choosing — CUX's role is analysing the variants afterwards with Waterfalls, Goals and Heatmaps. There is no traffic split, no editor, no personalisation I could test against a control, and the A/B testing article page itself carries no article text. For my shop this is an analytics layer beside an experimentation tool, not a substitute for one. 3 4 10
The Product Engineer
The vendor's own knowledge base is explicit — "CUX is not a tool for creating A/B tests" and traffic distribution "must be done in a testing platform of your choice (such as a dedicated A/B testing tool) or your own development framework." It cannot split traffic or serve variants; it is the analysis layer for experiments run elsewhere, which for anyone shipping behind feature flags is a hard disqualifier for this category. 3 4
The CRO Consultant
The vendor's own knowledge base is explicit that CUX is not a tool for creating A/B tests and that test setup and traffic distribution "must be done in a testing platform of your choice"; its documented role is analysing experiments already run elsewhere through Goals, Waterfalls and Heatmaps. For a client that needs to split traffic and serve variants, this is a different kind of tool — I'd pair it with a testing platform, not substitute it for one. 3 4 10
The Data Protection Officer
The vendor states in writing that CUX is not a tool for creating A/B tests and that test setup and traffic distribution must be done in a platform of the customer's choice, with CUX's role confined to analysing variants through goals, waterfalls and heatmaps. By its own documentation the product cannot split traffic or serve variants, so this sits at the base of the scale. 3 4 10
The Skeptic
The vendor's own knowledge base states that this "is not a tool for creating A/B tests" and that test setup and traffic distribution "must be done in a testing platform of your choice or your own development framework". It splits no traffic and serves no variants; its documented role is analysing externally run experiments through goals, waterfalls and heatmaps, and the dedicated A/B testing article page carries no article text. This is an experience-analytics product of a different kind, and I score it at the level the facts show. 3 4 10
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 — No statistical evaluation; the product shows raw counts per variant and leaves the decision to the user.
3 — A results report per variant with the method named (frequentist or Bayesian) and a significance or probability-to-beat figure.
5 — A documented method with confidence or credible intervals shown per variant, and a sample-size or test-duration calculator or stated guidance on when a result may be read.
8 — Sequential testing or another documented protection against peeking, plus 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 captured pages position the product only as an analysis layer providing quantitative data and behavioural insight on variants run in other tools, and I found no public information naming a statistical method, a significance or probability figure, sample-size guidance, or any protection against misreading a result. Nothing here would let me defend a winner to finance. 3 4 10
The E-Commerce Manager
Because the vendor says experiments are set up and distributed in another platform, the captured pages document no statistical method at all — no named approach, no significance or probability figure, no sample-size or duration guidance. I would be browsing experience metrics for variants here, not reading a result that protects me from peeking or a lucky week. 3 4
The Product Engineer
Since tests are set up elsewhere, there is no experiment engine whose statistics the captured pages could document: no named method, no significance or probability-to-beat figure, no sample-size guidance, no sample ratio mismatch detection. The knowledge base article on A/B testing contains no article text at all, and the product's stated role is understanding "why users behave differently between variants", not deciding a winner. 3 4
The CRO Consultant
Because setup and traffic distribution happen in a separate platform, we found no public information on a statistical method, significance or probability figures, sample-size guidance, or sample ratio mismatch detection. What is documented is behavioural analysis of variants — waterfalls, goals, rage clicks — which supports interpretation but leaves the statistics to whichever testing platform runs the experiment. 3 4 10
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages place test setup in an external tool and offer variant analysis through goals, waterfalls and heatmaps, and we found no public information naming a statistical method, a significance or probability figure, or any guardrail such as sample-size guidance. The A/B testing knowledge-base page itself carries no article text. 3 4 10
The Skeptic
Across every captured page I find no named method — not frequentist, not Bayesian — no confidence or credible intervals, no sample-size or duration guidance, and nothing on peeking, multiple-comparison corrections, or sample ratio mismatch detection. The documented role in experiments is behavioural analysis of variants, so there is no statistical evaluation of a test result here to audit. The floor, frankly, is where it belongs: a product that never computes a winner at least cannot dress one up. 3 4 10
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 — No consent handling of any kind: the vendor states that the script runs and stores identifiers regardless of the visitor's consent.
3 — A documented integration with a consent tool or a setting that holds the script until consent, and the cookies or storage keys the script sets listed.
5 — Documented behaviour before and after consent, integration with common consent management platforms, and a published list of cookies and storage keys with their lifetime.
8 — A documented consent-pending mode that holds tracking until consent while variants can still be served, a cookieless or first-party-only option, IP anonymisation and retention of visitor data stated, and guidance on the legal basis for testing in the EU under §25 TDDDG.
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 documentation lists the session and persistent cookies with their lifetimes, the localStorage and sessionStorage identifiers (random, non-identifying), automatic masking of forms, and states IP addresses are anonymised with the full address never stored. However, I found no public information on a consent-pending mode, integration with a consent management platform, or how the snippet behaves before consent under §25 TDDDG. 5 6
The E-Commerce Manager
The privacy documentation lists session and persistent cookies with their lifetimes, says visit identifiers live in local and session storage as random strings, states collection is limited to what the browser makes available with the user's consent, anonymises the IP so no full address is stored, and masks form inputs automatically before sending. We found no public information on an integration with a consent management platform, a setting that holds the snippet until consent, or written guidance tying the setup to §25 TDDDG. 5 6
The Product Engineer
The privacy page is unusually concrete about what lands on the device: session and persistent cookies with their lifetimes, identifiers in localStorage and sessionStorage generated from random strings, IP addresses anonymised with the full IP never stored, and masking applied in the browser before anything is sent. Collection is described as limited to what the browser makes available "with the user's consent", but the captured pages show no consent-management-platform integration and no setting that holds the script until consent, so the consent mechanism is left to the customer. 5 6
The CRO Consultant
The privacy documentation is genuinely detailed: identifiers are random strings held in localStorage and sessionStorage, cookies are described as session or persistent with their lifetimes, the full IP address is stated as not stored anywhere on the vendor's side, and form fields are masked in the browser before anything reaches the servers. But we found no public information on a consent-management-platform integration, a setting that holds the script until consent, behaviour before consent, or guidance under §25 TDDDG — the statement that collection happens "with the user's consent" is a claim about scope, not a documented mechanism, and that is exactly where a client's DPO will start asking questions. 2 5 6
The Data Protection Officer
The privacy page lists session and persistent cookies with their lifetimes, describes local and session storage identifiers built from random strings, and states that a full IP address is never stored, with collection limited to what the browser provides 'with the user's consent'. We found no public information on whether the snippet may run before the consent banner is answered, on a consent-pending mode, on the storage key names, or on integration with any consent management platform. 5 6 7
The Skeptic
The privacy documentation is unusually concrete about what lands on the visitor's device: session and persistent cookies with their lifetimes, localStorage and sessionStorage identifiers built from random strings, automatic masking of form fields in the browser before anything is sent, and anonymised IP addresses with no full IP stored. Collection is described as limited to what the browser exposes "with the user's consent". We found no public information on behaviour before and after consent, an integration with a consent management platform, a hold-until-consent mode, or guidance on the German §25 TDDDG consent rule, so the evidence supports only a middling rating. 5 6
Snippet performance & flicker
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The cost the client-side snippet imposes on the page it tests: blocking load, flicker of original content, script weight and the effect on Core Web Vitals — scored on what the vendor measures and publishes, not on "lightning fast".
0 — A synchronous, render-blocking snippet stated as the only way to install the product, with no flicker handling.
3 — An asynchronous or anti-flicker snippet with a timeout, described in the installation documentation.
5 — Asynchronous loading and flicker handling explained with their trade-off, the snippet delivered from a CDN, and its size or loading behaviour documented.
8 — Published performance figures including the 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
Installation via Google Tag Manager is documented with CSP configuration provided during onboarding, and enterprise clients can self-host the client-side script, but the snippet installation article on the captured page has no article text. I found no public information on loading behaviour, flicker handling, script size or any Core Web Vitals impact. 2 7 8
The E-Commerce Manager
The captured pages describe snippet installation via Google Tag Manager, CSP configuration details provided during onboarding, and client-side script hosting reserved for enterprise clients, while the snippet installation article itself had no body text. We found no public information on script weight, asynchronous loading, anti-flicker handling or Core Web Vitals impact — exactly the numbers I need before pasting anything on a product page where a tenth of a second shows in conversion. 2 7 8
The Product Engineer
Installation is documented through Google Tag Manager, a CSP configuration is provided during onboarding, and enterprise clients can get client-side script hosting and access to the tracking logic — but the main snippet installation article has no article text, and we found no public information on script size, loading behaviour, flicker handling or measured impact on Core Web Vitals. I could not budget what this script costs a page from these pages. 2 7 8
The CRO Consultant
We found no public information on script weight, loading behaviour or Core Web Vitals impact — the captured snippet installation page had no article body on it. What the pages do document is an enterprise option of client-side script hosting and access to the tracking logic for self-hosting and internal audits, CSP configuration details provided during onboarding, and installation via Google Tag Manager. 2 7 8 9
The Data Protection Officer
Installation via Google Tag Manager is documented, and enterprise clients are offered client-side script hosting and self-hosting, but the snippet installation article body is absent from the captured page. We found no public information on loading behaviour, flicker handling, script weight or impact on Core Web Vitals. 2 7 8
The Skeptic
Installation is documented via Google Tag Manager with Content Security Policy configuration provided during onboarding, and enterprise clients are offered client-side script hosting and access to the tracking logic for self-hosting. Beyond that, we found no public information on script weight, loading behaviour, asynchronous delivery, flicker handling, or any measured effect on Core Web Vitals — and the snippet installation article's body is not present on the captured page. Two documented facts carry this above the floor and no further. 2 7 8
Analytics, data export & integrations
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Getting results and raw data out: integration with analytics and tag management, export of visitor-level results, warehouse-native analysis, and an API — because an experiment result that cannot be checked in the customer's own data is a claim, not a finding.
0 — A closed dashboard: the vendor states that results cannot be exported or sent to another tool.
3 — Results exportable as a CSV file or report, and an integration with at least one named analytics tool.
5 — Integrations with common analytics and tag managers (Google Analytics, Adobe Analytics, Google Tag Manager or similar), export of results, and a documented API or webhooks.
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 for managing experiments and reading results 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
Named integrations with Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager are documented, and a dataLayer capture feature reads window.dataLayer events for finding and filtering visits, with honest limits stated (no backfill, an event name stored only once per visit). These are inbound pipes; I found no public information on visitor-level data export, warehouse analysis or a documented API. 9 10
The E-Commerce Manager
There is a Google Analytics integration, Google Tag Manager installation, and a dataLayer capture that surfaces visits containing pushed events, though with real limits — an event name is stored only once per visit, there is no backfill of earlier visits, and nested ecommerce payloads are not stored complete. We found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, or visitor-level export to a data warehouse, so I cannot reconcile what the tool tells me against my own order data. 9 10
The Product Engineer
Google Analytics integration, a Google Tag Manager installation path and a genuinely detailed read-only dataLayer capture are documented, with advanced visit filters and a weekly report on top. But the dataLayer integration "does not create events or install Google Tag Manager for you", and we found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, or export of visitor-level data to a warehouse — the numbers stay in the vendor's dashboard and cannot be recomputed against metrics in a warehouse I already trust. 9 10
The CRO Consultant
Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager integrations are documented, and the dataLayer Capture integration is explained in real depth — what is stored, which fields are removed, that it reads the data layer only and does not backfill earlier visits — with goals able to listen for GTM events. But we found no public information on an API, webhooks, or export of visitor-level data to a warehouse; the report side amounts to a Simple Weekly Report and shared recordings, so results live mainly inside the vendor's dashboard. 9 10
The Data Protection Officer
A Google Analytics integration, Google Tag Manager installation, a dataLayer capture feature for finding matching visits, and a weekly report are documented, with the full single-user visit history visible within the retention period. We found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, or visitor-level export of raw data to the customer's own systems. 6 9 10
The Skeptic
A named Google Analytics integration, Google Tag Manager installation, and a dataLayer capture integration documented with unusually honest limits — read-only, event names stored once per visit, no backfill of earlier visits, user data fields removed before storage — alongside visit segments, advanced filters and a weekly report. We found no public information on an API, webhooks, CSV or visitor-level export, or any data warehouse destination. An experiment read here stays a claim that cannot yet be re-analysed in the customer's own data, and that is where I stop counting. 9 10
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 — Vendor, contracting entity and processing of visitor data all shown to be outside the EU, with no transfer safeguard stated.
3 — A named contracting entity and a privacy policy or data processing agreement; EU data residency offered as an option or add-on, or the hosting location not stated.
5 — EU hosting or EU processing of visitor data stated as standard, together with an EU contracting entity or a published subprocessor list, and a data processing agreement offered.
8 — EU contracting entity, EU hosting on named infrastructure including the delivery of the snippet, a subprocessor list published with locations, and a data processing agreement covering the visitor data the script collects.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, entity, hosting, snippet delivery and every subprocessor European, certification published, and no visitor data reaching a non-EU party at any point.
The Growth Lead
The contracting entity is CUX Research Sp. z o.o. with headquarters in Wrocław and Polish registration numbers, and the vendor states it hosts only in ISO 27001-certified data centres in Frankfurt, Warsaw, Roubaix and Strasbourg with EU-based data storage. I found no public information on a published subprocessor list or a data processing agreement covering the visitor data the script collects. 2 10
The E-Commerce Manager
The contracting entity is CUX Research Sp. z o. o. with Polish registration numbers and headquarters in Wrocław, and the security page states hosting only in ISO 27001-certified data centres in Frankfurt, Warsaw, Roubaix and Strasbourg with EU-based storage — European hosting as standard rather than an option. We found no public information on a published data processing agreement, a subprocessor list with locations, or where the snippet itself is delivered from. 2 10
The Product Engineer
The vendor's own pages name a Polish contracting entity — CUX Research Sp. z o. o., Fabryczna 6, Wrocław, with KRS and NIP registration — and state hosting only in ISO 27001-certified data centres in Frankfurt, Warsaw, Roubaix and Strasbourg, with EU-based data storage. We found no public information on a data processing agreement, a subprocessor list with locations, or where the tracking snippet itself is delivered from, which is the part that touches every visitor. 2 10
The CRO Consultant
The contracting entity is CUX Research Sp. z o.o. headquartered in Wrocław with Polish registration numbers, and the security page states EU-based data storage in ISO 27001-certified data centres in Frankfurt, Warsaw, Roubaix and Strasbourg — EU hosting is presented as standard, not an add-on, which matters because the script runs on every visitor. We found no public information on a published data processing agreement, a subprocessor list with locations, or where the tracking snippet itself is delivered, and that is what keeps the score from going higher. 2 10
The Data Protection Officer
Visitor data is stated to be hosted only in ISO 27001-certified data centres in Frankfurt, Warsaw, Roubaix and Strasbourg with EU-based storage, under CUX Research Sp. z o.o. of Wrocław with published Polish KRS, NIP and REGON registration. We found no published subprocessor list — including where the snippet itself is delivered from — and no data processing agreement documented on the captured pages. 2 10
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is a Polish limited liability company headquartered in Wrocław with published KRS, NIP and REGON registration numbers, and data storage is stated to be EU-based in named ISO 27001-certified data centres in Frankfurt, Warsaw, Roubaix and Strasbourg, backed by a GDPR-compliance statement. We found no published data processing agreement, no subprocessor list with locations, and no statement of where the tracking snippet itself is served from. The entity and hosting facts are European and named; the agreement and subprocessor disclosures that would lift the score further were not found. 2 10
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 public "from" price, a free tier or one priced tier, while the other tiers or the traffic metric behind the price are not stated.
5 — Prices public per tier with the billing period and the traffic metric (tracked users, visitors or impressions) and its limits stated; modules such as server-side SDKs or personalisation, or overage, may still be "contact sales".
8 — Every tier and module priced publicly with the traffic metric defined, limits, overage rates, seats, 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
Only a free trial is documented; I found no public information on prices, tiers, the traffic metric behind them, or the cost of seats and modules such as mobile analytics or the enterprise-only masking features. A buyer cannot estimate any annual cost from the captured pages. 6
The E-Commerce Manager
The only pricing information on the captured pages is that a free trial exists; we found no public information on tier prices, the traffic metric behind them, limits, overage or seat counts. For a shop whose traffic spikes every December, there is no way to estimate the annual cost from what is published. 1 6
The Product Engineer
The captured pages document a free trial and nothing further on price: no public tier prices, no traffic metric such as visits or recorded sessions, no limits, overage or seats. At least one integration's availability is resolved by contacting the vendor, so the annual cost is not computable from public pages alone. 6 10
The CRO Consultant
The only pricing information across the captured pages is a free trial; we found no public prices, tiers, or any traffic metric with limits a client could estimate against. As a consultant who has to forecast a client's annual cost before recommending a platform, there is nothing here to compute from — I could not defend a budget line on this basis. 1 6
The Data Protection Officer
The only public offer we found is a free trial, and we found no public information on prices, tiers, the traffic metric behind them, or their limits on the captured pages. A buyer cannot compute an annual cost from what is published. 6
The Skeptic
The only pricing-related fact on the captured pages is the existence of a free trial. We found no public information on tiers, prices, the traffic metric and its limits, seats, minimum term, VAT treatment or overage. From these pages a buyer cannot estimate even a monthly cost, so this sits just above the bottom of the scale. 6
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 6 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hosting location | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Hosting options | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Open source | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data processing agreement | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Transfer impact assessment | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about CUX
Is CUX European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where CUX is based.
Where does CUX store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.
Does CUX have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.
What are the best alternatives to CUX?
As of 4 Nov 2026, the panel rates GrowthBook (3.5/5), Varify.io (3/5) and AB Tasty (3/5) highest among the other 37 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 Varify.io (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: CUX alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 3 Nov 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Transfer impact assessment, Hosting location, 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.
- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (cux.io, cux.io/security, cux.io/knowledge-base/a-b-testing-in-cux, cux.io/knowledge-base/the-role-of-cux-in-a-b-testing-analysis, cux.io/knowledge-base/privacy, cux.io/knowledge-base/tracking-individual-user-activity-on-a-website and 4 more). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 43 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
- 26 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
- 5 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
- 2 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 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 support fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (10)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page cux.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 2 Security / trust page — found from the homepage cux.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 3 Experiment types & delivery — found from sitemap cux.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 4 Experiment types & delivery — found from sitemap cux.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 5 Consent & visitor tracking — found from sitemap cux.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 6 Consent & visitor tracking — found from sitemap cux.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 7 Snippet performance & flicker — found from sitemap cux.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 8 Snippet performance & flicker — found from sitemap cux.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 9 Analytics, data export & integrations — found from sitemap cux.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 10 Analytics, data export & integrations — found from sitemap cux.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →