Conversion Optimization
Omniconvert
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 Omniconvert SRL · www.omniconvert.com
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
Omniconvert, a conversion-optimisation platform from Omniconvert SRL of Bucharest, earns its best marks for what the pages demonstrably show: experimentation scope, statistical rigour and data and integrations each score 4, built on documented A/B, A/B/n, split-URL and multivariate testing with a Chrome visual editor and a code editor, personalisation across 40+ targeting parameters, a named Bayesian and frequentist statistics engine, a public sample-size calculator with 95% minimum confidence and 80% minimum power, and integrations spanning Google Analytics 4, Google Tag Manager, Shopify, Hotjar, Piwik and Zapier. Its worst marks are consent and tracking (1 to 2) and performance impact (0 to 1), and both are evidence gaps rather than documented failures: installation requires a script line in the page source, and we found no public information on what it stores on devices, when it runs relative to consent, script weight, flicker handling or any Core Web Vitals effect. Sovereignty (3 to 4) and pricing transparency (3 to 4) sit between, varying by a single point, and the flagged splits flag none of these spreads as material.
Speaks for it
- A/B, A/B/n, split-URL and multivariate testing are documented, with a Chrome visual editor and a code editor
- Personalisation spans 40+ targeting parameters, including geolocation, device, behaviour and traffic source
- The statistics engine is named as Bayesian and frequentist, and the public sample-size calculator states minimums of 95% confidence and 80% power with a 10% floor on minimum detectable effect
- Named integrations include Google Analytics 4, Google Tag Manager, Shopify, Hotjar, Piwik and Zapier, with API access listed on the pricing page
- A free tier with no credit card required and a 30-day free trial are public, with tested-user tier boundaries shown from 50K up to above 2M
Held against it
- Installation requires a script line in the site's source code, and we found no public information on what it stores on a visitor's device or when it runs relative to consent
- We found no public information on script weight, loading behaviour, flicker handling or any measured effect on Core Web Vitals
- We found no public information on consent management integration, a cookie list or a cookieless mode, while the captured privacy page, last updated August 31, 2018, states Do Not Track requests are not supported
- No price figures for any paid tier appear on the captured pages, SSO is priced only after the trial, and the terms permit price changes on 30 days' notice
- We found no public information on where the visitor data collected by the test script is hosted, the named processor chain includes US-based parties, and the full processor list is available only on request
Best for
- You need broad client-side A/B, multivariate and split-URL testing with deep visitor segmentation on a stack built around GA4, Google Tag Manager and Shopify
- You want a public sample-size calculator with stated confidence and power minimums to justify test duration internally
- You want a European contracting entity — Omniconvert SRL under Romanian law and exclusive Romanian jurisdiction — for your experimentation vendor
- You want to start on the free tier without a credit card, or a 30-day free trial, while you evaluate
Avoid if
- You must know what the test script stores on a device and whether it waits for consent before it can be approved for your site
- Your page-speed budget requires published script weight or measured Core Web Vitals impact before any script is added to your source
- You need to compute the real annual invoice before signing — no paid price figures are public and SSO is priced only after the trial
- Your compliance review relies on a current, product-specific privacy policy — the captured policy dates from August 31, 2018, concerns the vendor's own website, and states Do Not Track requests are not supported
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 Chrome visual editor, code editor, unlimited A/B/n and split-URL tests are all documented, plus multivariate testing, and targeting goes far beyond the URL — geolocation, behaviour, traffic source, device and operating system, cookie and weather — which is exactly the kind of segmentation my team needs. We found no public information on server-side or SDK delivery, feature flags, mutually exclusive experiments, holdouts or edge delivery, so the programme would run client-side only. 1 2 5 6 8
The E-Commerce Manager
A rich client-side suite on paper: unlimited A/B/n tests, split URL testing, multivariate testing, a Chrome visual editor plus code editor, and personalisation by segment with forty-plus targeting parameters including behaviour, geolocation, weather and device. I found no public information on server-side or SDK delivery, and the vendor's own guidance tells me to watch segmentation and traffic allocation myself so concurrent experiments don't influence each other's results — that traffic management is my job, not the platform's. 1 2 5 6
The Product Engineer
Rich client-side suite — A/B and A/B/n, multivariate, split URL, triggered overlays, surveys, and deep personalisation targeting across forty-plus data points — but all of it delivered by a script pasted into the page source; we found no public information on server-side SDKs, feature flags, edge delivery, holdouts, or platform-managed experiment interactions, and the vendor's own answer on overlapping tests asks customers to watch segmentation and traffic allocation themselves. 2 1 5 6 4
The CRO Consultant
A/B/n, split-URL and multivariate tests with a code editor and Chrome visual editor are shown, alongside rule-based personalisation by segment, geolocation, device and behaviour across a strong set of 40+ targeting parameters. Everything evidenced is client-side, though — we found no public information on server-side SDKs, feature flags or edge delivery, and the vendor itself warns experiments can overlap and influence each other's results. 1 2 5 6 8
The Data Protection Officer
A Chrome visual editor, code editor, A/B/n and split-URL tests plus multivariate testing and rule-based personalisation across forty-plus segmentation parameters are all documented. We found no public information on any SDK, server-side or feature-flag delivery, and the vendor's own help text leaves preventing overlapping experiments to the customer's segmentation and traffic allocation. 1 2 5 6
The Skeptic
The captured pages show client-side A/B and A/B/n tests, split-URL and multivariate testing, a visual editor and a code editor, and rule-based personalisation across forty-plus targeting parameters including behaviour, device and geolocation. We found no public information on a server-side SDK, feature flags or holdouts, and the vendor's own answer on running multiple experiments tells customers to watch segmentation and traffic allocation so their experiments do not influence each other's results. No documented experiment lifecycle or searchable library of past results appears in these captures. 1 2 5 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 statistics engine is named as Bayesian and frequentist, and the sample-size calculator outputs required users per variant and weeks-to-run with clear guidance of at least 95% confidence and 80% power — a calculator I can point to in front of finance. We found no public information on confidence or credible intervals, on how peeking and multiple comparisons are handled, or on sample ratio mismatch detection, and we found no public information on any protection against stopping early even though tests are documented as stopping automatically when significance is reached. 1 2 7
The E-Commerce Manager
Both Bayesian and frequentist engines are named, and there is a public sample size calculator with guidance to use 95% minimum confidence and 80% minimum power that outputs required users per variant and weeks to run. What I found no public information on is confidence or credible intervals, protection against peeking, correction for multiple metrics or variants, and sample ratio mismatch detection — and tests are documented to stop automatically once statistical significance is reached. 1 2 7
The Product Engineer
The statistics engine is named as both Bayesian and frequentist and there is a genuinely useful public sample-size calculator with duration guidance (ninety-five percent confidence minimum, eighty percent power minimum, a ten percent floor on minimum detectable effect) — but we found no public information on how results are reported with intervals, and nothing on peeking protection, multiple-comparison correction, sample ratio mismatch, variance reduction, or guardrail metrics, while automatic stopping when significance is reached is documented without any stated sequential method. 2 7 1
The CRO Consultant
Both Bayesian and frequentist engines are named, and the sample-size calculator takes power, significance and minimum detectable effect, returns weeks-to-run with stated minimums (95% confidence, 80% power), and warns against detectable effects under 10%. Beyond that we found no public information on confidence or credible intervals, documented assumptions, sequential protection against peeking, or sample ratio mismatch detection — and the AI product's automatic stopping at statistical significance has no documented method guarding it. 1 2 7
The Data Protection Officer
The statistics engine is named as both Bayesian and frequentist, and the sample-size calculator documents confidence level, statistical power, minimum detectable effect and run-duration outputs with sensible guidance. We found no public information on confidence or credible intervals shown in results, correction for multiple metrics or variants, or sample ratio mismatch detection, and the automatic stopping of tests when significance is reached is described without any documented protection against peeking. 2 7 1
The Skeptic
The statistics engine is named as Bayesian and frequentist, and the sample-size calculator is genuinely competent — confidence level, statistical power, minimum detectable effect and weeks-to-run guidance of exactly the kind I look for. But we found no public information on assumptions, intervals, multiple-comparison handling or sample ratio mismatch detection, and the homepage describes tests being stopped automatically once statistical significance is reached under continuous monitoring — peeking presented as efficiency, with no sequential method documented to licence it. 1 2 7
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 privacy policy engages the GDPR with retention terms and a free one-month response to data requests, but it concerns the vendor's own website: we found no public information on what the test script stores on a visitor's device, whether it runs before consent, on consent management integration, or on a cookieless mode. The captured policy also states plainly that Do Not Track requests are not supported, which for a German team is the opposite of reassurance. 3 4
The E-Commerce Manager
Installation of a script line in the site source is required, yet I found no public information on what the test script stores on a visitor's device or whether it runs before consent is given. 2 3 4
The CRO Consultant
A script must be installed in the site source, cookies are referenced for targeting and third-party enrichment, and the privacy policy handles GDPR rights requests within a month — but we found no public information on what the script stores on the device, when it runs relative to consent, any consent management platform integration, or a cookieless mode, and the pages state 'Do Not Track' requests are not supported. Not something I could hand to a client's DPO as it stands. 2 3 4 8
The Data Protection Officer
The terms confirm a script line must be installed in the site's source code, but we found no public information on whether that script runs before the consent banner is answered, what cookies or storage keys it sets on the device, or any consent-pending or cookieless mode. The privacy statement was last updated August 31, 2018, describes the vendor's own website rather than the test script, and says nothing on IP anonymisation or the legal basis for testing under the ePrivacy rules. 4 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 terms confirm a script line must be installed in the site source code, but we found no public information on snippet size, asynchronous loading, flicker handling, any measured effect on Core Web Vitals, or a self-hosting option. An unmeasured snippet running on every visitor is not something I can defend to the board. 4
The E-Commerce Manager
The only confirmed fact is that a script code line must be pasted into the website source before anything works. I found no public information on script size, loading behaviour, flicker handling, CDN or self-hosting options, or any measured effect on Core Web Vitals — for a shop where a tenth of a second shows in the conversion rate, nothing here lets me budget the cost to the page. 4
The Product Engineer
We found no public information on script weight, loading behaviour, flicker handling, or Core Web Vitals impact; the only performance-relevant fact is that installation requires a script line in the site's source code, and no asynchronous loading, self-hosting, per-project bundle, or server-side alternative is evidenced anywhere. 4
The CRO Consultant
The only performance-relevant fact on the captured pages is that a script line must be installed in the site's source code. We found no public information on script weight, loading behaviour, flicker handling, CDN delivery or any Core Web Vitals impact. 4
The Data Protection Officer
The terms require a script in the page source, but we found no public information on script size, synchronous or asynchronous loading, anti-flicker handling, or any measured effect on Core Web Vitals. No performance figures are published anywhere in the captured pages. 4
The Skeptic
The only relevant fact in the captures is that installation requires a script line in the page source code; we found no public information on script size, loading behaviour, flicker handling, or any measured effect on Core Web Vitals. 4
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
Documented integrations cover Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Piwik, Hotjar, Shopify and Magento, audiences can be pushed to Meta and Google, and API access is listed on the pricing page. We found no public information on exporting results, on visitor-level data, on warehouse-native analysis, or on API documentation and its limits — so a reported uplift cannot be re-checked against our own numbers, which is the whole point of a defensible result. 1 2 6
The E-Commerce Manager
The integration list is broad — Google Analytics 4, Google Tag Manager, Shopify, Magento, Vtex, Hotjar, Piwik and Zapier — plus custom audience creation for Meta and Google, and the vendor states it does not access or store data from integrated services. But API access appears only as a feature listing, and I found no public information on documented API detail, result export, or visitor-level raw data I could check a winner against in my own analytics. 1 2 4 6
The Product Engineer
Integrations are genuinely broad — Google Analytics 4, Tag Manager, Shopify, Vtex, Hotjar, Piwik, Zapier, and custom audience creation for Meta and Google — and API access is listed on the pricing page, but we found no documentation of that API, no export of visitor-level results, no warehouse export or streaming, and no CDP path, so a result can be pushed into analytics yet not re-derived in my own data. 2 6 1 4
The CRO Consultant
Integrations with Google Analytics 4, Google Tag Manager, Hotjar, Piwik, Shopify and Zapier are clearly evidenced, the vendor states it does not access or store data from the services it integrates with, and API access is listed on the pricing page. We found no public information on the API's scope or limits, export of results, or any visitor-level raw data path to a customer's warehouse — a result checked only in the vendor's dashboard is a claim, not a finding. 1 2 4 6 8
The Data Protection Officer
Named analytics and tag-management integrations including Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Hotjar, Inspectlet and Piwik, plus Zapier and ecommerce platforms, are well documented, and the pricing page lists API access. We found no public information on documented API endpoints, rate limits or scope, on export of experiment results, or on any visitor-level data export. 2 6 3
The Skeptic
Integrations are broad — Google Analytics 4, Google Tag Manager, Hotjar, Inspectlet, Piwik, Shopify, Vtex and Zapier, plus audience export to Meta and Google — and API access is listed on the pricing page. But we found no public information on exporting results or visitor-level data, or on an API documented with endpoints and limits, so from what these pages show a result cannot be re-checked against the customer's own data. 1 2 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 a Romanian company under Romanian law with exclusive Romanian jurisdiction, which is a solid start for an EU buyer. But we found no public information on where the experiment platform hosts visitor data, the captured privacy page names US-based processors in the chain — Automattic, Cloudflare, 2Checkout, Instapage — with cross-border transfers declared possible, and the full processor list is available only on request. 3 4
The E-Commerce Manager
The contracting entity is clean: Omniconvert SRL in Bucharest with Romanian law and Romanian courts. Where visitor data is processed is unstated, the published chain includes US parties — Cloudflare, 2Checkout, Google, Instapage, Clearbit — with the full processor list available only on request, and I found no public information on a data processing agreement covering the visitor data the test script collects. 3 4
The Product Engineer
The contracting entity is Omniconvert SRL in Bucharest under Romanian governing law, but we found no statement of where visitor data is hosted — processing is described as happening at the owner's operating offices and other parties' locations with cross-border transfers possible — and the named processors include US-based Automattic, Cloudflare, 2Checkout, Instapage and Google without an explained safeguard, with the full processor list only available on request. 4 3
The CRO Consultant
The contracting entity is Omniconvert SRL in Bucharest under Romanian courts, and several subprocessors are named with places of processing — several of them in the US, including payments, traffic and hosting. We found no public information on where the visitor data itself is hosted; the privacy text says data is processed at the owner's operating offices and wherever other parties are located, with cross-border transfers possible, and the full processor list is available only on request. 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity is Omniconvert SRL of Bucharest under Romanian law, which is solid, but we found no public information on where the visitor data collected by the test script is hosted, and the data processor list is available only on request. The processors that are named in the privacy statement — Cloudflare, WordPress.com, 2Checkout — process in the United States, and the policy itself says data is processed wherever the parties involved are located, leaving cross-border transfers open. 4 3
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is European — Omniconvert SRL of Bucharest under Romanian law and courts — but the privacy policy states data is processed at the owner's operating offices and wherever the parties involved in processing are located, with cross-border transfers possible, and the named processors in that chain (Automattic, 2Checkout, Cloudflare) process in the United States. The processor list is available only on request, and we found no public information on where the testing product hosts the visitor data the script collects. 3 4
Pricing transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
A category priced by traffic — monthly tracked users, visitors or impressions — where the tier a site lands in depends on numbers the buyer has to estimate. Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost including traffic limits, overage, server-side or personalisation modules and seats — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A starting price or a free tier exists, but the traffic metric, the limits and what happens above them are unstated — the invoice is unknowable.
5 — Tier prices public with the traffic metric and its limits defined, but at least one commonly needed piece (server-side SDKs, personalisation, overage) is unpriced or "contact sales".
8 — Every tier priced publicly with the traffic metric defined, limits, overage rates, module prices, minimum term and VAT treatment stated.
10 — Complete price computability: annual invoice derivable for a given traffic volume, set of modules and team size, with overage and every add-on published.
The Growth Lead
The free tier without a credit card and the 30-day trial are public, and pricing runs on tested users in brackets from 50K up to above 2M with monthly and annual billing. We found no public information on the price of each bracket, on overage, on module pricing or VAT treatment, and single sign-on is explicitly a conversation after the trial — so the real annual invoice cannot be computed from public pages. 2 4
The E-Commerce Manager
The traffic metric and tier ladder are public — tested users from 50K up to >2M, monthly or annual billing, a free tier with no credit card and a 30-day free trial. But I found no public information on paid tier prices, overage, VAT treatment or minimum term, single sign-on is priced only after the trial, and the terms allow prices to change at any time on 30 days' notice — so I still cannot compute my December invoice from public pages. 2 4 8
The Product Engineer
A free tier without credit card and a thirty-day trial are public, and the traffic metric is defined as tested users with tier steps from 50K up to above 2M on monthly or annual billing — but we found no price figures for any tier, no overage terms, and single sign-on is priced only in conversation after the trial, so a real annual invoice cannot be computed from public pages. 2 4
The CRO Consultant
A free tier with no credit card required and a 30-day free trial are public, and the traffic metric — tested users — comes with visible tier boundaries from 50K up to above 2M, so a buyer can at least locate their tier. But no price figures for any paid tier appear on the captured pages, SSO pricing 'will be discussed after the trial', and we found no public information on overage rates or module prices, so the annual invoice cannot be computed before the contract. 2 4 6
The Data Protection Officer
A free tier without credit card and a thirty-day trial are public, and the traffic metric is shown as tested users in bands from 50K up to more than 2M with monthly and annual billing. We found no public prices for any paid tier, no overage terms and no VAT treatment, single sign-on is priced only in discussion after the trial, and the terms reserve the right to change prices on thirty days' notice. 2 4
The Skeptic
The traffic metric and its tier boundaries are public — tested users from fifty thousand up to over two million, monthly or annual — alongside a free tier and a thirty-day trial. But we found no public price figures for any paid tier, no overage terms, and enterprise single sign-on is priced only in conversation after the trial, so a buyer cannot compute the real annual cost from public pages alone. 2 4
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 RO | 3/3 pts | 4 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
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 — 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.
- 23 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
- 6 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 data 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
- 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
- 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
Sources (8)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.omniconvert.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.omniconvert.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.omniconvert.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service www.omniconvert.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Experiment types & delivery — found from sitemap www.omniconvert.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Experiment types & delivery — found from sitemap www.omniconvert.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Statistical method & guardrails — found from sitemap www.omniconvert.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Analytics, data export & integrations — found from sitemap www.omniconvert.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →