Conversion Optimization
Justuno
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Justuno, Inc. · www.justuno.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.
Justuno at a glance
- Vendor
- Justuno, Inc.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Justuno 1/5, the mean of 6 judges. Justuno is a conversion optimization platform whose documented testing surface is its own popups and overlays: A/B and multivariate comparison of copy, imagery, layouts, offers, triggers and placement, with the best-performing version applied automatically. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 20 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 21 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Justuno is a conversion optimization platform whose documented testing surface is its own popups and overlays: A/B and multivariate comparison of copy, imagery, layouts, offers, triggers and placement, with the best-performing version applied automatically. The scores are strongest on data and integrations, at 3 to 4, crediting a Google Analytics integration, syncs with email, SMS, ecommerce and customer-data tools, CSV export of subscriber lists and self-service export of customer data. Consent and tracking spread from 2 to 4: the higher scores credit EU-only consent checkboxes, stored opt-in and consent-removal timestamps and a signable GDPR Data Processing Agreement, while the data protection officer's 2 reflects that this tooling governs the customer's forms — we found no public information on what the tracking script stores or does before consent. Statistical rigour scored 0; performance impact 0 to 1, where the only statement is the marketing line that tests run 'without slowing down your campaigns'. Sovereignty ranged 0 to 2: Justuno, Inc., California law, USD payment, with no public hosting or subprocessor information. No tier prices are published.
Speaks for it
- Documented consent tooling: consent checkboxes that can be limited to EU visitors, stored signup and consent-removal dates, opt-in timestamps and per-subscriber deletion.
- A Data Processing Agreement with GDPR terms, signable by customers processing EU/EEA individuals' data.
- Data and integrations scored 3 to 4: a Google Analytics integration, syncs with email, SMS, ecommerce and customer-data tools, CSV export of subscriber lists and self-service export of customer data.
- The terms state commercial mechanics plainly: quarterly or annual billing, net thirty, taxes excluded, 1.5 percent monthly late interest and a 30-day money-back guarantee on new customer annual subscriptions.
- The terms confirm the customer owns Customer Data and can export it at their discretion.
Held against it
- Statistical rigour scored 0: the only documented decision rule is automatic application of the best-performing version, with no public information on the method, sample-size or duration guidance, or peeking protection behind it.
- Performance impact scored 0 to 1, resting on the marketing claim that tests run 'without slowing down your campaigns', with no published script size, loading behaviour, flicker handling or Core Web Vitals figures.
- Experimentation scope scored 2 to 4: testing is confined to the platform's own popups and overlays, with no public information on server-side or SDK delivery, split-URL tests, holdouts or mutually exclusive experiments.
- Sovereignty scored 0 to 2: contracting is with Justuno, Inc. under California law in US dollars, and we found no public information on hosting location, data residency or a subprocessor list.
- We found no public information on a documented API, visitor-level export of experiment results or warehouse access, so a declared winner cannot be re-checked in your own data.
Best for
- You want to A/B or multivariate test popup and overlay copy, imagery, layouts, offers, triggers and placement, with the best-performing version applied automatically.
- You collect EU visitor consent and need documented records — opt-in timestamps, consent-removal dates, EU-only consent checkboxes — plus a signable GDPR Data Processing Agreement.
- You want subscriber data synced into an existing stack — Google Analytics plus email, SMS, ecommerce and customer-data tools — with CSV export of subscriber lists.
- You want popups launched at engagement moments using AI Smart Timing and real-time visitor behaviour.
Avoid if
- You need a full experimentation programme — server-side or SDK delivery, split-URL tests on your own pages, holdouts or mutually exclusive experiments.
- Your declared winners must be statistically defensible to finance or clients, with documented methods, sample-size guidance and stopping rules.
- You must verify performance cost before putting a script on every page — the captured pages offer only the 'without slowing down your campaigns' marketing claim.
- You contract only with EU entities under EU governing law — the captured pages show Justuno, Inc., California law and US-dollar payment.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Experiment types & delivery | 1.5 of 5 |
| Statistical method & guardrails | 0 of 5 |
| Consent & visitor tracking | 2 of 5 |
| Snippet performance & flicker | 0.5 of 5 |
| Analytics, data export & integrations | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0.5 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
Testing is confined to the promotion layer: A/B and multivariate tests of copy, imagery, layouts, offers, triggers and placement, with a country targeting condition and AI Smart Timing reacting to real-time visitor behaviour. I found no public information on server-side or SDK delivery, split-URL tests, or testing the underlying page, so my team could not run landing-page experiments here. 1 3 4
The E-Commerce Manager
Everything shown is client-side testing of on-site overlays: A/B and multivariate tests across copy, imagery, layouts, offers, triggers and placement, with a setting that automatically applies the best-performing version. I found no public information on server-side or SDK delivery, split-URL tests, holdouts, or personalisation I could pit against a control — and popup testing is a narrow slice of what I need to optimise on a product page. 3 4
The Product Engineer
The testing story on the captured pages is popups: A/B and multivariate comparison of overlay copy, imagery, layouts, offers, triggers and placement, with the best performer auto-applied. I found no public information on server-side SDKs, feature flags, edge delivery or mutually exclusive experiments — everything shown runs inside their own campaign widget on the page. 1 3 4
The CRO Consultant
Documented testing is confined to the platform's own popups and overlays — A/B and multivariate tests of copy, imagery, layouts, offers, triggers and placement, with the best version applied automatically. I found no public information on split-URL tests, experiments on the client's own pages, server-side or SDK delivery, holdouts or mutually exclusive experiments, so this cannot carry a full CRO programme across a site. 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
The vendor's own pages show A/B and multivariate tests of overlay copy, imagery, layouts, offers, triggers and placement, with country-based targeting rules and automatic application of the best-performing version — all client-side popups. We found no public information on server-side or SDK delivery, split-URL tests, feature flags, holdouts or mutually exclusive experiment groups. 3 4
The Skeptic
What is documented is client-side testing of popup and overlay designs and discounts, plus A/B or multivariate comparison of copy, imagery, layouts, offers, triggers and placement, with country and behaviour-based targeting. We found no public information on SDKs, server-side delivery, holdouts or mutually exclusive groups — this is creative testing on promotional units, not a documented experimentation programme. 3 4 6
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 statement is that the best-performing version is applied automatically; I found no public information on the method, confidence or credible intervals, sample-size or duration guidance, or any protection against reading a test early. That is a number I could not defend to finance. 3 4
The E-Commerce Manager
The only winner mechanism documented is an option that automatically applies the best-performing version, and I found no public information naming a statistical method, sample-size or duration guidance, or any warning against calling a test early. An auto-apply feature with nothing documented underneath it is exactly what I cannot have deciding my conversion-rate winners. 3 4
The Product Engineer
The only statistical behaviour evidenced anywhere is "automatically apply the best-performing version". I found no public information naming a method, on sample-size guidance, intervals, peeking protection or sample ratio mismatch detection — auto-applying a winner with nothing documented is exactly the underpowered call I refuse to ship. 3
The CRO Consultant
The only decision mechanism shown is automatically applying the best-performing version, and I found no public information on the statistical method, confidence or credible intervals, sample-size or duration guidance, or any protection against stopping early. A client could not defend a winner produced on this documentation. 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
The only statistics decision documented is that the best-performing version can be applied automatically, with nothing behind that judgement. We found no public information naming a statistical method, offering sample-size or test-duration guidance, handling peeking or multiple comparisons, or detecting sample ratio mismatch. 3 4
The Skeptic
The only documented statistical decision is that the platform will 'automatically apply the best-performing version' — a winner declaration, and we found no public information on the method behind it, on sample-size or duration guidance, on any protection against peeking, or on sample ratio mismatch checks. An automatic winner with an undocumented decision rule is precisely the pattern I score at the bottom. 3 4
Consent & visitor tracking
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the test script respects §25 TDDDG and the ePrivacy rules as evidenced on the vendor's own pages: when the script runs relative to consent, what it stores on the device, whether a cookieless or consent-free mode exists, and how visitor identifiers are handled.
0 — Nothing on the vendor's pages says what the script stores on the device or whether it runs before consent; consent is described as the customer's problem.
3 — Cookies or local storage are listed, and a consent integration is mentioned, but the documentation does not say what the script does before consent is given.
5 — Documented behaviour before and after consent, integration with common consent management platforms, a published list of cookies and storage keys with their lifetime, and IP anonymisation described.
8 — A documented consent-pending mode that holds tracking until consent while variants can still be served, a cookieless or first-party-only option, retention of visitor data stated, and guidance on the legal basis for testing in the EU.
10 — Built for §25 TDDDG: the default configuration stores nothing on the device without consent, a server-side or cookieless mode documented end to end, per-visitor data deletable on request, and the vendor states in writing how each mode maps to consent requirements.
The Growth Lead
The GDPR page documents real consent machinery: signup and consent-removal dates stored, opt-in timestamps with the campaign, EU-only consent checkboxes, cookie banner themes, and deletion of individual subscribers on request. But nothing says what the script stores on the device or when it runs relative to consent, and I found no published list of cookies and storage keys with lifetimes or any cookieless mode. 5 6
The E-Commerce Manager
The GDPR pages document real consent tooling — consent checkboxes that can be shown only to EU visitors, cookie banner themes in the promotion wizard, stored consent and removal dates, and deletion for right-to-be-forgotten requests. What I need and can't find is any statement of what the tracking script stores on a visitor's device, what it does before consent is given, or a cookieless mode. 5 6
The Product Engineer
The GDPR page is genuinely detailed on consent tooling: signup and removal timestamps stored, consent checkboxes that can be shown only to EU visitors, cookie banner themes, and per-subscriber deletion on request. What it never answers is what the script does before consent on the customer's site — I found no public information on pre-consent behaviour, a published cookie and storage list with lifetimes, or a cookieless mode. 5 6
The CRO Consultant
The GDPR pages document consent records with signup and removal dates, opt-in timestamps, consent checkboxes that can be limited to EU visitors, and a DPA that EU customers can sign — record-keeping a DPO will welcome. What I could not find is any statement of what the tracking script stores on the device or does before consent is given, nor a published list of the cookies and storage keys it sets. 5 6
The Data Protection Officer
The GDPR page documents consent capture for subscribers — stored consent and removal dates, opt-in timestamps, consent checkboxes that can be shown only to EU visitors — but that governs the forms the customer builds, not the tracking script itself, and the vendor nowhere states whether the script may run before the consent banner is answered. We found no public list of the cookies or storage keys the script writes, no consent-pending mode, no cookieless option and no retention figure for visitor data; the cookie preference centre referenced on the cookies page addresses the vendor's own website. 5 6
The Skeptic
Consent tooling is real and documented: a consent checkbox in the promotion designer, an option to show those checkboxes only to EU visitors, cookie banner themes, and stored opt-in and consent-removal timestamps. But we found no public information on what the tracking script stores or does on the device before consent is given, on a published list of cookies and storage keys with lifetimes, or on a cookieless mode — the core of the German consent question goes unanswered. 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 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
The only performance statement is the marketing line that tests run "without slowing down your campaigns". I found no public information on script size, loading behaviour, flicker handling or any measured impact on Core Web Vitals — nothing my engineers or finance could check. 3
The E-Commerce Manager
The only performance statement anywhere is the marketing line that tests run "without slowing down your campaigns". I found no public information on script size, loading behaviour, flicker handling or measured impact on Core Web Vitals — for a snippet that would sit on every page of my shop, that is close to silence. 3
The Product Engineer
The only performance-adjacent phrase in the captures is "without slowing down your campaigns", a marketing line about campaign speed rather than the page. I found no public information on script size, loading behaviour, flicker handling, Core Web Vitals impact or any server-side alternative — a snippet on every visitor's page with nothing published is a cost I cannot estimate. 3
The CRO Consultant
The single performance-related statement is that tests run "without slowing down your campaigns", which is a marketing claim rather than a measurement. I found no public figures for script size, loading behaviour or effect on Core Web Vitals, and no public information on flicker handling, CDN delivery or a self-hosting option. 3
The Data Protection Officer
The only performance statement we found is marketing copy that A/B and multivariate tests run "without slowing down your campaigns". We found no public information on script size, loading behaviour, anti-flicker handling, CDN delivery, or any measured effect on Core Web Vitals. 3
The Skeptic
The only performance statement in the captured pages is marketing — tests run 'without slowing down your campaigns' — and we found no public information on script size, loading behaviour, flicker handling, or any measured effect on Core Web Vitals. A claim of speed with no published measurement is worth nothing in this category. 3
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
There is a documented Google Analytics integration, syncs with email, SMS, ecommerce and customer-data tools, CSV export of subscriber lists, and a contractual commitment to self-service export of customer data. But I found no documented API and no visitor-level export of experiment results, so the uplift story stays inside Justuno's own dashboard where I cannot independently verify it. 1 2 6 7
The E-Commerce Manager
There is a documented Google Analytics integration, a stated ecosystem of email, SMS, ecommerce and customer-data integrations, self-service export of customer data plus CSV export of subscriber lists, and the terms confirm the customer owns their data. I found no public information on a documented API, visitor-level result export or a warehouse connection, so I could not re-check a declared winner in my own numbers. 1 2 6 7 8
The Product Engineer
There is a Google Analytics integration with a dashboard breakdown, a broad marketing-stack integration set covering email, SMS, ecommerce and customer data tools, and self-service export of customer data including CSV export of subscriber lists. I found no public information on a documented API for managing tests or reading results, visitor-level experiment data, or warehouse export — the export evidence reads as a GDPR portability right, not an analysis path. 1 2 6 7
The CRO Consultant
A Google Analytics integration, a real-time analytics dashboard, CSV export of subscriber lists, sync with email, SMS and ecommerce tools, and a contractual promise of self-service data export are all documented. I found no public information on export of visitor-level results, a documented API, or warehouse connectivity, so an experiment result cannot be re-checked in the client's own data. 1 2 6 7
The Data Protection Officer
Integrations with Google Analytics plus email, SMS and ecommerce tools are documented, alongside a real-time analytics dashboard and a self-service CSV export — though the documented export covers subscriber lists rather than visitor-level experiment results. We found no public information on a documented API, warehouse export or streaming of raw results. 1 2 6 7
The Skeptic
Documented on the data-out side are CSV export of subscriber lists, a general commitment that the service allows export of customer data, a Google Analytics dashboard integration and an in-house real-time analytics dashboard; we found no public information on a documented API, visitor-level data export, or warehouse access. An experiment result I cannot re-analyse in my own data is a claim, not a finding. 1 2 6 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
The contracting entity is Justuno, Inc under California governing law with USD-only billing, and I found no public information on hosting location or a subprocessor list. A GDPR Data Processing Agreement is offered to EEA customers, but nothing states that the visitor data this script collects is processed in the EU. 2 5 6
The E-Commerce Manager
The contracting entity is Justuno, Inc. under California law with invoicing in U.S. dollars, and I found no public information on where visitor data is hosted, who the subprocessors are, or where the snippet is delivered from. A GDPR compliance page and a signable DPA are published, but nothing we found states a European location for any part of the chain that records my visitors' behaviour. 2 5 6
The Product Engineer
Everything public points to a US operation: Justuno, Inc. as the entity, California governing law and venue, and payments in US dollars, with hosting location and subprocessors unnamed. A data processing agreement with GDPR terms that EU/EEA customers can sign is the one stated safeguard; I found no public information on EU data residency for the visitor data their script collects. 1 2 5 6
The CRO Consultant
The contracting entity is Justuno, Inc. under California governing law with USD-only payment, and I found no public information on where visitor data is hosted or which subprocessors are involved in the chain. A GDPR-termed DPA that EU/EEA customers can sign is the only safeguard documented. 2 5 6
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity is Justuno, Inc under California governing law with USD-only payment, and while a GDPR page offers a signable DPA to customers processing EEA individuals' data, we found no public information on where visitor data is hosted, on any EU residency arrangement, or on a published subprocessor list — including the network that delivers the script to every visitor. 2 5 6
The Skeptic
The captured pages give a US-facing contracting picture — Justuno, Inc., California governing law and venue, payment in US dollars — and we found no public information on hosting location, data residency for visitor data, or a single named subprocessor. A Data Processing Agreement with GDPR terms is offered and signable, which is a partial safeguard, but that does not say where the script's recordings of every visitor are processed. 2 5 6
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
A category priced by traffic — monthly tracked users, visitors or impressions — where the tier a site lands in depends on numbers the buyer has to estimate. Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost including traffic limits, overage, server-side or personalisation modules and seats — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A starting price or a free tier exists, but the traffic metric, the limits and what happens above them are unstated — the invoice is unknowable.
5 — Tier prices public with the traffic metric and its limits defined, but at least one commonly needed piece (server-side SDKs, personalisation, overage) is unpriced or "contact sales".
8 — Every tier priced publicly with the traffic metric defined, limits, overage rates, module prices, minimum term and VAT treatment stated.
10 — Complete price computability: annual invoice derivable for a given traffic volume, set of modules and team size, with overage and every add-on published.
The Growth Lead
A free plan and a free trial are referenced, and the terms publish commercial conditions — quarterly or annual billing, net-30 invoices, one and one-half percent monthly interest on late balances, auto-renewal, taxes excluded. But no tier prices, traffic metric, limits or overage rates appear on the vendor's public pages, so the annual invoice for a given traffic level is not computable. 2 6 7
The E-Commerce Manager
A free plan is referenced, a free trial is offered, and the terms lay out billing mechanics — quarterly or annual periods, net thirty, taxes excluded, automatic renewal. But we found no public information on prices for any paid tier, on the traffic metric, its limits or overage, so I cannot begin to compute what my December traffic would cost. 2 6 7
The Product Engineer
A free plan is referenced and a free trial is offered, and the billing mechanics are documented: quarterly or annual terms, auto-renewal, net thirty, taxes excluded, one and a half percent monthly late interest, and a thirty-day money-back guarantee on new annual subscriptions. I found no public information on tier prices, the traffic metric, its limits or what happens above them, so I cannot compute an annual invoice from these pages. 2 6 7
The CRO Consultant
Public pages show a free trial, and the contract terms spell out quarterly or annual billing, auto-renewal, net-30 payment and taxes excluded — useful mechanics, but I found no public information on tier prices, on a traffic metric a client could estimate before the contract, or on limits and overage. The annual invoice is simply not computable from what is published. 2 7 8
The Data Protection Officer
A free trial, quarterly and annual billing periods, auto-renewal, a 30-day money-back guarantee on new annual subscriptions and tax treatment (fees exclusive of taxes, USD only) are public. We found no public information on any tier price, on the traffic metric a site is billed against, or on limits and overage, so the real annual cost cannot be computed from the published pages. 2 8
The Skeptic
We found no public tier prices — a free trial and a book-a-demo funnel instead — and no public information on the traffic metric or its limits, so the annual invoice cannot be computed from the captured pages. Credit where due on commercial mechanics: quarterly or annual billing, net thirty payment terms, taxes excluded, auto-renewal, a 1.5 percent monthly late fee, and a 30-day Money-Back Guarantee on new customer annual subscriptions are all stated plainly. 2 7 8
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 | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Justuno
Is Justuno European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Justuno is based.
Where does Justuno store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
Does Justuno have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Justuno?
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: Justuno alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 20 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- 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.
- 7 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 pricing 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 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 integrations 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 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
- 1 data 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
Sources (8)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.justuno.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Terms of service — found from the homepage www.justuno.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Experiment types & delivery — found from sitemap www.justuno.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Experiment types & delivery — found from sitemap www.justuno.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Consent & visitor tracking — found from sitemap www.justuno.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Consent & visitor tracking — found from sitemap www.justuno.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Analytics, data export & integrations — found from sitemap www.justuno.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Analytics, data export & integrations — found from sitemap www.justuno.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →