Conversion Optimization
Mouseflow
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Mouseflow ApS · mouseflow.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.
Mouseflow at a glance
- Vendor
- Mouseflow ApS
- 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
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Mouseflow 1/5, the mean of 6 judges. Mouseflow ApS, headquartered in Denmark, is a behaviour-analytics product — heatmaps, session replay, friction detection, funnels, form analytics and surveys — recording 100% of sessions. 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
Mouseflow ApS, headquartered in Denmark, is a behaviour-analytics product — heatmaps, session replay, friction detection, funnels, form analytics and surveys — recording 100% of sessions. The bench is clearest on data and integrations, where scores sit uniformly at 4: 30+ integrations, Google Analytics session-ID matching through a custom secondary dimension, and replay of sessions for GA segments. The weakest ground is equally consistent: statistical rigour and performance impact both scored 0 across the board, with no public information on statistical method, sample-size guidance, or script weight and Core Web Vitals impact. Experimentation scope scored 0-1: we found no public information on native experiment delivery, with testing appearing as ten third-party integrations. The widest spread is consent and tracking at 2-4: judges crediting automatic IP masking, an opt-out page and stricter IP exclusion scored 4, while the lowest score cites no public information on a consent-pending mode and a customer-side audit required to keep personal data out of recordings. Sovereignty scored 3-5 on the vendor's statement that EU customer data is stored within the EU.
Speaks for it
- Data and integrations scores sit uniformly at 4, with 30+ integrations including Adobe Analytics, Google Tag Manager and Shopify.
- Google Analytics session IDs match through a custom secondary dimension, and sessions replay for GA segments.
- IP addresses are masked automatically, with an opt-out page and stricter complete IP exclusion available on request.
- A free tier is published — 'Free forever. No card required.'
- The vendor's GDPR page states EU customer data is stored within the EU, and the company is headquartered in Denmark.
Held against it
- Statistical rigour scored 0 across the board, with no public information on statistical methods, sample-size guidance or peeking protection.
- Performance impact scored 0 across the board, with no published script-weight, loading or Core Web Vitals figures.
- Experimentation scope scored 0-1, with A/B testing arriving through ten third-party integrations rather than native delivery.
- We found no public information on a documented API or visitor-level export, so analysis stays inside the vendor's dashboards.
- Customers must audit their own site to keep personal data out of tracking.
Best for
- You need qualitative diagnosis of where visitors struggle — abandoned forms, checkout losses, landing-page exits — through heatmaps, funnels, form analytics and session replay.
- You already run A/B tests in another tool and want to watch how every test variation performs visually alongside session recordings.
- Your team works in Google Analytics and wants session-ID matching through a custom secondary dimension with replay for GA segments.
- You want to start on the published free tier — 'Free forever. No card required.'
Avoid if
- You need native experiment delivery — experimentation scope scored 0-1, with A/B testing arriving only through third-party integrations.
- You need documented statistics behind results — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You must cost a recording script before shipping it — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You need visitor-level data in your own warehouse — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Experiment types & delivery | 0.5 of 5 |
| Statistical method & guardrails | 0 of 5 |
| Consent & visitor tracking | 2 of 5 |
| Snippet performance & flicker | 0 of 5 |
| Analytics, data export & integrations | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 2.5 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
Everything captured describes a behaviour analytics product — session replay, heatmaps, friction detection, funnels, form analytics — and the testing story on these pages is a directory of A/B testing integrations such as AB Tasty, Varify and Visually that connect alongside Mouseflow to show how variations perform. We found no public information on a visual editor, server-side or SDK delivery, targeting, or running experiments in the product itself, so my team could not run a single test without adding another vendor. 1 4
The E-Commerce Manager
The only experimentation story on the captured pages is ten integrations with outside A/B tools — Varify to see how every test variation performs visually, AB Tasty, Visually — where Mouseflow observes tests run elsewhere. I found no public information on a native editor, SDKs, server-side delivery, or personalisation that can itself be tested against a control. 1 4
The Product Engineer
This is a behaviour-analytics stack — heatmaps, session replay, funnels, form analytics — and every experimentation capability on the captured pages arrives through third parties like Varify, AB Tasty and Visually rather than a Mouseflow editor or SDK. We found no public information on any native experiment delivery, server-side or otherwise, so there is nothing here I could put behind a feature flag. 1 4
The CRO Consultant
The product pages describe a behaviour-analytics stack — heatmaps, session replay, friction detection, funnels, form analytics, surveys — and I found no public information on an experiment editor, split or multivariate tests, audience targeting, or SDK delivery of variants. The testing story rests on ten A/B-testing integrations with names like Varify, Visually and AB Tasty, which read as watching third-party experiments inside Mouseflow rather than launching your own. For my clients who need to run tests, this is a companion tool, not the platform. 1 4
The Data Protection Officer
The product the pages show is behaviour analytics — heatmaps, session replay, friction detection, funnels, form analytics and surveys — and we found no public information on it delivering its own experiments, client-side or server-side. The A/B testing presence is a category of third-party integrations, including one described as letting you see how every test variation performs visually, which measures other tools' tests rather than running experiments of its own. 1 4
The Skeptic
The captured pages present a qualitative analytics suite — heatmaps, session replay, funnels, form analytics, surveys — and we found no public information on native experiment delivery, a visual editor, SDKs or personalisation. The only experimentation evidence is a category of ten A/B testing integrations with third-party tools, one pitched as 'See how every test variation performs—visually', which is observing someone else's test rather than running one. 1 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
We found no public information on any statistical method, sample-size or duration guidance, handling of peeking or multiple comparisons, or guardrail metrics — the captured pages are about watching sessions, not calling winners. There is nothing documented here I could put in front of finance, let alone defend to the board. 1 4
The E-Commerce Manager
Nothing on any captured page names a statistical method, sample-size guidance, peeking protection or a rule for when a result may be read; the pages never present a winner figure with any statistics behind it. This is observation tooling, and the statistics question is simply never addressed. 1 4
The Product Engineer
The pages describe conversion funnels, friction detection and form analytics, but we found no public information on a named statistical method, confidence or credible intervals, or any sample-size and duration guidance. For a platform pitched alongside A/B testing, the total silence on peeking, multiple comparisons and sample ratio checks decides this score. 1 4
The CRO Consultant
I found no public information on any statistical method, sample-size or test-duration guidance, sequential testing, or sample-ratio-mismatch detection — the captured pages never present a winner decision between variants at all. A client's analyst would have nothing documented to defend or reproduce. 1 4
The Data Protection Officer
Nothing captured names a statistical method, offers sample-size or duration guidance, or warns against reading a result early, so a buyer cannot see what would make any figure in the funnels or friction features trustworthy. We found no public information on how results are decided or on any guardrail against calling something prematurely. 1 4
The Skeptic
I went looking for a method to read and found nothing to read: the captured pages name no statistical approach, show no confidence or credible intervals, and give no sample-size guidance, peeking protection or sample-ratio check. What is documented — 'Friction Detection', 'Conversion Funnels', AI guidance on sessions — is qualitative description with no stated basis for calling a difference real, so there is nothing here to audit. 1 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 and cookie pages do more than most: tracking cookies are classified as statistic-only, IP addresses are masked automatically, an opt-out page exists, stricter IP exclusion can be requested, and the vendor tells customers that active and explicit consent may be required for tracking. What we found no public information on is what the recording script does before consent is given, a cookieless or consent-pending mode, or storage lifetimes — the first question my DPO will ask. 2 3
The E-Commerce Manager
The GDPR page masks IPs automatically, offers an opt-out page and warns that explicit consent may be required, and the cookie policy classifies its cookies as statistic-only, distinguishing sessions rather than individuals. But I found no public information on what the script does before consent is given, no consent-pending mode or consent-platform integration, and no per-cookie list with lifetimes. 2 3
The Product Engineer
The vendor classifies its tracking cookies as statistic cookies that distinguish sessions without identifying individuals, masks IP addresses automatically, offers an opt-out page, a sample privacy-policy statement and stricter IP exclusion on request, and states that explicit consent may be required. Still, we found no public information on what the recording script does before consent is given, on integration with consent management platforms, or on a published list of storage keys and their lifetimes. 2 3
The CRO Consultant
The privacy pages are stronger than most analytics vendors: cookies are classified as statistic-only that do not identify individuals, IP addresses are masked automatically, an opt-out page exists, stricter IP exclusion is available on request, and a sample privacy-policy statement is provided. But I found no public information on what the recording script does before consent is given, on cookie lifetimes, or on consent-management-platform integration, and consent is framed as the customer's job — you may need to obtain active and explicit consent — alongside a required audit of every page and form field. A DPO can work with the masking and opt-out, but will want the pre-consent behaviour in writing. 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
The vendor's own legal pages do not say whether the recording script starts before the visitor answers the consent banner, and we found no public information on a consent-pending mode that holds tracking until consent is given. What is published puts the burden on the customer — active and explicit consent may be required, and the site owner must audit all page content and form fields to keep personal data out of tracking — alongside automatic IP masking, an opt-out page, and a cookie policy classifying its cookies as statistic and session-distinguishing. We found no published list of storage keys with their lifetimes and no named integration with consent management platforms. 2 3
The Skeptic
The cookie policy classifies its cookies as 'statistic cookies' that distinguish sessions without identifying individuals, and the GDPR page states 'explicit consent may be required from the customer', with automatic IP masking, a stricter complete IP exclusion on request, and a public opt-out page. But we found no public information on what the tracking script does before consent is given, on a consent-pending mode, or on per-cookie lifetimes — and the customer is told to audit their own site to keep personal data out of recordings. 2 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
We found no public information on snippet size, loading behaviour, flicker handling or any Core Web Vitals figures; the only technical claim captured is that 100% of sessions are recorded, which raises rather than answers the performance question for a script on every visitor. Without published numbers I cannot estimate the cost to our pages. 1
The E-Commerce Manager
A tool that records 100% of sessions with every click, scroll and rage click captured is exactly the script whose cost I need to know before it touches my product pages. The captured pages say nothing whatsoever about script size, load cost, flicker handling or Core Web Vitals — I found no public performance information at all. 1
The Product Engineer
A script that records 100% of sessions is exactly the kind of third-party tag I want costed before it ships, and we found no public information on its size, loading behaviour, asynchronous option, self-hosting, or any Core Web Vitals impact. Nothing measured is published, so I score by what that absence is worth. 1
The CRO Consultant
I found no public information on script weight, loading behaviour, flicker handling or any effect on Core Web Vitals. That absence is acute here because the vendor records 100% of sessions — every click, scroll and rage click — so the per-visitor cost of that snippet is exactly the figure I would need published before recommending it. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The pages claim recordings of 100% of sessions with no gaps, yet publish no figures on script size, loading behaviour, or impact on Core Web Vitals. We found no public information on an anti-flicker approach, asynchronous loading, or any measured overhead for a script that captures every click, scroll and rage click on every visitor. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on script weight, loading behaviour, flicker handling or any measured performance cost in the captured pages — no figures, no Core Web Vitals discussion, no self-hosting path. A vendor that records '100% of sessions' and claims 'high-fidelity recordings' makes the cost question more urgent, not less, and publishes nothing to answer it. 1
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 genuine breadth: 30-plus integrations including Adobe Analytics, Google Tag Manager and a Google Analytics link that matches session IDs through a custom secondary dimension and replays sessions for GA segments, plus an MCP server for asking an AI client about the behaviour data. We found no public information on a documented API for pulling results out or on visitor-level export to our own warehouse, so results stay in their dashboards unless we build the GA bridge ourselves. 1 4 5
The E-Commerce Manager
Thirty-plus integrations with real depth on Google Analytics — session-ID matching through a custom dimension and replaying sessions for GA segments — plus Adobe Analytics, Google Tag Manager and Shopify, and an MCP server to query behaviour data from my own tooling. But no documented API with stated limits, no visitor-level export and no warehouse path appears on the pages, so findings stay inside their dashboard. 1 4 5
The Product Engineer
There is real plumbing: 30-plus integrations including Google Analytics with session-ID matching through a custom dimension, Adobe Analytics, Google Tag Manager, and an MCP server for asking questions of the behaviour data from your own tooling. We found no public information on export of results or visitor-level data, on warehouse delivery, or on a documented API, which is what would make this a platform rather than a data source. 1 4 5
The CRO Consultant
The Google Analytics integration is genuinely deep — session IDs matched through a custom secondary dimension, and session replay for Google Analytics segments — alongside tag-manager support and an MCP server for querying behaviour data from an AI client, with 30+ integrations in total. We found no public information on a documented API, visitor-level export or warehouse delivery, so the analysis largely stays inside the vendor's own platform. 4 5
The Data Protection Officer
Integration breadth is genuinely documented — over thirty integrations including Adobe Analytics, Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager, session-ID matching against Google Analytics through a custom secondary dimension, and replaying sessions for Google Analytics segments. We found no public information on a documented API, on export of visitor-level or raw session data, or on delivery to the customer's own warehouse; the MCP server is described for asking questions inside AI clients rather than as a data interface with stated limits. 1 4 5
The Skeptic
The analytics wiring is real and specific: Google Analytics session IDs can be matched through a custom secondary dimension, sessions are replayable from GA segments, and Adobe Analytics, Google Tag Manager and Shopify appear among 30+ integrations. But an integration is not an export — we found no public information on a documented API, on export of results, or on visitor-level raw data for independent re-analysis. The MCP server is a query surface for AI clients, not a documented API with stated limits. 4 5 1
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 captured pages state the vendor is built in Europe and headquartered in Denmark, with EU customer data stored within the EU — an EU contracting entity plus stated EU residency is a workable baseline. We found no public information on the hosting infrastructure that delivers the recording script, on subprocessors, or on a data processing agreement covering the visitor behaviour the tool records, so the chain is asserted rather than evidenced. 1 2
The E-Commerce Manager
Built in Europe, headquartered in Denmark, with EU storage of customer data stated on their own GDPR page — a decent start for a script that watches every visitor. The captured pages give no subprocessor list and no information on where the snippet itself is delivered from, so parts of the chain remain unaccounted for. 1 2
The Product Engineer
The vendor states that EU customer data is stored within the EU and is headquartered in Denmark, and IP addresses are masked automatically — more than nothing for a script running on every visitor. But we found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction as independently confirmed, the infrastructure behind the storage claim, a subprocessor list, or where the recording snippet is delivered from. 1 2
The CRO Consultant
The vendor's own GDPR page states that EU customer data is stored within the EU, and the company describes itself as built in Europe and headquartered in Denmark. We found no public information on named hosting infrastructure, a subprocessor list, DPA coverage for the recorded visitor data, or where the recording script is served from — and the independently sourced sovereignty checks left jurisdiction and residency marked unconfirmed, so parts of the chain remain unverified. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The vendor presents itself as built in Europe and headquartered in Denmark, and a captured legal page states that EU customer data is stored within the EU, while our independently sourced residency check came back unconfirmed — a promise on the page but no corroboration. For a script that records every visitor, we found no public information on a published subprocessor list, on where the snippet is delivered from or which CDN sits in the chain, or on a data processing agreement covering the visitor data the script collects. 1 2
The Skeptic
The vendor's own legal page states 'EU customer data is stored within the EU', and the company presents itself as built in Europe and headquartered in Denmark. Beyond that single statement the chain is undocumented: we found no public information on named hosting infrastructure, a subprocessor list, or where the delivery of the tracking script happens, and the independent sourcing behind this review could not confirm residency from the captured pages. 1 2
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 tier is public — free forever, no card required, full platform and AI tools access — but we found no public information on paid tier prices, the traffic or session metric that sets the tier, limits, or what happens to the bill when 100% session recording meets growing traffic. The real annual invoice for a site of our size is unknowable from these pages. 1 4
The E-Commerce Manager
A genuine free tier — free forever, no card required — and a mention of flexible plans, but no paid price, traffic metric, limit or overage appears anywhere on the captured pages. When December's traffic spike lands I could not begin to compute what the invoice would be from public information. 1 4
The Product Engineer
A "Free forever. No card required" tier is published with full platform access from day one, which is a genuine starting point. Beyond that we found no public information on paid tier prices, the traffic metric and its limits, or what happens above them, so the annual invoice for any real volume is unknowable from public pages. 1 4
The CRO Consultant
A real free tier is published — free forever, no card required, AI tools included — but I found no public information on paid tier prices, the traffic or session metric, its limits, or what happens when they are exceeded. Flexible plans with live-chat support is the only pricing signal, so a client cannot estimate their annual invoice from public pages before a sales conversation. 1 4
The Data Protection Officer
A free tier is clearly public — free forever, no card required — but that is where price information ends. We found no public information on paid tier prices, on the traffic or session metric a plan is metered by, or on limits and what happens above them, so the annual invoice for a paying site is not derivable from these pages. 1 4
The Skeptic
A free tier is public and unambiguous — 'Free forever. No card required.' — and that is where the priced information ends. We found no public information on paid tier prices, the tracked-visitor or session metric that sets the tier, limits, overage treatment, minimum term or VAT; 'Flexible plans' is a conversation with sales, not a computable invoice. 1 4
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 ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Mouseflow
Is Mouseflow European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Mouseflow is based.
Where does Mouseflow store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Mouseflow have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Mouseflow?
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: Mouseflow 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 — Data residency. 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.
- 2 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 compliance 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 integrations fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 support fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 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 (5)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page mouseflow.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Consent & visitor tracking — found from sitemap mouseflow.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Consent & visitor tracking — found from sitemap mouseflow.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Analytics, data export & integrations — found from sitemap mouseflow.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Analytics, data export & integrations — found from sitemap mouseflow.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →