Conversion Optimization
Hotjar
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Hotjar Ltd · www.hotjar.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.
Hotjar at a glance
- Vendor
- Hotjar Ltd
- 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
- Yes, per the vendor’s own page source, captured 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Hotjar 1/5, the mean of 6 judges. Hotjar — now part of Contentsquare, with new accounts only on Contentsquare — is judged by this bench as an experience-intelligence product whose strength is moving behavioural data into your stack and whose weakness is the tracking script itself. 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
Hotjar — now part of Contentsquare, with new accounts only on Contentsquare — is judged by this bench as an experience-intelligence product whose strength is moving behavioural data into your stack and whose weakness is the tracking script itself. Data and integrations is the clear high, scoring 6-7: open APIs, 100+ integrations, a fully managed ETL export to the customer's warehouse, raw data export to Tableau, and Segment, AWS and Azure connections are documented. The low side clusters elsewhere. Performance impact scores 0-1 and consent and tracking 1-2: we found no public information on the snippet's size, loading behaviour or effect on Core Web Vitals, nor on what the tracking code stores or when it runs relative to consent. Statistical rigour sits at 1-2 — published craft advice of a one-week minimum and at most three KPIs, with no named method. Experimentation scope drew the widest spread, 1-3: the low end reads the six-step framework as process guidance, the high end credits the two-click no-code setup. Sovereignty scores sit at 1; pricing transparency at 3, resting on a public free tier alone.
Speaks for it
- Open APIs and 100+ integrations are documented, with named partners including Snowflake, AWS and Azure.
- A fully managed ETL export moves data to the customer's warehouse and stores it beyond the vendor's retention period.
- Raw data export to Tableau covers error and user-event data.
- A free tier is public — "Start for free", with 20 survey responses per month on Hotjar and 100 on Contentsquare.
- A Data Processing Agreement, data deletion and ISO 27001/27701 documentation are published.
Held against it
- No public prices for paid tiers, the traffic metric, its limits or overage terms, so an annual invoice is not computable from the captured pages.
- No public information on what the tracking code stores on the device or when it runs relative to consent, with no cookieless or consent-pending mode on the captured pages.
- No published script size, loading behaviour, flicker handling or measured Core Web Vitals impact for the snippet itself.
- No statistical method, intervals or sample-size guidance named — the published guidance is process advice (at least one week, at most three KPIs).
- Sovereignty attributes stand unknown — legal entity jurisdiction, ownership, data residency and subprocessors — with hosting named as AWS and Azure and no region stated.
Best for
- You want behavioural data flowing into your own stack — the warehouse ETL export, Tableau raw export and Segment connection took the bench's top scores (6-7 on data and integrations).
- You already run experiments on Optimizely, AB Tasty or Kameleoon and want journey analysis across test variants alongside them.
- You want to evaluate before committing — a free tier is public with survey response limits of 20 per month on Hotjar and 100 on Contentsquare.
Avoid if
- Your programme depends on server-side delivery, SDKs, feature flags or multivariate testing — the captured pages position native testing as zero-configuration client-side setup with variants in two clicks, with heavier delivery through third-party integrations.
- You must compute an annual invoice before a contract — beyond the free tier, no paid prices or traffic metric are public.
- You carry a hard EU residency requirement — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- Your compliance sign-off needs written answers on script storage and consent timing — the compliance pages document a DPA and data deletion but do not state what the tracking code stores or when it runs relative to consent.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Experiment types & delivery | 1 of 5 |
| Statistical method & guardrails | 0.5 of 5 |
| Consent & visitor tracking | 0.5 of 5 |
| Snippet performance & flicker | 0.5 of 5 |
| Analytics, data export & integrations | 3.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0.5 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 1.5 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 — 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
What the captured pages show for the platform itself is a zero-configuration A/B setup that creates variants in two clicks, while the actual testing muscle is delegated to third-party tools like Optimizely, AB Tasty and Kameleoon through integrations. We found no public information on a visual editor's depth, server-side delivery, SDKs, multivariate or multi-page tests, or audience targeting — the only targeting note says segments need not even be predefined. The six-step experimentation framework is process guidance my own team could write, not platform capability. 2 3 8
The E-Commerce Manager
The pages show a no-code client-side test — "create new variants in just two clicks" — plus journey analysis across test variants, which covers a simple split of page elements. We found no public information on server-side or SDK delivery, multivariate or multi-page tests, holdouts, or personalisation I could run against a control, and the detailed feature grids on the A/B testing pages describe other vendors' tools rather than this platform. 2 3 8
The Product Engineer
The only native delivery evidenced is no-code client-side setup — "create new variants in just two clicks" — plus journey analysis across test variants, while the heavier experimentation story is integration with Optimizely, AB Tasty and Kameleoon. The feature-flag, server-side and full-stack entries on the captured comparison page describe other tools, and we found no public information on server-side SDKs or edge delivery for the platform itself. 1 2 3 8
The CRO Consultant
The vendor's own pages show a no-code A/B test setup with variants created in two clicks and multiple ways to run A/B tests without coding, but server-side delivery, feature flags, multivariate testing and personalisation appear only in the descriptions of third-party tools on their comparison pages — we found no public information on any of it for the platform itself. 2 3 8
The Data Protection Officer
The vendor's own pages show no-code client-side testing — new variants in two clicks — plus a written experimentation framework with a hypothesis template and a one-week minimum run. We found no public information on the vendor's own server-side delivery, SDKs, feature experiments or multivariate tests; the server-side and feature-flag capabilities named on the A/B testing page belong to third-party tools it compares, and delivery beyond the client-side path rests on integrating external testing platforms. 2 3 8
The Skeptic
The vendor's own claim is a zero-configuration setup where variants are created in two clicks, with actual test delivery otherwise positioned through integrations with Optimizely, AB Tasty, Kameleoon and Omniconvert. We found no public information on server-side or SDK delivery, multivariate or multi-page tests, feature flags or personalisation for the platform itself — the visual editors and experimentation engines on the captured comparison pages describe other vendors' products. 1 2 8
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 only statistical guidance anywhere is editorial: run an experiment for at least a week and keep to three KPIs or fewer, which nods at premature stopping and metric sprawl without being a method. We found no public information naming a frequentist or Bayesian approach, no confidence intervals, no sample-size or duration calculator, and no sample ratio mismatch detection. When finance asks why we believe a winner, there is nothing documented here to hand them. 3
The E-Commerce Manager
There is sensible craft guidance — a hypothesis template, a recommendation to run at least a week even with large user numbers, and a cap of three KPIs — but we found no public information on the statistical method, sample-size guidance, peeking, multiple comparisons or sample ratio mismatch. Nothing on these pages tells a buyer what decides a winner or stops an underpowered test from being read as a finding. 3
The Product Engineer
No captured page names a method, shows intervals, a sample-size calculator or anything on peeking and sample ratio mismatch for this platform; the only rigour on show is process advice — run experiments for at least a week and keep to at most three KPIs. The Bayesian engines mentioned in the comparison material belong to other vendors' entries, not to this one. 2 3
The CRO Consultant
Real testing discipline is published — a hypothesis template, a cap of three KPIs, and advice to run at least a week even with large user numbers — but no statistical method is named anywhere, and we found no public information on sample-size guidance, protection against peeking or sample ratio mismatch; I could not tell a client how a winner gets decided. 3
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information naming a statistical method, showing confidence or credible intervals, or giving sample-size guidance; the only documented guardrails are generic advice to run a test at least a week and to keep to no more than three KPIs. Nothing in the captures addresses peeking, multiple comparisons or sample ratio mismatch. 3
The Skeptic
No statistical method is named anywhere for this platform: we found no public information on confidence or credible intervals, sample-size or duration calculation, sequential testing, multiple-comparison correction or sample ratio mismatch detection. The published craft guidance is sensible — a hypothesis template, a minimum run of one week, a cap of three KPIs — but hygiene advice is not a documented engine, and the Bayesian engines named on the comparison pages belong to other vendors. 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
There is a GDPR compliance page with a data processing agreement, documented data deletion, and details of data processing by product, which is a real legal posture rather than silence. But we found no public information on what the tracking code stores on the device, whether it runs before consent, or any integration with consent management platforms — for a German team exposed to §25 TDDDG, that gap decides the score on its own. 4 5 7
The E-Commerce Manager
The compliance pages document a data processing agreement, data deletion and certifications, but we found no public information on what the tracking code stores on the device, whether it runs before consent, cookieless operation, or any consent management integration. A script that records every visitor to my shop under §25 TDDDG needs those answers in writing, and this silence is the deciding fact. 4 5 7
The Product Engineer
The GDPR pages document a DPA, data deletion and monitoring, but we found no public information on what the tracking code stores on the device or whether it runs before consent; the only behavioural statement is that the code "starts tracking user experiences across your pages" once added. No cookieless or consent-pending mode appears on the captured pages. 4 5 7
The CRO Consultant
A data processing agreement, data deletion documentation and ISO 27001/27701 material are published, but the captured pages never state when the tracking code runs relative to consent, what it stores on the visitor's device, or whether a cookieless mode exists — we found no public information on any of that, and it is the first thing a client's DPO will ask. 4 5 7
The Data Protection Officer
I have to answer whether the test script may run before the consent banner is answered, and the captured GDPR compliance and commitment pages do not say: neither states what the tracking code stores on the device or when it executes relative to consent. A Data Processing Agreement and data deletion are documented, but we found no public information on storage keys and their lifetimes, a consent-pending mode, consent management platform integration, IP anonymisation or a cookieless option. 4 5 7
The Skeptic
The captured compliance pages list a Data Processing Agreement, data deletion and security controls, and a tracking code is described, but we found no public information on what the script stores on the device or when it runs relative to consent. No cookie or storage list, consent management integration, consent-pending mode or IP anonymisation appears on the pages captured. 4 5 7
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
A tracking code placed on the site is documented, but we found no public information on script size, loading behaviour, asynchronous options, flicker handling, or any measured effect on Core Web Vitals. The performance-related pages we saw are about reporting the site's own performance, not the cost the snippet imposes on it. I have nothing here to tell the board about what the tool costs our page speed. 6 7
The E-Commerce Manager
Installation is described — "add the tracking code to your website" — but we found no public information on script size, loading behaviour, flicker handling, or any measured impact on Core Web Vitals. The performance-reporting pages measure my site's performance, not the cost the snippet itself adds to my product pages, and a tenth of a second there shows in my conversion rate. 6 7
The Product Engineer
The pages tell me to add a tracking code and stop there: we found no published script size, no loading behaviour, no flicker handling and no Core Web Vitals figures for the snippet itself. Website performance shows up only as data the product collects for customers, never as the cost the script imposes on their pages. 6 7
The CRO Consultant
The pages organised around performance are about marketing performance reporting — dashboards, KPI headlines and third-party reporting tools — and we found no public information on script size, loading behaviour, flicker handling or any measured effect on Core Web Vitals for the snippet itself. 6 7
The Data Protection Officer
The pages describe a tracking code added to the website, but we found no public information on script size, asynchronous loading, flicker handling or any measured effect on Core Web Vitals. The pages that speak of performance discuss marketing performance reporting and dashboards, and no figures or delivery details for the snippet itself are given. 6 7
The Skeptic
We found no public information on the snippet's size, loading behaviour, flicker handling, asynchronous loading or any measured effect on Core Web Vitals. The performance pages captured describe dashboards, heatmaps and site-metric reporting for the customer's site, not the cost the tracking script itself imposes on the page. 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
This is the strong suit: a fully managed ETL service exporting to the customer's warehouse beyond the vendor's own retention period, a raw data export to Tableau covering user events and error data, a Segment connection, open APIs and 100+ integrations. What holds it back for my programme is that API limits are not stated anywhere we saw, and there is no warehouse-native analysis on our own metrics — the raw data arrives, but the metrics are still computed on their side. 7 8
The E-Commerce Manager
Results can be checked in my own stack: a fully managed ETL export to the warehouse, raw data export into Tableau including user event data, a Segment connection, storage beyond the retention period, and open APIs among 100-plus integrations. It sits below the top because we found no public information on stated API limits or on defining metrics in my own warehouse — the export moves this platform's data out rather than computing my numbers there. 7 8
The Product Engineer
This is the strong side: open APIs, 100+ integrations, a fully managed ETL export to the warehouse, raw data export viewable in Tableau that extends beyond the product's retention period, plus Segment, Snowflake, AWS and Azure connections and an MCP server for querying from LLMs. It falls short of warehouse-native — data flows out of the platform rather than metrics being computed where my team already trusts them — and we found no public information on API rate limits or a versioned API. 7 8 9
The CRO Consultant
This is the strongest area: a fully managed ETL service exports to the customer's warehouse and stores data beyond the vendor's own retention period, raw data export to Tableau covers error and user-event data, and there is a Segment connection, open APIs and 100+ integrations; we found no public information on stated API limits or analysis on metrics defined in the customer's own warehouse. 7 8
The Data Protection Officer
This is where the record is strong: open APIs, a fully managed ETL export to the customer's warehouse, a raw data export viewable in Tableau including user events data, a Segment connection, and one hundred-plus integrations with named partners such as Snowflake and AWS. We found no public information on stated API rate limits, and the warehouse appears as a destination for exported data rather than the place where metrics are computed on the customer's own data. 7 8 9
The Skeptic
This is the one strong area: open APIs, a managed ETL export to the customer's warehouse, raw export of user events and error data to Tableau, a Segment connection, AWS and Azure data connections and a beta MCP server are all documented. We found no public information on API rate limits, warehouse-native analysis computed on the customer's own metrics, or the export formats and versioning of the API. 1 7 8
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
Every sovereignty attribute — legal entity jurisdiction, ownership, data residency and subprocessors — comes back unknown, with the caveat that none of it is confirmed on the vendor's own captured pages, and the independently sourced assessment scored this at zero. Cloud infrastructure is named as Amazon Web Services and Azure, but no region is stated, so even that tells me nothing about where visitor behaviour is processed. With this script on every visitor to our site, I could not sign off an unanswered residency question for a German board. 5 9
The E-Commerce Manager
We found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, where visitor data is processed or stored, or a subprocessor list; the named infrastructure is Amazon Web Services and Azure with no region stated. A behaviour-recording script on every visitor deserves a chain I can verify, and none of it is evidenced on these pages. 5 9
The Product Engineer
The captured pages give no contracting-entity jurisdiction, no data residency statement and no subprocessor list; infrastructure is named only as AWS and Azure with no region. A DPA is published, but we found no public information on where the visitor data the tracking code collects is actually processed. 5 9
The CRO Consultant
Legal entity jurisdiction, ownership, data residency and subprocessors are all unconfirmed on the captured pages, and hosting is named only as AWS and Azure with no region stated — I found no public information confirming where the visitor data the tracking code collects is processed or stored, so I could not defend this to a client with a hard EU residency requirement. 5 7 9
The Data Protection Officer
Hosting is named as Amazon Web Services and Azure, but we found no public information stating a region or EU residency for visitor data, on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, or on a subprocessor list — the CDN delivering the snippet in particular is unnamed. Without those, I cannot confirm from these pages that visitor data is processed in the EU at any point in the chain. 4 5
The Skeptic
Every sovereignty attribute came back unresolved: the jurisdiction of the contracting entity, ownership and data residency are unknown, infrastructure is named only as Amazon Web Services and Azure with no regions stated, and we found no public subprocessor list. A Data Processing Agreement is offered, but nothing on the captured pages says where the visitor data the script collects is processed or under what safeguard. 5 9
Pricing transparency
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
A free tier is public and comparable — 20 survey responses per month on Hotjar against 100 on Contentsquare — and the pages invite you to start for free. But we found no public prices for paid tiers, no defined traffic metric, no limits and no overage or module terms, so the real annual invoice is unknowable from public pages alone. That is not something I can take into a budget conversation. 1 6
The E-Commerce Manager
A free entry point is public — "Start for free", with survey responses per month quoted for the free plans — but we found no public information on paid tier prices, the traffic metric, its limits, or what happens above them. I cannot compute what an invoice would look like for my December traffic from these pages alone. 1 6
The Product Engineer
A free tier exists — "Start for free", with survey response limits of 20 per month on Hotjar and 100 on Contentsquare — but we found no public prices for paid tiers, no traffic metric with its limits and no overage terms. An annual invoice is not computable from the captured pages. 1 6
The CRO Consultant
A free tier is public and its survey allowance is stated as 20 responses per month, but tier prices, the traffic metric a client would be billed on, limits and overage are all unstated — we found no public information on them, so I cannot estimate an annual invoice before the contract. 1
The Data Protection Officer
A free tier is evidenced — "Start for free", with twenty survey responses per month on Hotjar against one hundred on Contentsquare — but we found no public information on paid tier prices, the traffic metric, limits, overage terms or module pricing. An annual invoice cannot be computed from the captured pages. 1 6
The Skeptic
A free tier is public — "Start for free", with 20 survey responses per month on Hotjar and 100 on the merged Contentsquare platform — and that is where the computable pricing ends. We found no public information on paid tier prices, the traffic metric and its limits, overage treatment, module prices or VAT, so a real annual invoice cannot be derived from public pages. 1 6
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 | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Hotjar
Is Hotjar European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Hotjar is based.
Where does Hotjar store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Hotjar have a free plan?
Yes. Hotjar has a free plan, per the vendor’s page captured 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Hotjar?
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: Hotjar 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 — 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.
- 12 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
- 1 legal fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (9)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.hotjar.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Experiment types & delivery — found from sitemap www.hotjar.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Experiment types & delivery — found from sitemap www.hotjar.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Consent & visitor tracking — found from sitemap www.hotjar.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Consent & visitor tracking — found from sitemap www.hotjar.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Snippet performance & flicker — found from sitemap www.hotjar.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Snippet performance & flicker — found from sitemap www.hotjar.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Analytics, data export & integrations — found from sitemap www.hotjar.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Analytics, data export & integrations — found from sitemap www.hotjar.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →