Conversion Optimization
Plerdy
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Plerdy · plerdy.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.
Plerdy at a glance
- Vendor
- Plerdy
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Default not stated; pages mention Germany source, captured 20 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Plerdy 1.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Plerdy, a conversion-optimisation platform, comes out of this bench strongest on statistics and weakest on performance. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 20 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 21 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Plerdy, a conversion-optimisation platform, comes out of this bench strongest on statistics and weakest on performance. Statistical rigour scores cluster at 4 to 5: the free significance and sample-size calculators name frequentist and Bayesian framings and publish their formula and finite-population correction, though we found no public information on peeking protection or sample ratio mismatch detection. Performance impact scores sit at 1 — the only claim captured is "Zero Server Load" beside a required tracking code, with no public information on script size, loading behaviour or Core Web Vitals impact. Experimentation scope scores run 2 to 3, a client-side tool with HTML/CSS variants, targeting by device, country and traffic source, and no public evidence of server-side SDKs, multivariate or split-URL tests. Consent and tracking splits 2 to 3: the no-cookies statement and local-storage list earn credit, while no public information exists on storage lifetimes or pre-consent script behaviour. Sovereignty sits at 3 with the data protection officer at 4 — Germany-hosted Hetzner infrastructure against an unstated contracting-entity jurisdiction — and no prices are public beyond a free 14-day trial.
Speaks for it
- Free statistical significance and sample-size calculators publish their formula, finite-population correction and stated assumptions such as simple random sampling and independent observations.
- Client-side tests offer audience targeting by device type, country and traffic source with per-test end dates and running, concluded or draft statuses.
- The privacy policy states no cookies are used, lists local-storage contents such as user sessions and traffic channels, and says that data is not shared with third parties.
- The security policy states the server sits in Germany in a Hetzner data centre certified to ISO 27001.
- Documented integrations cover Google Analytics 4 event goals, Google Search Console, a Shopify App Store listing and read-only AI access through Claude and ChatGPT.
Held against it
- Performance impact scores sit at 1, and the only claim captured is 'Zero Server Load' with no public information on script size, loading behaviour, flicker handling or Core Web Vitals impact.
- We found no public information on server-side SDKs, feature flags, multivariate, split-URL or multi-page tests, holdouts or personalisation.
- We found no public information on what the tracking script does before a visitor consents, on consent management platform integrations, on storage lifetimes or on IP anonymisation.
- We found no public information on a documented API, result export or visitor-level data, so a reported lift can be checked only in the vendor's dashboard and GA4.
- We found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction or a subprocessor list, transfers are described only by category, and Cloudflare supplies the SSL certificate.
Best for
- You need no-code client-side A/B tests that marketers can build from HTML and CSS tweaks without a developer.
- You want test-planning statistics spelled out publicly — sample-size formulas, significance conventions, power — so you can defend the numbers internally.
- Your stack is already Google Analytics 4 and Shopify and documented event-goal wiring and an app-store listing matter to you.
- You require hosting that the vendor itself states is in Germany, on Hetzner infrastructure certified to ISO 27001, as a baseline.
Avoid if
- Your programme needs server-side or SDK delivery, feature flags, or multivariate and split-URL tests; experimentation scope scores sit at 2 to 3 for a client-side tool.
- Your data protection officer must sign off on pre-consent script behaviour, storage lifetimes and a subprocessor list before deployment; consent and tracking scores spread 2 to 3.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Experiment types & delivery | 1.5 of 5 |
| Statistical method & guardrails | 2.5 of 5 |
| Consent & visitor tracking | 1.5 of 5 |
| Snippet performance & flicker | 0.5 of 5 |
| Analytics, data export & integrations | 1.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1.5 of 5 |
Experiment types & delivery
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What can be tested and where: client-side changes through an editor, server-side and feature experiments through SDKs, multivariate and multi-page tests, and personalisation — judged on what the documentation shows rather than on the feature grid.
0 — Simple A/B split of one page element through a visual editor; no server-side option, no targeting beyond URL.
3 — Client-side A/B and split-URL tests with basic audience targeting, and no SDK or server-side delivery.
5 — Client-side and server-side experiments through documented SDKs for common languages, multivariate and multi-page tests, audience targeting on behaviour and attributes, and rule-based personalisation.
8 — Feature-flag-based experiments sharing one audience and metric model with web tests, mutually exclusive experiment groups, holdouts, edge or CDN delivery, and personalisation that can itself be tested against a control.
10 — One experimentation programme across every surface: web, app, server and edge from the same platform, experiment interactions managed, a documented experiment lifecycle from hypothesis to archived result, and a library of past results a team can search.
The Growth Lead
The captured pages show client-side A/B tests with variant editing through an easy HTML/CSS interface and targeting by device type, country and traffic source — that is genuine audience targeting beyond the URL and about what my marketers can run without a developer. Beyond that the documentation stops: I found no public information on server-side SDKs, multivariate or multi-page tests, or personalisation. 3
The E-Commerce Manager
The A/B tool page shows client-side tests edited through HTML and CSS tweaks, audience targeting by device, country and traffic source, and statuses of running, concluded or draft — all delivered through an extra tracking code. We found no public information on server-side or SDK delivery, multivariate or split-URL tests, and none on personalisation that can be tested against a control, which is the thing I actually buy for. 3 4
The Product Engineer
What is documented is a client-side editor: variants are HTML and CSS tweaks, targeting covers device type, country and traffic source, and delivery needs an extra tracking code placed on the page. I found no public information on server-side SDKs, feature flags, multivariate or multi-page tests, holdouts or personalisation, so this is a client-side tool and nothing more. 3
The CRO Consultant
The A/B testing pages show client-side tests with HTML and CSS variant edits, audience targeting by device type, country and traffic source, and test statuses from draft through running to concluded. I found no public information on split-URL, multivariate or multi-page tests, personalisation, or any SDK or server-side delivery. 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
The documentation shows client-side A/B tests edited through HTML and CSS tweaks, audience targeting by device type, country and traffic source, and per-test end dates with statuses of running, concluded or draft. I found no public information on server-side or SDK delivery, split-URL tests, multivariate tests, feature flags, holdouts or edge delivery. 3
The Skeptic
The captured A/B testing pages show a client-side tool: variants built from HTML and CSS tweaks, a required tracking code, a test end date, and targeting by device type, country and traffic source. We found no public information on server-side SDKs, feature flags, multivariate or multi-page tests, holdouts or mutual exclusion, so the evidence supports client-side delivery with basic audience targeting and no public evidence of anything beyond it. 3
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 vendor publishes a free significance calculator that names the method — a frequentist p-value view alongside a Bayesian framing — with alpha 0.05, one- and two-sided testing, power explained, and a separate sample-size calculator whose assumptions are spelled out, which is groundwork I could defend to the board. However, I found no public information on protections against peeking, corrections for multiple variants or metrics, or sample ratio mismatch detection. 4 5
The E-Commerce Manager
The calculator pages document their method by name — a frequentist p-value with a Bayesian view alongside — and the sample size tool publishes its formula, finite population correction and assumptions, with power and the 0.05 convention explained for when a result may be read. We found no public information on protection against peeking, on correction for multiple metrics or variants, or on sample ratio mismatch detection, so the stopping decision stays mine alone. 4 5
The Product Engineer
The free calculators do more than most: both frequentist and Bayesian views are named, p-values are read against alpha 0.05 with one- and two-sided options, statistical power is discussed, and a sample-size calculator documents its assumptions including simple random sampling and finite population correction. Those are calculator pages rather than evidence of how the platform guards a live test, though — I found no public information on peeking protection, correction for multiple metrics or variants, or sample ratio mismatch detection. 4 5
The CRO Consultant
Both a statistical significance calculator and a sample-size calculator are published free, with the frequentist and Bayesian framings explained, assumptions written out (simple random sampling, independent observations, finite population correction), and guidance on when a result may be read (p-value against the 0.05 convention, power, one- or two-sided choice). I found no public information on protections against peeking, multiple-comparison correction, sample ratio mismatch detection or guardrail metrics in the product's own reporting. 4 5
The Data Protection Officer
The sample-size calculator publishes its formula, finite-population correction and assumptions (simple random sampling, independent observations), and the significance calculator explains p-values, one- and two-sided tests, alpha 0.05 and statistical power, with guidance on when a result may be read. I found no public information on protection against peeking, multiple-comparison correction, sample ratio mismatch detection, variance reduction or guardrail metrics. 4 5
The Skeptic
The significance calculator names a frequentist p-value test with alpha 0.05, one- and two-sided options and statistical power, and the sample-size calculator publishes its formula, finite-population correction and assumptions — more method than most vendors show. But we found no public information on sequential testing or any guard against peeking, multiple-comparison correction, or sample ratio mismatch detection, and the worked example pronounces "I am 99% certain" without documenting the machinery behind that number; I read that as marketing, not method. 4 5
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 lists what lands in the browser's local storage — user sessions, traffic channels, IP verification, popup-closing states — and states that no cookies are set, though that statement is framed around the vendor's own websites, and I found no public information on what the tracking script does before a visitor consents. I also found no public information on consent management platform integrations, storage lifetimes or IP anonymisation, which is exactly what I need documented for §25 TDDDG. 7 6
The E-Commerce Manager
The privacy policy states that no cookies are set and lists what local storage holds on the visitor's device — sessions, traffic channels, IP verification, popup closing states — with no third-party sharing, and the GDPR page says heatmaps carry no personal data. We found no public information on what the tracking code does before a visitor consents, on integration with consent management platforms, or on storage lifetimes, which is what §25 TDDDG turns on for my shop. 6 7
The Product Engineer
The privacy policy states that no cookies are set and lists what local storage holds on the device — sessions, traffic channels, IP verification, popup states — without third-party sharing, which is more disclosure than most. But nothing says what the script does before consent is given, and I found no public information on storage lifetimes, consent management platform integration or a consent-pending mode; the only consent pop-up described is for the business client, not the visitor. 7 6
The CRO Consultant
The privacy policy lists what local storage holds (user sessions, traffic channels, IP verification, popup closing states) and states cookies are not set on Plerdy's own websites, while the GDPR page says heatmaps carry no personal data and no video or screenshots. I found no public information on when the tracking script runs relative to visitor consent, consent-management-platform integration, storage lifetimes or IP anonymisation — nothing a client's data protection officer could sign off on yet. 6 7
The Data Protection Officer
The pages state that no cookies are set and that browser local storage holds user sessions, traffic channels, IP verification and form popup closing states, but the list ends in "etc." with no storage keys or lifetimes. I found no public information on whether the A/B tracking script runs before a visitor answers the consent banner, on a consent-pending mode, or on integration with consent management platforms — the only consent pop-up described is for the customer's own agreement to processing, and IP anonymisation is not described anywhere I could find. 3 6 7
The Skeptic
The privacy policy states that Plerdy does not use cookies and lists what local storage holds — user sessions, traffic channels, IP verification, form popup closing states — which is more disclosure than most pages give. But we found no public information on what the script does before a visitor consents, on consent management platform integrations, on storage lifetimes or on IP anonymisation, so the cookieless claim cannot be verified as consent-safe under §25 TDDDG. 7
Snippet performance & flicker
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The cost the client-side snippet imposes on the page it tests: blocking load, flicker of original content, script weight and the effect on Core Web Vitals — scored on what the vendor measures and publishes, not on "lightning fast".
0 — A synchronous snippet with no stated size, no flicker handling and no mention of performance.
3 — An anti-flicker snippet that hides the page until the test loads, with a timeout, and no published figures for script size or load cost.
5 — Script size and loading behaviour documented, asynchronous loading option, flicker handling explained with its trade-off, and CDN delivery of the snippet.
8 — Published performance figures including impact on Core Web Vitals, a self-hosting or first-party-domain option for the script, per-project bundles containing only active experiments, and a server-side or edge alternative for flicker-sensitive tests.
10 — Performance is a stated commitment: measured overhead published and maintained, flicker eliminated by edge or server-side rendering as a documented path, and tooling that shows the customer what their own configuration costs the page.
The Growth Lead
The only performance claim I can find is "Zero Server Load", which speaks to the customer's server rather than to what the required tracking code costs the visitor's page. I found no public information on script size, asynchronous loading, flicker handling or any Core Web Vitals figures. 3 2
The E-Commerce Manager
The one performance figure on the captured pages is "Zero Server Load", which speaks to my server and says nothing about what the client snippet costs the product page. We found no public information on script size, asynchronous loading, anti-flicker handling or Core Web Vitals impact — for a shop where a tenth of a second shows in the conversion rate, that is the first thing I would have to test at my own risk. 3
The Product Engineer
The testing page claims zero server load and requires an extra tracking code on the page, but I found no public information on script size, loading behaviour, flicker handling, self-hosting or any measured effect on Core Web Vitals. A performance claim with no published figures behind it does not clear the bar. 3
The CRO Consultant
The published claims are "Zero Server Load" and a required extra tracking code, with no figures for script size, loading behaviour, flicker handling or Core Web Vitals impact. "Zero Server Load" concerns the vendor's servers rather than the cost the snippet imposes on the customer's page. 3
The Data Protection Officer
The only performance statements I found are a claim of zero server load and a Cloudflare SSL certificate, and neither addresses the cost the snippet imposes on the visitor's page. I found no public information on script size, asynchronous loading, anti-flicker handling with a timeout, self-hosting, or measured effects on Core Web Vitals. 2 3
The Skeptic
The only performance statement captured is a "Zero Server Load" claim next to a required tracking code; we found no public information on script size, asynchronous loading, flicker handling or Core Web Vitals impact. Without one published figure, the cost the snippet imposes on the customer's page is unknown. 3
Analytics, data export & integrations
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Getting results and raw data out: integration with analytics and tag management, export of visitor-level results, warehouse-native analysis, and an API — because an experiment result that cannot be checked in the customer's own data is a claim, not a finding.
0 — Results visible in the vendor's dashboard only; no export, no analytics integration, no API.
3 — CSV export of aggregated results and one analytics integration, with no visitor-level data and no documented API.
5 — Integrations with common analytics and tag managers, export of results, and a documented API for managing experiments and reading results.
8 — Visitor-level raw data export or streaming to a data warehouse, warehouse-native analysis on the customer's own metrics, CDP integration for audiences, and an API with stated limits.
10 — The platform treats the customer's warehouse as the source of truth: metrics defined once and computed there, full historical experiment data exportable in open formats, and a versioned API a team can build its own programme tooling on.
The Growth Lead
Google Analytics 4 event integration, Search Console, a Shopify App Store listing and read-only AI connectors to Claude and ChatGPT are evidenced, which covers the basic wiring. But I found no public information on exporting results or visitor-level data and no documented API for managing experiments, so a result cross-checked in our own data is not something these pages support. 3 1
The E-Commerce Manager
Event goals such as button clicks and thank-you page views can be pushed into Google Analytics 4, there is a Search Console integration and a Shopify App Store listing, and a read-only connection lets Claude or ChatGPT read heatmaps and revenue. We found no public information on exporting results or visitor-level data, on a documented API with limits, or on warehouse delivery — a result I cannot verify in my own analytics is the vendor's word, not a finding. 1 3
The Product Engineer
GA4 event goals, Google Search Console and a Shopify App Store listing are documented, plus read-only MCP access for Claude and ChatGPT over heatmaps, sessions and revenue. I found no public information on a documented API, export of results or visitor-level data, or any data warehouse path — as far as the evidence goes, results live only in the vendor's dashboard. 1 3
The CRO Consultant
Google Analytics 4 event-goal integration, Google Search Console, a Shopify App Store listing and a read-only connection to Claude or ChatGPT are all documented. I found no public information on a documented API, visitor-level export or warehouse delivery, so an experiment result can be checked only in the vendor's own reporting and in GA4. 1 3
The Data Protection Officer
Google Analytics 4 event goals, Google Search Console and a Shopify App Store listing are shown, together with read-only AI access to heatmaps, sessions, errors and revenue through Claude and ChatGPT. I found no public information on export of aggregated results, visitor-level data export, a documented API, or delivery to a data warehouse. 1 3
The Skeptic
GA4 event goals, Google Search Console, a Shopify App Store listing and read-only AI access via Claude and ChatGPT are documented, so results leave the dashboard in some form. We found no public information on result export, visitor-level raw data or a documented API, which means a reported lift cannot be independently re-checked in the customer's own data — a claim, not a finding. 3 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
Hosting is documented as standard in Germany at a Hetzner data centre certified DIN ISO/IEC 27001, which is a solid start for a German team. The contracting entity's jurisdiction is not stated, the pages describe transfers to legal and tax consultants, accounting, marketing and IT services without a subprocessor list, and the SSL chain runs through Cloudflare — I found no public information tying the entity or the full chain to the EU. 2 7
The E-Commerce Manager
The security page states the server sits in Germany in a Hetzner data centre certified to ISO/IEC 27001, which is where my visitors' behaviour would be processed. We found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, and the subprocessor chain is not published — the privacy policy names categories such as consultants, accounting, marketing and IT services, and the security page names Cloudflare for the certificate — so I cannot see everyone who touches the data. 2 7
The Product Engineer
The security policy puts the server in a Hetzner data centre in Germany, ISO 27001 certified, with the vendor acting as processor under TLS 1.3 and pseudonymisation. But I found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction or a subprocessor list, third-party transfer is described only by broad category such as consultants and IT services, and Cloudflare sits in the chain providing the SSL certificate. 2 7
The CRO Consultant
The security policy states the server is located in Germany in a Hetzner data centre certified to ISO/IEC 27001, which places processing of visitor data in the EU on named infrastructure. I found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, no published subprocessor list (transfers are described generically to consultants, accounting, marketing and IT services), and the SSL certificate is supplied by Cloudflare, so the chain is not evidenced end to end. 2 7
The Data Protection Officer
The server is stated to sit in Germany in an ISO 27001-certified Hetzner data centre, which puts visitor-data hosting in the EU as standard rather than as an add-on. The contracting entity's jurisdiction is not stated on the captured pages, the parties data may be transferred to are named only as categories — legal and tax consultants, accounting, marketing and IT services — and I found no published subprocessor list; Cloudflare appears in the chain as the SSL provider without a stated safeguard. 2 7
The Skeptic
The vendor's own security policy places the server in Germany on Hetzner with ISO 27001, but the independently sourced attributes could not establish the contracting entity's jurisdiction, ownership or data residency, and the privacy policy invokes Ukrainian and Russian data protection law alongside GDPR. We found no public information on a subprocessor list, and Cloudflare is named for the SSL certificate without a stated safeguard for that part of the chain. 2 7
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 14-day trial" and a free-tool offer are public, and AI access is said to be available "On all paid plans", which confirms paid tiers exist. I found no public information on paid tier prices, the traffic metric, tier limits or overage, so the annual invoice is not computable from public pages. 1 3
The E-Commerce Manager
What is public is a free 14-day trial and free tools, and we found no public information on tier prices, on the traffic metric a tier is counted in, on limits, overage, minimum term or VAT. The annual invoice for a December traffic spike is therefore pure guesswork — exactly the tier-jump I try to avoid. 1 3 5
The Product Engineer
A 14-day free trial and free-tool marketing copy are public, but I found no public prices for any paid tier, no traffic metric and no limits or overage terms. With AI access described as available "on all paid plans" and no plan priced anywhere on the captured pages, the annual invoice cannot be computed from public information. 1 3 5
The CRO Consultant
A 14-day free trial is public, the A/B testing page markets a complimentary tool, and AI features are described as available "on all paid plans" — the captured pages give different figures for what the tool costs. I found no public tier prices, no defined traffic metric, no traffic limits and no overage terms, so a client cannot estimate the annual invoice before signing. 1 3
The Data Protection Officer
A free 14-day trial and a complimentary A/B testing tool are published, so a starting point exists. I found no public information on paid tier prices, the traffic metric used for billing, traffic limits, overage treatment, module prices or term lengths, so a buyer cannot compute an annual invoice from the captured pages. 1 3 5
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Plerdy
Is Plerdy European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Plerdy is based.
Where does Plerdy store data?
The default storage location for customer data is not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026. The vendor’s pages mention Germany as hosting location, per the vendor’s page captured 20 Oct 2026.
Does Plerdy have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Plerdy?
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: Plerdy alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 20 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- 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.
- 8 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
- 5 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
- 3 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 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
- 1 hosting 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 legal fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (7)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page plerdy.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Security / trust page — found from the homepage www.plerdy.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Experiment types & delivery — found from sitemap www.plerdy.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Experiment types & delivery — found from sitemap www.plerdy.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Statistical method & guardrails — found from sitemap www.plerdy.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Consent & visitor tracking — found from sitemap www.plerdy.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Consent & visitor tracking — found from sitemap www.plerdy.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →