Conversion Optimization
trbo
EU-Made Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 2 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by trbo GmbH · www.trbo.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.
No written verdict for this product
The panel scored trbo, but the summary our synthesizer wrote did not survive our own contradiction check — twice. Rather than print a paragraph we cannot stand behind, we print none. Every score, rationale and source below is unaffected; read them and draw the conclusion yourself.
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 homepage markets A/B and multivariate testing with content personalization and dynamic segmentation, run from a dashboard where "virtually no coding" is needed — that is the editor my team could drive. But it stops at feature names: we found no public information on server-side delivery, SDKs, holdouts or mutually exclusive experiments, so I can only credit a client-side programme. 1
The E-Commerce Manager
The homepage names A/B and multivariate testing, dynamic segmentation and real-time personalisation, with almost any change made from a dashboard and "virtually no coding needed" — that reads as client-side editor work. We found no public information on SDKs, server-side or edge delivery, holdouts, or a documented way to test a personalised experience against a control, which is the test I actually want to run before trusting a recommendation engine. 1
The Product Engineer
The homepage names A/B and multivariate testing, dynamic segmentation and content personalisation, all driven from a dashboard with "virtually no coding needed" — a client-side editor play. We found no public information on server-side SDKs, feature flags, holdouts or edge delivery, so nothing here is a delivery path I'd trust behind my own flags. 1
The CRO Consultant
The homepage names A/B and multivariate testing, dynamic segmentation and content personalisation run from a dashboard with "virtually no coding needed", which reads as solid client-side scope, but I found no public documentation of SDKs, server-side delivery, feature flags or holdouts. Good enough for template tests on a web shop; nothing here lets me promise a client anything beyond the browser. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages present a dashboard-based tool where almost any change is made with virtually no coding, naming A/B and multivariate testing, dynamic segmentation and content personalisation among the features. We found no public information on server-side or SDK delivery, feature flags or edge delivery, so the documented programme reads as client-side testing with audience segmentation. 1 3
The Skeptic
What the pages document is a dashboard-based editor — "virtually no coding needed" — with A/B and multivariate testing, dynamic segmentation, and personalisation as feature names. We found no public information on server-side SDKs, feature flags, mutually exclusive groups, holdouts, or edge delivery, so this stops short of the level where server-side experimentation is documented. 1 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 captured pages market A/B and multivariate testing without naming any statistical method, and we found no public information on confidence or credible intervals, sample-size guidance, or any protection against calling a test early. I could not defend a single uplift figure to my finance team on this basis. 1
The E-Commerce Manager
The captured pages never touch statistics: no method named, no sample-size or test-duration guidance, nothing on peeking, multiple comparisons or sample ratio mismatch. Until something is published, a "winner" from this tool is a claim I cannot check against my own conversion data. 1
The Product Engineer
We found no public information on how a winner is decided — no named method, no sample-size or duration guidance, no peeking protection, no multiple-comparison handling and no sample ratio mismatch detection. Any result this tool reports is currently a claim I cannot check. 1
The CRO Consultant
I found no public information naming a statistical method, a sample-size or duration calculator, or any handling of peeking and multiple variants. For my clients that means a winner I cannot defend to their stakeholders. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on any statistical method, sample-size or test-duration guidance, or protection against reading an underpowered result; the pages name A/B and multivariate testing without describing how a winner is decided. 1
The Skeptic
The entire statistical record is a feature label — A/B/MV Testing; we found no public information naming a method, a sample-size or duration calculator, any protection against peeking, multiple-comparison correction, or sample ratio mismatch checks. A winner-announcement framework with nothing behind it is exactly the kind I expect to regress to zero. 1
Consent & visitor tracking
panel disagrees
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 states two functional cookies are set on trbo's own site before consent and that consent is sought for analysis cookies, which is more than nothing. For the product itself we found no public information on what the test script stores on a visitor's device, whether variants can be held until consent, or any consent-platform integration — not signable for a German programme. 2
The E-Commerce Manager
The privacy policy does disclose cookie practice — consent obtained for analysis cookies and two functional cookies set before consent — but that describes the vendor's own website, and we found no public information on a consent management platform integration, storage lifetimes, or a consent-pending or cookieless mode for the snippet that would run on my shop. For §25 TDDDG I would be guessing at what lands on a visitor's device. 2
The Product Engineer
The privacy policy states that two functional cookies are set before consent and that consent is obtained before analysis cookies, which is more before/after behaviour than most vendors publish. But we found no public information on consent-platform integration, a published cookie list with lifetimes, IP anonymisation, or how the testing script behaves on a customer's site versus the vendor's own. 2
The CRO Consultant
The privacy policy documents cookie behaviour on trbo's own site — two functional cookies before consent, analysis cookies only after consent is obtained — and an external data protection officer in Munich, which is more than many vendors publish. But I found no public information on what the test script stores on a customer's site or when it runs relative to consent, and no client DPO I work with will sign off on that gap. 2
The Data Protection Officer
The privacy policy states that consent is obtained for analysis cookies and that two functional cookies are set before consent is given, but this describes the vendor's own website. We found no public information on what the test script stores on a visitor's device, whether it may run before the consent banner is answered on a customer's site, or on any consent-pending mode or published storage keys. 2
The Skeptic
The privacy policy states consent is obtained before analysis cookies and that two functional cookies are set before consent — but that describes the vendor's own website. We found no public information on what the deployed testing script stores on a customer's visitors, when it runs relative to consent, or whether a cookieless or consent-pending mode exists. 2
Snippet performance & flicker
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The cost the client-side snippet imposes on the page it tests: blocking load, flicker of original content, script weight and the effect on Core Web Vitals — scored on what the vendor measures and publishes, not on "lightning fast".
0 — A synchronous snippet with no stated size, no flicker handling and no mention of performance.
3 — An anti-flicker snippet that hides the page until the test loads, with a timeout, and no published figures for script size or load cost.
5 — Script size and loading behaviour documented, asynchronous loading option, flicker handling explained with its trade-off, and CDN delivery of the snippet.
8 — Published performance figures including impact on Core Web Vitals, a self-hosting or first-party-domain option for the script, per-project bundles containing only active experiments, and a server-side or edge alternative for flicker-sensitive tests.
10 — Performance is a stated commitment: measured overhead published and maintained, flicker eliminated by edge or server-side rendering as a documented path, and tooling that shows the customer what their own configuration costs the page.
The Growth Lead
We found no public information on script weight, loading behaviour, flicker handling or any measured performance figures across the captured pages. There is nothing to weigh the cost the snippet puts on the page. 1 2 3
The E-Commerce Manager
We found no public information on script size, loading behaviour, flicker handling, or any measured impact on Core Web Vitals — the pages make no performance claim beyond marketing superlatives like "seamless". On a product page where a tenth of a second shows in the conversion rate, publishing nothing on the snippet's cost is the same as publishing a bad number. 1
The Product Engineer
We found no public information on script size, loading behaviour, asynchronous options, anti-flicker handling or Core Web Vitals impact. "Real-time personalization" marketing is not a measured overhead figure, so there is nothing here to weigh against the cost of a third-party script. 1
The CRO Consultant
I found no public information on snippet size, loading behaviour, anti-flicker handling, self-hosting options or any measured impact on Core Web Vitals. The homepage promises real-time personalisation and a three-day launch, but says nothing about what the page pays for it. 1
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on script size, loading behaviour, flicker handling or any effect on Core Web Vitals; the pages advertise a three-day launch and real-time delivery without publishing performance figures. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on snippet size, loading behaviour, flicker handling, or any measured effect on page performance; the captured pages offer only "quick setup, immediate impact". Marketing adjectives are not measurements, and none are published. 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
Beyond a "Customer Insights" bullet on the homepage we found no public information on analytics or tag-manager integrations, export of visitor-level results, or an API. An uplift I cannot check in my own data is a claim, not a finding. 1
The E-Commerce Manager
"Customer Insights" is named as a feature alongside the dashboard, so results appear to live in the vendor's own world. We found no public information on export of results or visitor-level data, analytics or tag-manager integrations, or an API — which means I cannot cross-check a lift claim against my own shop data. 1
The Product Engineer
"Customer Insights" appears as a marketing bullet, but we found no public information on results export, analytics or tag-manager integrations, visitor-level data access, warehouse support, or an API I could build internal tooling on. As evidenced, results live in the vendor's dashboard only. 1
The CRO Consultant
Beyond a "Customer Insights" feature name and real-time personalisation claims, I found no public information on analytics integrations, tag manager support, results export, visitor-level data or an API. An experiment result I cannot check in the client's own data is a claim, not a finding. 1
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on export of results, analytics or tag-manager integrations, or an API; a Customer Insights feature is named without any showing of how data leaves the vendor's tool. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on analytics or tag-manager integrations, export of visitor-level results, a documented API, or warehouse access; the pages describe dashboard-based changes and a Customer Insights feature, which keeps any findings inside the vendor's own tool where they cannot be independently re-analysed. 1
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where visitor data is processed and stored and who the contracting entity is. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; weighted higher here than in categories that hold only the customer's own data, because the script runs on every visitor to the customer's site and their behaviour is what the platform records.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors unnamed, and visitor data leaving the EU without a stated safeguard.
3 — EU data residency offered as an option or an enterprise add-on while the contracting entity is non-EU, or the subprocessor list is absent.
5 — EU processing of visitor data as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — CDN, support access, analytics — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure including the delivery of the snippet, EU contracting entity, subprocessor list published, and a DPA covering the visitor data the script collects.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, entity, hosting, snippet delivery and every subprocessor European, certification published, and no visitor data reaching a non-EU party at any point.
The Growth Lead
The legal notice names trbo GmbH in Munich with a German register court and VAT number, and the privacy policy places its servers in Germany and Belgium — a good start. But the pages also list a Miami-incorporated entity with a US toll-free number, and the only subprocessors published are trbo's own marketing vendors (Apollo and Zoom in the USA, covered by standard contractual clauses); we found no public information on where the platform itself processes and delivers visitor data. 1 2 3
The E-Commerce Manager
The contracting picture is German — trbo GmbH in Munich with a German VAT number and register court — and the privacy policy states servers in Germany and Belgium, with named subprocessors and transfers to the US covered by Standard Contractual Clauses or the Data Privacy Framework. A US entity (TRBO INC., Miami) is published alongside the German one, US subprocessors such as Apollo and Zoom sit in the chain, and we found no public information on where the snippet is delivered from or a data processing agreement covering the visitor behaviour data the product records on my customers. 1 2 3
The Product Engineer
The contracting entity is trbo GmbH of Munich with register court München, servers stated as Germany and Belgium, named subprocessors, and standard contractual clauses or the data privacy framework stated for the US ones. A Miami-incorporated TRBO INC. is listed in the legal notice without clarity on which entity contracts EU customers, and we found no public information on where the testing snippet is delivered from or a data processing agreement covering the visitor data the script collects. 1 2 3
The CRO Consultant
The legal notice gives a German contracting entity — trbo GmbH, Munich, register court München HRB 205778, German VAT ID — and the privacy policy places servers in Germany and Belgium and names subprocessors including US ones (Apollo, Zoom) transferred under Standard Contractual Clauses or the Data Privacy Framework. A US sister entity, TRBO INC. in Miami, also appears, and I found no public information on where the testing product processes visitor data or where the snippet is delivered from, so parts of the chain stay in the dark. 2 3 1
The Data Protection Officer
The legal notice publishes trbo GmbH with a Munich register court, registered office in Munich and a German VAT identification, and the privacy policy states the servers are in the EU (Germany and Belgium) without saying whether this covers the platform that processes visitor behaviour. We found no public information on subprocessors for the testing chain, on the delivery of the snippet, or on a data processing agreement covering visitor data, and a US entity TRBO INC. in Miami is published alongside the German company. 2 3 1
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is trbo GmbH in Munich with a German register court and DPO, and the privacy policy states the servers are in Germany and Belgium. But the chain also shows a US entity and US subprocessors (Apollo, Zoom) with transfer safeguards stated only for marketing email, and we found no public information on where the delivered snippet and the visitor data it collects are processed, or on a data processing agreement covering that visitor data. 1 2 3
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
We found no public information on prices, tiers, traffic metric, limits or seats — the captured pages offer a free, no-obligation demo request as the way in. I cannot even begin to estimate the annual invoice. 1 2 3
The E-Commerce Manager
We found no public prices on the captured pages — no tiers, no traffic metric, no limits, no overage terms; the only published option is a free, no-obligation demo request by web form. The annual invoice is a sales conversation, and whether my December traffic pushes me into a higher tier cannot be judged from anything published. 1 2
The Product Engineer
No public prices at all: the captured pages offer only a demo request described as "free of charge and without obligation", so every tier and every module is a sales conversation. With no traffic metric, limits or overage terms published, the invoice is unknowable before signing. 1 2
The CRO Consultant
No public prices at all: the only cost statement I can find is that a demo is free and without obligation. Without a published traffic metric, tier limits or overage terms I cannot estimate a client's annual invoice before the contract — for me that is disqualifying on affordability grounds. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on prices for any of the named products, on the traffic metric, tier limits or contract term; the only pricing-adjacent statement is that a demo can be requested free of charge and without obligation. 2 3
The Skeptic
No public prices appear anywhere in the captured pages; the only pricing-adjacent fact is a demo request that is free and without obligation. A buyer cannot compute any component of an annual invoice, from the traffic metric to module pricing. 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
2 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 DE ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 3 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | EU only ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 2 Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | 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 — Legal entity. The legal notice also lists a US sister company, TRBO INC. (Miami, FL), and the privacy policy notes another trbo company may be the controller depending on the offer.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. The sentence appears in the website/log-files section of the privacy policy and does not explicitly state where SaaS customer data is stored; no non-EU option or default is mentioned on any excerpt.
- 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.
- We could not confirm any pricing information on the vendor’s own pages as captured, so this page shows none rather than a statement we cannot stand behind. Know more? Tell us
- 10 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 7 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
- 5 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
- 4 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 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
- 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
- The panel’s written verdict is withheld: our own re-read found claims in it that the evidence does not carry, and a second synthesis did not fix them. The scores and the material below are unaffected. Know more? Tell us
Sources (10)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.trbo.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy www.trbo.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Legal notice www.trbo.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Experiment types & delivery — found from sitemap www.trbo.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Experiment types & delivery — found from sitemap www.trbo.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Consent & visitor tracking — found from sitemap www.trbo.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Snippet performance & flicker — found from sitemap www.trbo.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Snippet performance & flicker — found from sitemap www.trbo.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Analytics, data export & integrations — found from sitemap www.trbo.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Analytics, data export & integrations — found from sitemap www.trbo.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →