whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

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

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

Link to this page

CUX: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai CUX: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai (dark)

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 Skeptic

Weighted verdict

A statistician who has watched too many "winners" regress to zero. Reads for the method by name, what stops a team from peeking, sample ratio mismatch checks and multiple-comparison corrections — and treats a "probability to beat" without documented assumptions as marketing.

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

Scored by The Skeptic

Panel median The Skeptic 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 Skeptic
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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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.

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

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.

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. 1 Vendor page cux.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Security / trust page — found from the homepage cux.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Experiment types & delivery — found from sitemap cux.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Experiment types & delivery — found from sitemap cux.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Consent & visitor tracking — found from sitemap cux.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Consent & visitor tracking — found from sitemap cux.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Snippet performance & flicker — found from sitemap cux.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Snippet performance & flicker — found from sitemap cux.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Analytics, data export & integrations — found from sitemap cux.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Analytics, data export & integrations — found from sitemap cux.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →