Conversion Optimization
Statsig
Rest of world Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 3 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Statsig, Inc. · www.statsig.com
Compare with GrowthBook → 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
Statsig — which its site describes as part of the Amplitude family — is an experimentation, feature-flag and product-analytics platform, strongest on statistical rigour and pricing transparency (both 7) on publicly named methods (sequential testing, CUPED, Bonferroni and Benjamini-Hochberg corrections, winsorization, power analysis) and self-serve tiers a buyer can compute: free Developer at 2M events per month, Pro at $150 /mo with 5M events included then $0.05 per 1K events, enterprise Custom. Experimentation scope scores 6-7 and data and integrations 6-8, on warehouse-native deployment and 30+ open-source SDKs. Weakest are consent and tracking and sovereignty (3): the only consent material is Amplitude's site-wide privacy notice, the terms are governed by Washington law, the privacy notice states personal data may be transferred to the United States, and EU hosting appears only inside enterprise warehouse-native deployment. Performance impact is the genuine split (1 to 4): the growth lead scored 4, crediting sub-millisecond post-init evaluation and server-side SDKs; the agency consultant scored 1, noting no published figure covers the snippet's cost to the page.
Speaks for it
- Statistical rigour scores 7 on publicly named methods — sequential testing, CUPED, Bonferroni and Benjamini-Hochberg corrections, winsorization and power analysis.
- Self-serve pricing is computable, with a free Developer tier at 2M events per month (no credit card required) and Pro at $150 /mo with 5M events included then $0.05 per 1K events.
- Data and integrations scores run 6–8 on published warehouse-native deployment, warehouse ingestion, a data export API and 30+ open-source SDKs.
- Experimentation scope scores 6–7, with feature flags tied directly to product data plus layers, holdouts, autotune and a no-code editor.
- Exposure deduplication windows (60 minutes on client SDKs, 1 minute on server SDKs) and the no-charge rule for 0% and 100% rollouts are documented.
Held against it
- Consent and tracking scores run 2–3, with the only captured consent material being Amplitude's site-wide privacy notice and we found no public information on what the test script does before consent or on consent-platform integration.
- Performance impact is the flagged disagreement, with the only published figure being post-init evaluation latency under 1ms rather than the snippet's cost to the page.
- Sovereignty scores sit at 3 on a Washington-law contract, an Amplitude, Inc. privacy notice stating personal data may be transferred to the United States, and EU hosting only inside the enterprise warehouse-native deployment.
- We found no public information on sample-ratio-mismatch detection or guardrail metrics that stop a harmful test, which judges cite in holding statistical rigour below the top.
- The enterprise tier — carrying warehouse native, outgoing integrations, SSO and standalone analytics — is priced Custom, and we found no public information on seat pricing.
Best for
- You want experiment results re-runnable in your own data — warehouse-native deployment, warehouse ingestion and a data export API are published, and data and integrations scores run 6-8.
- You need to estimate an invoice before committing — the free Developer tier (2M events per month, no credit card required) and Pro ($150 /mo, 5M events included, then $0.05 per 1K events) are fully priced, with overages billed in the next period.
- You want named statistical protections — sequential testing, CUPED, Bonferroni and Benjamini-Hochberg corrections — behind each winning variant.
- You deliver tests server-side first — 30+ open-source SDKs are published alongside client-side tests through a no-code editor.
Avoid if
- You must document consent behaviour for a German deployment under §25 TDDDG — consent and tracking scores run 2-3 and the captured privacy pages are Amplitude's site-wide notice.
- Your pages are sensitive to script weight or flicker — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You need an EU contracting or processing chain — sovereignty scores sit at 3, with Washington law governing the terms and EU hosting only inside the enterprise warehouse-native deployment.
- You want warehouse native, outgoing integrations or SSO at a computable price — these sit on the Custom-priced enterprise tier.
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 no-code editor means my team can build client-side tests without a developer, and open-source SDKs in thirty-plus languages plus warehouse-native deployment give us server-side testing on the same flag and metric model, with layers, holdouts and autotune for experiment interactions. The captured pages are silent on edge or CDN delivery, on multivariate and multi-page tests, and on any documented experiment lifecycle or searchable library of past results. 1 2
The E-Commerce Manager
The published capability list gives me feature flags tied to product data, layers, holdouts, autotune, a no-code editor and 30+ SDKs — the flag-plus-metric machinery I want under one audience model. We found no public information on personalisation that can itself be tested against a control, on edge or CDN delivery, or on multivariate and multi-page tests. 1 2
The Product Engineer
This is the shape I want: feature flags, experiments and product analytics in one platform, with layers for mutual exclusion, holdouts, autotune, a no-code editor and 30-plus open-source SDKs in almost every language, so server-side delivery is a first-class path. What holds it back from the top end: we found no public information on edge or CDN delivery, and most of the evidence is a feature grid rather than documentation showing how these pieces work together. 1 2
The CRO Consultant
Feature flags, layers for mutually exclusive experiments, holdouts, a no-code editor and a shared metric model with product analytics and session replay, plus 30+ open-source SDKs for server-side delivery, take this well past a basic split test. We found no public information on edge or CDN delivery or on personalisation that can itself be tested against a control, which is what separates this from the top tier. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages show client-side testing through a no-code editor and server-side delivery through open-source SDKs for over thirty languages, with layers and holdouts for managing experiment interactions and attribute- and segment-based targeting. Feature flags are described as linked directly to product data, which supports one shared audience and metric model. We found no public information on edge or CDN delivery, multivariate or multi-page tests, or a documented lifecycle from hypothesis to archived result. 1 2
The Skeptic
The capability list names server-side delivery through 30+ open-source SDKs, feature flags tied directly to product data, layers and holdouts, switchback and non-inferiority tests, a no-code editor and marketing experiments — broad by any standard. But what the captures show is a feature grid: we found no public information on edge or CDN delivery, on personalisation that can itself be tested against a control, or on a documented experiment lifecycle, so I hold it in the middle of the range. 1 2
Statistical method & guardrails
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Which statistics decide the winner and what protects the customer from misreading them. Scored on what the vendor documents: the method by name, how peeking and multiple comparisons are handled, and whether sample ratio mismatch is detected.
0 — A "winner" or "probability to beat" figure with no documented method, no stated sample-size guidance and no warning against stopping early.
3 — The method is named (frequentist or Bayesian) but its assumptions are not documented, and nothing prevents a test from being called while it is still underpowered.
5 — Documented method with confidence or credible intervals, a sample-size or test-duration calculator, and stated guidance on when a result may be read.
8 — Sequential testing or an equivalent documented protection against peeking, correction for multiple metrics or variants, sample ratio mismatch detection, variance reduction such as CUPED, and guardrail metrics that can stop a harmful test.
10 — The statistics are auditable: methodology published in enough detail to reproduce a result, the choice of method explained per use case, raw per-visitor data available for independent re-analysis, and the interface refuses to present an underpowered result as a conclusion.
The Growth Lead
Sequential testing, CUPED, Bonferroni and Benjamini-Hochberg corrections, winsorization and power analysis are all named in public — enough that I can tell the board which method decided each winner — and warehouse-native deployment lets finance re-run the analysis on our own data. We found no public information on sample ratio mismatch detection, on guardrail metrics that could stop a harmful test, or on a methodology write-up detailed enough to reproduce a result. 2 1
The E-Commerce Manager
Sequential testing, CUPED, Winsorization, Bonferroni and Benjamini-Hochberg corrections, switchback and non-inferiority tests, plus power analysis, are all named publicly — real peeking and multiple-comparison protection for my conversion numbers. We found no public information on sample-ratio-mismatch detection, on guardrail metrics that halt a harmful test, or on whether the engine is frequentist or Bayesian. 1 2
The Product Engineer
Sequential testing, CUPED, Bonferroni and Benjamini-Hochberg corrections, winsorization and power analysis are all named — a real defence against peeking, variance and multiple comparisons. But we found no public information on sample ratio mismatch detection or guardrail metrics that can stop a harmful test, and the techniques appear as names on a pricing page with no documented assumptions behind them. 2 1
The CRO Consultant
Sequential testing, CUPED, Winsorization, Bonferroni and Benjamini-Hochberg corrections are all named, plus power analysis in the platform list, so the peeking and multiple-comparison risks I brief clients on are addressed explicitly. We found no public information on sample ratio mismatch detection or guardrail metrics that can stop a harmful test, and the methods appear as feature bullets rather than documented assumptions. 2 1
The Data Protection Officer
The methods are named on the pricing page: sequential testing, CUPED, Bonferroni and Benjamini-Hochberg corrections, and winsorization, and power analysis appears in the platform capability list. That goes well beyond naming a school of statistics. We found no public information on sample ratio mismatch detection, guardrail metrics that stop a harmful test, or a methodology published in enough detail to reproduce a result. 1 2
The Skeptic
The pricing page names the techniques I read for first: CUPED for variance reduction, Bonferroni and Benjamini-Hochberg for multiple comparisons, winsorization, sequential testing against peeking, plus a power analysis tool for sizing. That is more than one method by name — peeking protection and multiple-comparison correction are both called out. But we found no public information on sample ratio mismatch detection or guardrail metrics that stop a harmful test, and the assumptions behind the named procedures are not documented, so it stays short of the top of the range. 2 1
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 notice lists cookie categories — essential, performance, functionality, advertising — and says Global Privacy Control is honoured where required by law, but we found no public information on what the test script stores or does before consent is given, no published list of cookies with their lifetimes, and no consent-platform integration or cookieless mode for a German deployment under §25 TDDDG. 3
The E-Commerce Manager
The captured privacy pages are Amplitude's site-wide notice: cookie categories including advertising are listed, consent is named among the legal bases, and Global Privacy Control is honoured where law requires. We found no public information on what the Statsig script does before consent, on consent-platform integration, on a cookieless mode, or on anything addressing §25 TDDDG. 3
The Product Engineer
The consent-relevant content we found is Amplitude's site-wide privacy notice naming essential, performance, functionality and advertising cookies plus web beacons — and an advertising category is an odd companion for a test script. We found no public information on what the Statsig script does before consent, any consent management platform integration, a cookieless or consent-pending mode, or cookie lifetimes. 3
The CRO Consultant
The only consent-relevant material is Amplitude's site-wide privacy notice, which lists cookie categories and legal bases but nothing Statsig-specific about the test script. We found no public information on what the script does before consent is given, no consent-management integration, no published list of storage keys with lifetimes and no mapping to §25 TDDDG — this is not something I could hand a client's DPO. 3
The Data Protection Officer
The only statement we found about what is stored on the device is Amplitude's general list of cookie categories — essential, performance, functionality, advertising — and we found no public information listing Statsig's storage keys, their lifetimes, or IP anonymisation. Critically, we found no public information on whether the test script may run before the consent banner is answered, on a consent-pending mode, on a cookieless mode, or on integration with consent management platforms, so the §25 TDDDG question a German buyer must answer is unaddressed on these pages. 3
The Skeptic
The only captured statement on device storage is Amplitude's site-wide privacy notice, which lists essential, performance, functionality and advertising cookies and web beacons, names consent among the legal bases, and honours Global Privacy Control where required by law. We found no public information on what the Statsig script stores or does before consent, on consent management platform integrations, on a cookieless mode, or on how testing maps to §25 TDDDG. 3
Snippet performance & flicker
panel disagrees
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
A sub-millisecond post-init evaluation latency is published and the open-source server-side SDKs give an alternative path for flicker-sensitive tests, which lifts this above the basics. We found no public information on script weight, loading behaviour, anti-flicker handling or Core Web Vitals impact — and the one published figure covers evaluation after initialisation, not what the visitor's page pays. 1 2
The E-Commerce Manager
The only performance figures I can find are post-init evaluation latency under 1ms and 99.99% infrastructure uptime — nothing about what the snippet does to my product page. We found no public information on script weight, flicker handling, asynchronous loading or Core Web Vitals impact, and for a shop where a tenth of a second shows up in the conversion rate that is the question I most needed answered. 1 2
The Product Engineer
The one performance figure published is post-init evaluation latency under 1 millisecond, which describes SDK evaluation speed rather than what the snippet costs the page. We found no public information on script weight, flicker handling, Core Web Vitals impact or a self-hosting option; warehouse-native deployment is the evidenced alternative path for flicker-sensitive pages. 1 2
The CRO Consultant
The only published figure is post-init evaluation latency under 1ms for the SDK, which says nothing about what the snippet costs the client's page. We found no public information on script size, anti-flicker handling, impact on Core Web Vitals, or a self-hosting option for the script. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The pages publish figures for the vendor's own infrastructure — post-init evaluation latency under 1ms and 99.99% uptime for API and console — not the cost the snippet imposes on the customer's page. We found no public information on script size, loading behaviour, flicker handling, a self-hosting option, or any effect on Core Web Vitals. 1
The Skeptic
The one published figure is post-init evaluation latency under 1ms, which measures SDK evaluation speed, not what a snippet costs the page it tests. We found no public information on script size, anti-flicker handling and its trade-off, impact on Core Web Vitals, or a self-hosting option for the script. 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
Warehouse-native deployment runs the experiment analysis in our own warehouse, and warehouse ingestion, outgoing integrations and a data export API are all listed — this is what lets me defend an uplift number with our own data when finance asks. We found no public information naming which analytics or CDP tools are supported, or on API rate limits and versioning. 2 1
The E-Commerce Manager
Warehouse-native deployment — running Statsig in my own data warehouse — plus a data export API, warehouse ingestion and incoming and outgoing integrations are all published, which is how I would verify a lift claim against my own numbers. We found no public information on visitor-level export, CDP audience integration, or API rate limits. 1 2
The Product Engineer
Warehouse-native is the headline I care about: run Statsig in your own warehouse, with warehouse ingestion, data warehouse imports, outgoing integrations and a data export API named alongside it. We found no public information on CDP integration for audiences, stated API limits, or full historical experiment export in open formats. 2 1
The CRO Consultant
Warehouse-native deployment, warehouse ingestion and a data export API are published, which matters to me because a result can be checked in the client's own data. The outgoing data integrations sit on the enterprise tier, and we found no public information on CDP-based audiences or stated API limits. 2 1
The Data Protection Officer
Warehouse-native deployment, warehouse ingestion and data warehouse imports, outgoing data integrations, and a data export API are all listed, which lets results be checked against the customer's own data. We found no public information on visitor-level raw export formats, a CDP integration for audiences, or documented API rate limits. 1 2
The Skeptic
Warehouse native deployment — running the platform in the customer's own warehouse — is described on the pricing page alongside incoming data integrations, warehouse ingestion and a data export API, and that is the claim that makes an experiment result checkable in the customer's own data. But outgoing integrations and warehouse imports sit in the enterprise tier, and we found no public information on visitor-level export detail or documented API limits. 2
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 entities are Statsig, LLC in Bellevue and Amplitude, Inc. in San Francisco, the privacy notice says personal data may be transferred to the United States, and the only named processors are Google for login and Stripe for payments via Amplitude's site-wide notice; standard contractual clauses and the Data Privacy Framework are cited as safeguards. EU hosting is mentioned only within the enterprise warehouse-native offering, and we found no public information on EU processing of visitor data as standard. 4 3 2
The E-Commerce Manager
EU hosting appears only as an enterprise, warehouse-native line item, while the contracting entity is Statsig, LLC under Washington State law and the privacy notice states personal data may be transferred to the United States with standard contractual clauses as a safeguard. The captured pages name only Google for login and Stripe for payments; we found no published subprocessor list and no EU processing commitment for the testing script itself. 1 2 3 4
The Product Engineer
The chain runs through American entities — Amplitude, Inc. in San Francisco on the privacy notice, Washington State law governing the terms, and a notice that personal data may be transferred to the United States with consent, backed by standard contractual clauses. EU hosting appears only within the enterprise warehouse-native deployment, and the subprocessor names we found — Google for login and Stripe for payments — sit in Amplitude's site-wide notice rather than a Statsig-specific list. 3 4 2
The CRO Consultant
The contracting entities are Statsig, LLC of Bellevue and Amplitude, Inc. of San Francisco under Washington law, and the privacy notice states personal data may be transferred to the United States with standard contractual clauses as safeguard. EU hosting appears as a warehouse-native feature on the pricing page, but the captured pages give different signals on residency and we found no published Statsig subprocessor list or DPA covering the visitor data the script collects. 1 3 4 2
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entities are American — Statsig in Bellevue under Washington law, with the privacy notice resolving to Amplitude in San Francisco — and the notice states personal data may be transferred to the United States. EU hosting appears only inside the warehouse-native enterprise option, so visitor data is not processed in the EU as standard. We found no public information on a Statsig-specific subprocessor list naming the CDN; Google and Stripe appear only incidentally in Amplitude's site-wide notice, though standard contractual clauses are mentioned as a possible safeguard. 1 2 3 4
The Skeptic
The contracting and processing chain is American: the terms are governed by Washington law, and the privacy notice names Amplitude, Inc. of San Francisco as controller of visitor personal data, with transfers to the United States covered by standard contractual clauses and the Data Privacy Framework. 'EU hosting' appears on the pricing page only inside the enterprise warehouse-native deployment, and the captured pages name just Google and Stripe as subprocessors in passing — we found no published subprocessor list or a Statsig-specific residency statement, so this sits at the level of an EU option on a non-EU contract. 3 4 2 1
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 traffic metric is events and it is unusually well defined: free at 2M events per month with no credit card, Pro at $150/mo with 5M events included then $0.05 per 1K events, overages billed in the next period, one-month auto-renewing terms, and taxes stated as the customer's responsibility — I can compute a Pro invoice myself, right down to how exposure deduplication works. Warehouse-native and standalone analytics sit on the enterprise Custom tier, so the full stack my team would actually want remains a sales conversation. 2 4
The E-Commerce Manager
The paid tiers are unusually computable: Pro at $150 /mo with 5M events included and $0.05 per 1K events overage billed next period, a free Developer tier at 2M events per month, session-replay caps, dedup windows, what is not charged, monthly renewal with 30 days' notice on increases, and taxes on my side — an overage rate rather than a December tier-jump is exactly what I ask for. The Enterprise tier is Custom, analytics standalone and warehouse-native sit behind it, and we found no public information on seat pricing, so the annual invoice is computable only at the bottom end. 2 4
The Product Engineer
The free and Pro tiers are genuinely computable: $150 per month with 5 million events included and $0.05 per 1K events after, plus dedupe windows, the rule that 0 or 100 percent rollouts aren't charged, tax treatment and one-month auto-renewal terms all published. The enterprise tier — where warehouse native, SSO and standalone analytics sit — is "Custom" on event or experiment based contracts, so that invoice remains a sales conversation. 2 4
The CRO Consultant
The Developer and Pro tiers are fully public — free with 2M events per month, $150 /mo including 5M events then $0.05 per 1K events, with exposure dedup windows and no charge for 0 or 100% roll-outs — so I can estimate an invoice before the contract, though each Pro subscription covers one project only. VAT treatment and renewal terms are stated in the terms, but the enterprise tier carrying warehouse native and SSO is Custom pricing, which keeps it short of fully computable. 2 4
The Data Protection Officer
The free and Pro tiers are fully priced with the traffic metric defined: 2M events per month free, then $150 /mo with 5M events included and $0.05 per 1K events thereafter, overages billed in the next period, dedup windows documented, and no charge for exposures on 0% or 100% rollouts. The Enterprise tier is priced only as "Custom" with event- or experiment-based contracts, seats are unpriced, and taxes are simply the customer's responsibility, so the full annual cost is not computable at every tier. 2 4
The Skeptic
For the self-serve tiers a buyer can compute: Pro is $150 /mo with 5M events included and then $0.05 per 1K events, the free tier's 2M events per month and its downgrade behaviour are stated, exposure deduplication windows and the no-charge rule for 0% and 100% rollouts are documented, and the terms state taxes are the customer's with one-month auto-renewal and 30 days' notice on renewal price increases. The enterprise tier is Custom, with event- or experiment-based contracts, and warehouse native plus standalone analytics sit there — so a large deployment's annual invoice is a sales conversation, one step below full computability. 2 4
European sovereignty — proven facts
3 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 US ⚠ unverified | 0/3 pts | 4 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Foreign-controlled ⚠ unverified | 0/2 pts | 1 Report an error |
| Data residency | EU optional ⚠ unverified | 1/3 pts | 2 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 — Ownership. The site states only the affiliation with Amplitude and nothing about Amplitude's own capital structure (e.g., whether it is publicly listed); the US location of the parent comes from the terms (Amplitude, Inc., Washington law) and the Bellevue, WA footer.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity. This is a choice-of-law clause rather than an incorporation statement: no imprint, register or country of incorporation is published, the contracting entity is given only as Amplitude, Inc., and the site footer names only Bellevue, WA.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. EU hosting appears only as a bare feature line in the pricing comparison and no page states where customer data is stored by default, so the default region is unclear.
- 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.
- 14 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
- 10 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
- 9 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
- 6 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
- 4 integrations facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 pricing facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 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 support facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 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 (13)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.statsig.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.statsig.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy amplitude.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service www.statsig.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Experiment types & delivery — found from sitemap docs.statsig.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Experiment types & delivery — found from sitemap docs.statsig.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Statistical method & guardrails — found from sitemap docs.statsig.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Statistical method & guardrails — found from sitemap docs.statsig.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Consent & visitor tracking — found from sitemap www.statsig.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Consent & visitor tracking — found from sitemap docs.statsig.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Snippet performance & flicker — found from sitemap docs.statsig.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Analytics, data export & integrations — found from sitemap docs.statsig.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Analytics, data export & integrations — found from sitemap docs.statsig.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →