Conversion Optimization

CUX

Provenance unknown Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

by CUX sp. z o.o. · cux.io

An AI-assisted analysis of public evidence — not a hands-on test.

Every score, rationale and verdict on this page is AI-generated. Every claim cites the source it was read from. Nothing here is a human star review — and no score can be bought. How scores are made →

Method and versions

The Growth Lead v1.0 · The E-Commerce Manager v1.0 · The Product Engineer v1.0 · The CRO Consultant v1.0 · The Data Protection Officer v1.0 · The Skeptic v1.0 · rubric v2 · evaluated 4 Nov 2026

Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

Link to this page

HTML

<a href="https://whats-best.ai/software/conversion-optimization/cux"><img src="https://whats-best.ai/badge/conversion-optimization/cux.svg" alt="CUX: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai" height="66"></a>

Markdown

[![CUX: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai](https://whats-best.ai/badge/conversion-optimization/cux.svg)](https://whats-best.ai/software/conversion-optimization/cux)

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

CUX alternatives, European ones first →

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

The Product Engineer

Weighted verdict

Ships experiments behind feature flags and would rather not ship a third-party script at all. Wants server-side SDKs for the stack in use, edge delivery, metrics computed in the warehouse the team already trusts, and an API good enough to build internal tooling on.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The Product Engineer

Panel median The Product Engineer This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.

Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion	Panel median	The Product Engineer
Experiment types & delivery	0 of 5	0 of 5
Statistical method & guardrails	0 of 5	0 of 5
Consent & visitor tracking	1.5 of 5	2 of 5
Snippet performance & flicker	1 of 5	1 of 5
Analytics, data export & integrations	2 of 5	2 of 5
European sovereignty	2.5 of 5	2.5 of 5

Experiment types & delivery

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Statistical method & guardrails

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Consent & visitor tracking

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Snippet performance & flicker

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Analytics, data export & integrations

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 of 6 dimensions proven

Built 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

Do you know more about CUX? Tell us Report an error on this page

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 →