Conversion Optimization
Kameleoon
EU-Made Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Kameleoon SAS · www.kameleoon.com
Compare with Optimizely → Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Kameleoon SAS is a French web and feature experimentation vendor (RCS Aix-en-Provence 507 754 570). Its strength is breadth plus data connections: experimentation scope and data and integrations both score 6-7, naming server-side and mobile app testing, multivariate experiments, feature flags with progressive rollout, mutually exclusive groups with holdouts, two-way warehouse sync, BigQuery metrics as KPIs on results pages, and a documented API with Bearer authentication. Statistical rigour spans 5-7 — sequential testing, multiple testing correction, automatic sample ratio mismatch detection and CUPED are named, but as feature names; the low scorer calls that intent, not method. Consent and tracking sits lowest at 1-2: no public information on what the testing script stores or when it runs relative to consent, and the homepage advertises bypassing Safari ITP and ad blockers. Performance impact splits 2-4, some judges crediting a server-side module as a flicker-free path while others count only the single 70 ms claim; sovereignty spans 4-6 over how far the privacy policy's EU-storage statement carries beyond the vendor's website users. Pricing transparency sits at 3.
Speaks for it
- Server-side testing, mobile app testing, multivariate experiments and targeting on 40+ user properties are named on the plans page.
- Feature flags with progressive rollout and mutually exclusive groups with holdouts appear on public pages.
- Two-way warehouse sync shows BigQuery metrics as KPIs on results pages and pulls goal conversion data from BigQuery on a schedule.
- A documented API exports segments with Bearer authentication and pagination.
- The documented chain is European: a French entity under French law with Commercial Court of Paris jurisdiction, Hetzner Online GmbH in Gunzenhausen, Germany named as host, and CNIL declaration GCA1368568E.
Held against it
- Consent and tracking scores 1-2, with no public information on what the testing script stores on a visitor's device or when it runs relative to consent.
- The homepage advertises bypassing Safari ITP and ad blockers, which judges read as tracking continuity rather than consent-first design.
- Published performance evidence is a single claim of a snippet loading under 70 ms with 99.99% uptime, with no script size, flicker handling or measured Core Web Vitals impact.
- Sequential testing, multiple testing correction, automatic sample ratio mismatch detection and CUPED appear as feature names, with no public information on the underlying method or guardrail metrics that could stop a harmful test.
- We found no public information on a subprocessor list or a data processing agreement covering the visitor data the script collects, and the privacy policy's EU-storage statement covers the vendor's own website users.
Best for
- You need one platform covering web, server-side, mobile and feature-flag experimentation with mutually exclusive groups and holdouts.
- Your team measures experiments against its own warehouse data and wants a documented API for exporting segments.
- You are a European buyer who values a French contracting entity, French law and a named German host.
- You want to pilot before committing — a free 30-day trial allows up to 3 experiments with no credit card required.
Avoid if
- You are planning a consent-gated rollout (one judge cited a German market) — the homepage advertises bypassing Safari ITP and ad blockers, and we found no public information on what the testing script stores or when it runs relative to consent.
- You need measured performance evidence before adding a third-party snippet — the public record is a single claim of a snippet loading under 70 ms with 99.99% uptime, with no script size, flicker handling or measured Core Web Vitals impact.
- Your analytics or legal team must audit the statistics behind a winner — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
The scores
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
The delivery story matches what my team needs: server-side and mobile app testing, multivariate experiments, targeting on 40+ user properties, feature flags with progressive rollout, and mutually exclusive groups and holdouts, alongside a no-code builder promising experiments without developers. I found no public information on edge or CDN delivery, on personalisation being tested against its own control, or on SDKs documented for common languages, which is what separates this from a complete single-programme platform. 1 2 4
The E-Commerce Manager
Server-side testing, mobile apps, multivariate tests, feature flags with progressive rollout, and mutually exclusive groups with holdouts are all listed on the public pages, plus editors in graphic, code and SDK form — that clears a visual-editor-only tool comfortably. What I could not find is evidence that the personalisation can itself be tested against a control, edge or CDN delivery, or a documented experiment lifecycle with a searchable results library, so I stop just short of the top of the scale. 1 2 4
The Product Engineer
Server-side testing, mobile app testing and multivariate tests sit next to feature flags with progressive rollout, mutually exclusive groups and holdouts, and variations built through graphic or code editors or SDKs — the shape I want to ship experiments behind. It stops short of the top tier: we found no public information on edge or CDN delivery, and no evidence that personalisation can itself be tested against a control. 1 2 4
The CRO Consultant
The captured pages cover the full spread I run programmes across — graphic and code editors plus SDKs, server-side and mobile app testing, multivariate experiments, targeting on 40+ user properties, feature flags with progressive rollout, mutually exclusive groups and holdouts, and personalisation. It stops short of the top tier because most of this rests on the homepage and plans grids: we found no public information on documented SDK languages, multi-page tests, or edge delivery. 1 2 4
The Data Protection Officer
The plans page documents server-side testing, mobile app testing, multivariate experiments and targeting on more than forty user properties, alongside feature flags with progressive rollout and mutually exclusive groups and holdouts, which goes past solid mid-level capability. We found no public information on edge or CDN delivery, on which SDK languages are supported, or on multi-page tests or personalisation tested against a control. 2 1 4
The Skeptic
Feature-flag experiments, mutually exclusive groups with holdouts, multivariate and mobile testing, and personalisation all appear on the captured pages, alongside graphic, code and SDK variation editors. What holds me back is that this is homepage and plans-page grids rather than documentation: we found no public information on edge or CDN delivery, a documented experiment lifecycle, or a searchable library of past results, and the SDKs are named in a legal notice rather than documented. 1 2 4
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
Sequential testing, multiple testing correction, automatic sample ratio mismatch detection and CUPED are all named, which is exactly the vocabulary I need when finance interrogates a winner. But they appear as feature-list entries rather than documented methodology, and I found no public information on sample-size guidance, guardrail metrics that can stop a harmful test, or a published method detailed enough to survive an audit. 1 2
The E-Commerce Manager
Sequential testing, multiple testing correction, automatic sample ratio mismatch detection and CUPED are each named publicly — four of the five protections I look for before trusting a winner. We found no public information on guardrail metrics that would stop a harmful test, nor on the methodology in enough detail to check how a decision is reached, so I hold it below the top of that group. 1 2
The Product Engineer
Sequential testing, multiple testing correction, automatic sample ratio mismatch detection and CUPED are all named on public pages, which covers most of the guardrails I look for. CUPED appears as a Starter add-on rather than standard, and we found no public information on guardrail metrics that could stop a harmful test, on the statistical method by name, or on a sample-size calculator. 1 2
The CRO Consultant
The plans page names sequential testing, multiple testing correction, automatic sample ratio mismatch detection and CUPED — the exact protections I need before a client's analyst or DPO — but they appear as feature names only. We found no public information naming the underlying statistical method, offering sample-size or duration guidance, or describing guardrail metrics that could stop a harmful test. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
Sequential testing, multiple testing correction, automatic sample ratio mismatch detection and CUPED are all named on the plans and homepage, which covers most of the guardrail set I look for. We found no public information naming the underlying statistical method, showing confidence or credible intervals or a sample-size calculator, and no guardrail metrics that can stop a harmful test. 2 1
The Skeptic
The right guardrails are named — sequential testing, multiple testing correction, SRM detection, CUPED, bandits — but every one appears as a feature bullet or a one-line claim, with no stated method, no assumptions, no intervals, no sample-size calculator and no guidance on when a result may be read. Until the assumptions behind the sequential test are written down, I treat the guardrail list as intent, not method. 1 2
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
For a German rollout I need chapter and verse and found none: nothing says what the test script stores on a visitor's device, when it runs relative to consent, or whether a cookieless or consent-pending mode exists. The cookie list in the privacy policy covers the vendor's own website, and the homepage advertises a bypass of Safari ITP and ad blockers — something I would put in front of our legal team before a single variant went live. 1 3
The E-Commerce Manager
The privacy policy lists cookie purposes, lets a visitor refuse cookies and speaks of GDPR vigilance, but it concerns the vendor's own website — we found no public information on what the testing script stores on a shopper's device, whether it runs before consent, a cookieless mode, or integration with consent management platforms. The homepage's claim of bypassing Safari ITP and ad blockers for full traffic visibility reads as tracking continuity rather than consent-first design. 1 3
The Product Engineer
The privacy policy lists cookies for the vendor's own website and a Data Privacy & Security module is named, but we found no public information on what the customer's test script stores on a visitor's device or when it runs relative to consent. The homepage advertises bypassing Safari ITP and ad blockers for full traffic visibility, which points away from a consent-pending design. 1 3
The CRO Consultant
The privacy policy lists cookies and an opt-out, but that section concerns the vendor's own marketing site including an Adroll retargeting service, and we found no public information on what the testing script stores on a visitor's device, when it runs relative to consent, or whether a cookieless mode exists. The homepage instead markets bypassing Safari ITP and ad blockers, which no DPO I work with would welcome, and no consent-management integration is documented to offset it. 1 3
The Data Protection Officer
The captured privacy policy lists cookie purposes and an opt-out for Kameleoon's own website, but we found no public information on what the test script stores on a visitor's device, whether it may run before the consent banner is answered, or any integration with consent management platforms. No storage keys with lifetimes, no cookieless or consent-pending mode, and no IP anonymisation are documented anywhere on the captured pages. 3 1
The Skeptic
The only captured statements about cookies concern Kameleoon's own marketing site — purposes, an opt-out, an Adroll retargeting cookie — and we found no public information on when the testing script runs relative to consent, what it stores on a visitor's device, or any consent-pending or cookieless mode. A "Data Privacy & Security" module name on the homepage is not documentation of the script's behaviour. 1 3
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 plans page promises a snippet that loads under 70 ms with 99.99% uptime, which is at least a number, but a marketing line is not a measurement. I found no public information on script size, asynchronous loading, flicker handling, impact on Core Web Vitals, or a self-hosting option, so I cannot tell the board what testing costs our page speed. 2
The E-Commerce Manager
The only published figure is a snippet that loads under 70 ms alongside 99.99% uptime, which is welcome but stands alone. We found no public information on anti-flicker handling, script weight, asynchronous loading, self-hosting or measured Core Web Vitals impact — and on a product page, flicker is the difference between a test and a bounce. 1 2
The Product Engineer
One figure is public — a snippet that loads under 70 ms — plus a server-side module as the flicker-free path, and that is about all. We found no public information on script size, anti-flicker handling, asynchronous loading, impact on Core Web Vitals, or a self-hosting option. 2
The CRO Consultant
The plans page publishes one figure — a snippet that loads under 70 ms alongside 99.99% uptime — and that is the whole of the published record. We found no public information on script size, asynchronous loading, flicker handling, Core Web Vitals impact, or a self-hosting option, so I cannot estimate what a client's pages would actually pay for the snippet. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
A single vendor claim is published — a snippet that loads under 70 ms with 99.99 percent uptime — with nothing behind it. We found no public information on script size, asynchronous loading, flicker handling, or any measured effect on Core Web Vitals, and no self-hosting or first-party-domain option. 2 1
The Skeptic
One figure is published — a snippet that loads under 70 ms, alongside 99.99% uptime — with no measurement conditions, script size, loading behaviour or flicker handling anywhere in the captures. A load-time claim without methodology tells me nothing about what it costs a real page. 2
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
The warehouse story is genuinely strong: two-way sync with the customer's data warehouse, BigQuery metrics displayed as KPIs on results pages, goals that pull conversion data from BigQuery on a schedule, a CDP connection, and a documented API using bearer authentication. I found no public information on visitor-level raw data export or stated API limits, and the warehouse integration is offered only as a premium add-on to discuss with the Customer Success Manager. 1 5 6
The E-Commerce Manager
Results are checkable outside the dashboard: BigQuery metrics can be displayed as KPIs on the results pages, Kameleoon goals can pull conversion data from BigQuery on a schedule, CDP connections are offered, and there is a documented API with authentication and pagination for segment export. We found no public information on visitor-level raw data export or stated API limits, and the data warehouse connection sits behind a premium add-on whose price is not published. 1 2 5 6
The Product Engineer
This is where the platform earns its keep with me: BigQuery metrics can be displayed as KPIs on results pages, goals can pull conversion data from BigQuery on a scheduled basis, two-way warehouse sync and CDP integrations are advertised, and a documented API with Bearer authentication and pagination exports segments. The catches are that the warehouse integration comes as a premium add-on priced only via the customer success manager, and we found no public information on visitor-level raw data export or API rate limits. 1 5 6
The CRO Consultant
This is the platform's strength: the documentation shows a real API with Bearer authentication and segment export, and a BigQuery integration working both ways — warehouse metrics displayed as KPIs on results pages and goals pulling conversion data from the warehouse on a schedule — alongside CDP integration and two-way data-warehouse sync. We found no public information on visitor-level raw data export or stated API limits, and the warehouse integration sits behind an unpriced premium add-on. 1 4 5 6
The Data Protection Officer
There is a documented API with Bearer authentication and pagination for exporting segments, a two-way BigQuery integration where goals pull conversion data from the warehouse on a schedule, plus CDP, analytics and heatmapping integrations. We found no public information on visitor-level raw data export or stated API rate limits, and the data warehouse capability is a premium add-on priced only on request. 6 5 1
The Skeptic
The API is documented with authentication and pagination, and the warehouse story looks real: two-way sync plus BigQuery metrics and goals feeding the results pages means an experiment can be measured on the customer's own data. But we found no public information on visitor-level raw data export or stated API limits, and the warehouse capability sits behind an unpriced premium add-on. 1 5 6
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 French, the legal notice names Hetzner in Germany as host, and the privacy policy states personal data is stored in the European Union — a reasonable start for our procurement checklist. But I found no public information on where the experimentation platform's visitor data and snippet delivery are processed, no subprocessor list, and no data processing agreement covering the visitor data the script collects. 3 4
The E-Commerce Manager
The contracting entity is French, the governing law is French with Paris jurisdiction, storage is stated on EU servers with Hetzner in Germany named as host, and the processing is declared to the CNIL — a solid European core. We found no public information on a published subprocessor list, on where the snippet is delivered from, or on a data processing agreement covering the visitor data the script collects, which holds it in the middle of the scale. 3 4
The Product Engineer
The chain that is documented is European: a French contracting entity under French law, personal data stored on EU servers, and Hetzner in Gunzenhausen, Germany named as host. It stops there — we found no public information on a published subprocessor list, a data processing agreement covering the visitor data the script collects, or where the snippet itself is delivered from. 3 4
The CRO Consultant
The contracting entity is French — RCS Aix-en-Provence, French law, Paris Commercial Court — storage is stated to be on EU servers, and the legal notice names Hetzner in Germany as host, which is a solid posture I can put in front of a client. It falls short of the top anchors because we found no public information on a published subprocessor list, a DPA covering the visitor data the script collects, or where the testing snippet itself is delivered from. 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity is a French simplified joint stock company under French law before the Commercial Court of Paris, the legal notice names Hetzner Online GmbH in Gunzenhausen, Germany as host, and the privacy policy states that personal data is stored on servers in the European Union. That statement covers the vendor's website users, and we found no published subprocessor list, no confirmation of where the snippet itself is delivered from, and no published DPA covering the visitor data the script collects. 4 3
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is French, disputes go to the Commercial Court of Paris, storage is stated to be in the EU on named German infrastructure, and there is a CNIL declaration number. We found no public information on a subprocessor list, a DPA covering the visitor data the script collects, or where the snippet itself is delivered from. 3 4
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 30-day trial with up to three experiments and no credit card exists, and the Enterprise tier is quoted as custom with unlimited experiments and unlimited tested traffic. Beyond that I found no public prices for any tier, no traffic metric and no limits, and add-ons such as personalisation, mobile app testing and CUPED are named without figures — I cannot compute an annual invoice from the public pages. 2 5
The E-Commerce Manager
A free 30-day trial with up to 3 experiments and no credit card is public, but beyond that the invoice is unknowable: the Starter plan's price, the traffic metric, tier limits, overage, minimum term and VAT treatment are all unstated, and Enterprise is custom. Add-ons from personalisation to CUPED to the data warehouse integration carry no published prices — the warehouse integration explicitly defers to a Customer Success Manager — so a buyer cannot estimate December's bill any better than January's. 2 5
The Product Engineer
A free trial is public — 30 days, three experiments, no credit card required — but beyond it the plans read Custom with unlimited experiments and unlimited tested traffic, and add-ons from personalisation to CUPED to the data warehouse are unpriced. No traffic metric, no limits, no overage: the annual invoice is not computable from public pages, and the data warehouse add-on explicitly routes pricing to the customer success manager. 2 5
The CRO Consultant
What is public amounts to a free 30-day trial with up to 3 experiments and an Enterprise tier priced as "Custom" with "Unlimited tested traffic"; the Starter tier lists add-ons like personalisation, mobile app testing and CUPED with no prices, and the data warehouse integration directs buyers to "Contact your Customer Success Manager". No traffic metric is defined on the public pages, so the annual invoice for a given client traffic level is not computable before the contract — the number I need before recommending a platform. 1 2 5
The Data Protection Officer
The plans page shows a free trial — "Free 30 days. No credit card required." with up to 3 experiments — and an Enterprise tier at "Custom" with unlimited tested traffic, plus a list of starter add-ons that carry no prices, while the data warehouse integration says "Contact your Customer Success Manager for more information." We found no public information on tier prices, the traffic metric, its limits, or what happens above them, so the annual invoice cannot be computed from public pages. 2 5
The Skeptic
A free 30-day trial limited to three experiments exists, but every paid tier is "custom", the add-on list is unpriced, and the data warehouse module is explicitly "Contact your Customer Success Manager". The traffic metric — "tested traffic" — appears without limits or definitions, so a real annual invoice cannot be computed from the captured pages. 2 5
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 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 | Incorporated in FR | 3/3 pts | 4 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 22 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency, 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.
- 22 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
- 7 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
- 4 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
- 4 support 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 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
- 2 subprocessors 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 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (6)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.kameleoon.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.kameleoon.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.kameleoon.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Legal notice www.kameleoon.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Analytics, data export & integrations — found from sitemap docs.kameleoon.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Analytics, data export & integrations — found from sitemap docs.kameleoon.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →