Conversion Optimization
VWO
Rest of world Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Wingify Software Pvt. Ltd. · wingify.com
Compare with Optimizely → Compare with Varify.io → Compare with Convert Experiences → 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
VWO, the testing platform of Wingify Software Pvt. Ltd., is strongest on experimentation scope, where scores cluster at 4: the captured pages list A/B/n, split and multivariate testing, visual and code editors, multi-arm bandit campaigns and single-page-application support. It is weakest on consent and tracking, where scores run 1–2: the privacy policy states it applies to the customer only and not to the visitors of their websites, and we found no public information on what the script stores on a visitor's device or when it runs relative to consent. Statistical rigour spans 2–4 — judges crediting the named guardrail metrics and sample ratio mismatch detection scored higher, while those weighing the absence of a named statistical method or sample-size guidance scored lower. Sovereignty scores cluster at 2: the privacy policy states all customer data is stored centrally in Washington DC and Dallas in the United States; standard contractual clauses, a data processing addendum and an Article 27 EU representative are published, and we found no public information on an EU residency option or a subprocessor list. Pricing is custom-only; a free trial and demo exist.
Speaks for it
- A broad client-side testing programme is published: A/B/n, split and multivariate tests, visual and code editors, bandit campaigns and single-page-application support.
- Guardrail metrics and sample ratio mismatch detection are named Pro-tier features, with multi-arm bandit campaigns listed on the Growth tier.
- Test delivery is described on a CDN across ten edge locations on IBM Softlayer and Google Cloud Platform, and self-hosting is offered at the Enterprise tier.
- Published safeguards include standard contractual clauses, a data processing addendum, a named data protection officer and an Article 27 EU representative.
- A tracking opt-out for end users is available, and a free trial, demo and free tools are offered.
Held against it
- The privacy policy states it applies to the customer only and not to the visitors of their websites, and we found no public information on what the script stores on a visitor's device or when it runs relative to consent.
- We found no public information naming a statistical method, confidence intervals, sample-size guidance or protection against peeking, and scores here span 2–4.
- The privacy policy states all customer data is stored centrally in Washington DC and Dallas in the United States, and we found no public information on an EU residency option or a subprocessor list.
- API access is gated to the Enterprise tier, and we found no public information on API documentation or visitor-level export.
- We found no published figures for script size, flicker handling or impact on Core Web Vitals.
Best for
- You need a broad client-side testing programme — A/B/n, split and multivariate tests with visual and code editors — and documented server-side SDKs are not your requirement.
- You value named guardrail tooling such as sample ratio mismatch detection and can supply your own sample-size and duration planning.
- You can accept that all customer data is stored centrally in Washington DC and Dallas in the United States, under standard contractual clauses and a data processing addendum.
- European load times matter to you, since CDN edge locations include Germany and the Netherlands, and self-hosting at the Enterprise tier is open to you.
Avoid if
- You need EU data residency for visitor data or a published subprocessor list before signing.
- Your privacy team must be able to document what the test script stores on visitors' devices and when it runs relative to consent.
- You must defend a winning variant with a documented statistical method, confidence intervals and sample-size guidance.
- You need API access or visitor-level export below the Enterprise tier to verify results in your own data.
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 pricing page shows a visual editor with WYSIWYG and code editing, A/B/n, split and multivariate tests, advanced targeting and triggers beyond plain URLs, and single-page-application support, with mutually exclusive groups at the enterprise tier — most of what my team needs day to day. However, I found no public information on documented SDKs for server-side delivery, holdouts or edge delivery, so the server-side half rests on a module name rather than documentation. 2
The E-Commerce Manager
The pricing page names A/B/n, split and multivariate tests, cross-domain testing, mutually exclusive groups, and separate personalisation and feature management modules, which is more than a basic visual editor. We found no public information on server-side SDKs, edge delivery, or personalisation that can itself be tested against a control — the captured evidence is a plan feature grid, not delivery documentation. I can see how to test my product page, but not how I would run a holdout against my personalisation. 2 4
The Product Engineer
The published feature lists cover visual and code editors, A/B/n, split and multivariate tests, single-page-app support, a personalisation module, and mutually exclusive groups on the top tier — a solid client-side programme. But everything I can see is a pricing-page feature grid: we found no public information on server-side SDKs, feature-flag delivery or edge distribution, and feature management appears only as a suite name. I land between a capable client-side tool and one programme across surfaces, weighted toward the client side. 2 4
The CRO Consultant
The pages show a full client-side programme: visual and code editor, A/B/n, split and multivariate tests, multi-arm bandit campaigns, advanced targeting, cross-domain testing and a personalisation suite, with mutually exclusive groups reserved for the top tier. We found no public information on server-side delivery or documented SDKs — feature management appears as a suite name, not documentation — so I cannot credit the server-side half of what a mid score would require. 2 4
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages show A/B/n, split and multivariate testing with a visual and code editor, multi-arm bandit and rollout campaigns, and personalisation and feature management as named modules. We found no public information on server-side SDKs, edge delivery or a documented experiment lifecycle, so this sits between the client-side editor level and the documented-SDK level even though mutually exclusive groups appear in the enterprise plan. 2 4
The Skeptic
The captured pricing page shows A/B/n, split and multivariate testing with a visual and code editor, multi-armed bandit campaigns, mutually exclusive groups and SPA support, plus personalisation and feature management as product suites. What decides the score against it: the evidence is a feature grid, and we found no public information on server-side SDKs, edge delivery, holdouts or personalisation tested against a control. 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
Guardrail metrics, sample ratio mismatch detection and multi-arm bandit campaigns are listed, which is more rigour tooling than most feature grids show. But I found no public information naming the statistical method, showing confidence or credible intervals, or offering a sample-size or duration calculator — exactly what finance will ask me to produce when the uplift is challenged. 2
The E-Commerce Manager
The Pro plan names guardrail metrics and sample ratio mismatch detection, which are real protections I value. But we found no public information naming the statistical method, sample-size or duration guidance, or any protection against reading a result too early — a winner figure without a documented method is exactly what I cannot defend to my accountant. 2
The Product Engineer
Sample ratio mismatch detection and guardrail metrics are listed as Pro features and multi-armed bandit campaigns on the lower tier, so some statistical machinery clearly exists. But we found no public information naming the statistical method, showing confidence or credible intervals, sample-size guidance, or how peeking and multiple comparisons are handled. A feature grid is not a methodology a team can defend to a data scientist. 2
The CRO Consultant
Guardrail metrics and sample ratio mismatch detection are named as paid-tier features, so the concepts exist in the product. But we found no public information naming the statistical method, no sample-size or duration calculator, and no guidance on when a result may be read or how peeking is handled — I could not brief a client on how a winner gets called from these pages. 2
The Data Protection Officer
Guardrail metrics, sample ratio mismatch detection and multi-arm bandit campaigns are listed as plan features, which are genuine guardrails. We found no public information naming a statistical method, no sample-size or duration guidance, and nothing on how early stopping or multiple comparisons are handled. 2
The Skeptic
Sample ratio mismatch detection and guardrail metrics are named as Pro-tier features — the first two things I check — and that is real. But nowhere on the captured pages is the statistical method named, and we found no public information on confidence or credible intervals, sample-size guidance, any protection against peeking, or correction for multiple comparisons; a feature named on a pricing page is a promise, not a method. 2
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 states outright that it applies only to Wingify's customers and not to the visitors of my website, and an opt-out for end users plus an available data processing addendum are mentioned. Beyond that I found no public information on what the test script stores on a device, on its behaviour before consent is given, or on a cookieless mode — a real problem for a German team under TDDDG. 3
The E-Commerce Manager
The privacy policy states it applies only to the customer and not to the visitors of the customer's website, and we found no public information on what the test script stores on a device or when it runs relative to consent. A tracking opt-out for users and named privacy contacts are the extent of the visitor-facing material captured. 3
The Product Engineer
The privacy policy states outright that it applies only to the customer and not to the visitors of the customer's website, and the only visitor-facing provision I found is a tracking opt-out. We found no public information on what the test script stores on a device, whether it runs before consent, cookie or storage lifetimes, or integrations with consent management platforms. That leaves the §25 TDDDG questions unanswered on the vendor's own pages and shifted to the customer's paperwork. 3
The CRO Consultant
The privacy policy states its scope covers the customer and not the visitors of the customer's website, and we found no public information on what the test script stores on the device, when it runs relative to consent, or how visitor identifiers are handled. A visitor tracking opt-out, a data processing addendum and standard contractual clauses are documented, which is the only thing lifting this off the floor — as it stands I could not take this consent posture to a client's data protection officer. 3
The Data Protection Officer
The privacy policy states in its own words that it applies only to the customer and not to the visitors of the customer's website, which puts consent and the visitor's device squarely in the customer's hands. We found no public information on what the script stores on the device, whether it may run before the consent banner is answered, any consent-pending mode, or any list of cookies and storage keys; the only visitor-relevant statement is that tracking can be stopped through an opt-out. 3
The Skeptic
The privacy policy states outright that it applies to the customer only and not to the visitors of their websites, so we found no public information on what the script stores on a visitor's device or when it runs relative to consent. A tracking opt-out for end users is mentioned and a compliance page is referenced, which is what lifts this off the floor. 3
Snippet performance & flicker
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The cost the client-side snippet imposes on the page it tests: blocking load, flicker of original content, script weight and the effect on Core Web Vitals — scored on what the vendor measures and publishes, not on "lightning fast".
0 — A synchronous snippet with no stated size, no flicker handling and no mention of performance.
3 — An anti-flicker snippet that hides the page until the test loads, with a timeout, and no published figures for script size or load cost.
5 — Script size and loading behaviour documented, asynchronous loading option, flicker handling explained with its trade-off, and CDN delivery of the snippet.
8 — Published performance figures including impact on Core Web Vitals, a self-hosting or first-party-domain option for the script, per-project bundles containing only active experiments, and a server-side or edge alternative for flicker-sensitive tests.
10 — Performance is a stated commitment: measured overhead published and maintained, flicker eliminated by edge or server-side rendering as a documented path, and tooling that shows the customer what their own configuration costs the page.
The Growth Lead
Self-hosting appears on the enterprise tier and the privacy policy describes CDN delivery from ten locations on named infrastructure. But I found no published figures for script size, asynchronous loading or flicker handling, and no public information on the effect on Core Web Vitals. 2 3
The E-Commerce Manager
The CDN runs on named providers across ten locations including Germany, the Netherlands, London and Paris, and self-hosting appears as an Enterprise feature. We found no published script size, no flicker handling described, and no Core Web Vitals figures — on a product page where a tenth of a second shows in conversion, that silence is the whole story. 2 3
The Product Engineer
Self-hosting of the script appears as an enterprise feature and the CDN is described with named providers and ten edge locations, which is more than nothing. We found no public figures for script size or loading behaviour, and no information on flicker handling or Core Web Vitals impact. For a snippet that runs on every page, that silence is the story. 2 3
The CRO Consultant
CDN delivery across ten edge locations including the Netherlands and Germany is documented, and self-hosting is named as an enterprise feature — both genuinely useful for European load times. We found no public information on script size, asynchronous loading, flicker handling or any Core Web Vitals figures, so the actual page cost of the snippet stays unknown to me and to my clients. 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
CDN delivery of test requests on named providers is described, and a self-hosting option sits in the enterprise plan. We found no public information on script size, loading behaviour, flicker handling or any measured effect on Core Web Vitals. 2 3
The Skeptic
Self-hosting is offered at the Enterprise tier and the privacy policy describes CDN delivery from ten edge locations, so delivery is at least described. We found no public information on script size, flicker handling, asynchronous loading or any measured impact on Core Web Vitals — an anti-flicker snippet with a timeout is the minimum I would expect to see documented, and it is absent from the captured pages. 2 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
An integrations section exists, pull-based integrations ship at the Pro tier, API access is gated to Enterprise, and Data Studio is a paid add-on. I found no public information on API documentation, export of visitor-level results or warehouse-native analysis, so a result could not be re-checked in my own data as far as these pages show. 2 4
The E-Commerce Manager
An integrations page exists, Google Analytics is named, and API access plus pull-based integrations appear in the plan feature lists. We found no public information on exporting results, visitor-level data, or documented API limits — from what is captured I cannot verify a winner against my own analytics data. 2 3 4
The Product Engineer
Google Analytics is named, an integrations listing exists, Data Studio is a paid add-on, and API access is gated to the enterprise tier with no API documentation visible. Pull-based integrations and data platform access appear only as feature-list items. We found no public information on visitor-level export or streaming to a warehouse, so an experiment result stays a claim I cannot check in my own data. 2 3 4
The CRO Consultant
An integrations section exists, Google Analytics is named in the privacy policy, and the tiers list pull-based integrations and data platform access, with API access reserved for the enterprise tier. We found no public information on a documented API, results export or visitor-level data — API access as a tier line is not something I can build a client's analysis pipeline on. 2 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
Google Analytics is named in the privacy policy, integrations and pull-based integrations appear as plan features, data platform access is in the base plan, and API access sits in the enterprise tier. We found no public information on export of visitor-level results, warehouse or CDP integration, or documentation for the API with stated limits. 2 3 4
The Skeptic
An integrations section exists, pull-based integrations sit in the Pro tier, API access is gated to Enterprise, and Google Analytics is named as a connected tool. We found no public information on visitor-level export, warehouse or CDP integration, or documented API limits — an API a customer cannot read about is a line on a pricing page, not an audit path for a result. 2 3 4
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where visitor data is processed and stored and who the contracting entity is. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; weighted higher here than in categories that hold only the customer's own data, because the script runs on every visitor to the customer's site and their behaviour is what the platform records.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors unnamed, and visitor data leaving the EU without a stated safeguard.
3 — EU data residency offered as an option or an enterprise add-on while the contracting entity is non-EU, or the subprocessor list is absent.
5 — EU processing of visitor data as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — CDN, support access, analytics — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure including the delivery of the snippet, EU contracting entity, subprocessor list published, and a DPA covering the visitor data the script collects.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, entity, hosting, snippet delivery and every subprocessor European, certification published, and no visitor data reaching a non-EU party at any point.
The Growth Lead
The contracting entity is Wingify Software Pvt. Ltd. of Delhi, and the privacy policy states all customer data is centrally stored in Washington DC and Dallas, with standard contractual clauses and an Article 27 representative in Vienna as safeguards. I found no public information on an EU residency option or a published subprocessor list, and the visitor data the script records flows to US-hosted infrastructure. 3 4
The E-Commerce Manager
All customer data is stated to be stored centrally in Washington DC and Dallas, USA, with the contracting entity Wingify Software Pvt. Ltd. in India; the CDN includes EU locations but the storage does not. Standard contractual clauses and an Article 27 EU representative are documented, and we found no public information on EU data residency for visitor data or a subprocessor list. 3 4
The Product Engineer
The privacy policy states all customer data is stored centrally in Washington DC and Dallas, the contracting entities are Wingify Software Pvt. Ltd. in India together with Wingify Inc., and we found no public information on subprocessors. The EU anchors are an Article 27 representative, offices in Hamburg and Palma, and standard contractual clauses on offer. For a script that records every EU visitor's behaviour, that footing is hard to put in front of legal. 3 4
The CRO Consultant
The contracting entities are Wingify Software in India and Wingify Inc., and the privacy policy states all customer data is stored centrally in Washington DC and Dallas; we found no public information on an EU residency option, and no subprocessor list appears on the captured pages. Standard contractual clauses, a data processing addendum, an Article 27 representative in Vienna and European offices in Hamburg and Palma are documented, which keeps this above the floor — but for my EU clients this is a transfers-with-safeguards story, not a residency story. 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entities are Wingify Software Pvt. Ltd. in Delhi and Wingify Inc., and the policy states all customer data is stored centrally in Washington DC and Dallas; the CDN runs on IBM Softlayer and Google Cloud Platform with some European edge locations. A DPA, standard contractual clauses, a named DPO and an Article 27 EU representative are published, but we found no public information on a subprocessor list including the CDN, or any option for visitor data to be processed in the EU. 3 4
The Skeptic
The contracting entities are Wingify Software Pvt. Ltd. (India) and Wingify Inc., and the privacy policy states all customer data is stored centrally in Washington DC and Dallas in the United States; the safeguards we could find are standard contractual clauses, a data processing addendum and an Article 27 EU representative. We found no public information on an EU hosting option or a published subprocessor list, so the script's data path runs to the US as standard. 3 4
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
The pricing page names Growth, Pro and Enterprise tiers plus add-ons and even a shared-MTU-quota question, but states "No fixed plans. Just a custom proposal built around your goals and scope", and no price figure appears anywhere. A free trial exists, but the invoice is a sales conversation, and I cannot defend a budget line I cannot compute. 1 2
The E-Commerce Manager
The pricing page states there are no fixed plans, only a custom proposal built around goals and scope, and a free trial and free tools exist — but no tier price, traffic metric definition, limit, or overage rate is published anywhere captured. With monthly tracked users only appearing inside a FAQ question, my December invoice is not computable from public pages. 1 2
The Product Engineer
Tier structure and included features are published, a free trial and free tools exist, and the traffic basis surfaces as monthly tracked users in a pricing question. But the pricing page states there are no fixed plans, only a custom proposal, and we found no price figures, traffic limits or overage terms on the captured pages — the annual invoice is not computable from public information. Wingz AI Core is free with all products while the Advanced tier is marked a paid upgrade with no figure shown. 1 2
The CRO Consultant
The pricing page states "No fixed plans. Just a custom proposal built around your goals and scope", and no price figure appears anywhere on the captured pages; the monthly-tracked-users metric surfaces only as an unanswered question about a shared quota across products. A trial and demo exist, but with add-ons like Predictive Data and Emotions unpriced I cannot estimate a client's annual invoice before a sales conversation — exactly the number I need up front. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The pricing page states there are no fixed plans, only a custom proposal built around goals and scope, and no tier price appears anywhere in the captures. The monthly-tracked-users metric surfaces only inside an FAQ question, and we found no public information on limits, overage or figures for the Predictive Data, Emotions and Data Studio add-ons; a free trial and the free-with-products AI plan are the only public price signals. 1 2
The Skeptic
The pricing page states there are no fixed plans, only a custom proposal built around the buyer's goals, and we found no public figures for any tier, module or overage; add-ons like Predictive Data and Data Studio are named but unpriced. The traffic quota appears only as an unanswered question about a shared monthly tracked users quota, and a trial is the only visible entry point — the annual invoice is not derivable from public pages. 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | US CLOUD Act reach ⚠ unverified | 0/2 pts | 3 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 — Data residency. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. IBM und Google sind US-Mutterkonzerne und unterliegen damit dem CLOUD Act, auch wenn – wie auf der Compliance-Seite [S5] angeboten – das EU-Rechenzentrum von GCP (Belgien) gewählt wird.
- 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.
- 16 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
- 12 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
- 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
- 4 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 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
- 1 data 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 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 support fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (13)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage wingify.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page wingify.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy wingify.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Legal notice wingify.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Experiment types & delivery — found from sitemap wingify.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Experiment types & delivery — found from sitemap wingify.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Statistical method & guardrails — found from sitemap wingify.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Statistical method & guardrails — found from sitemap wingify.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Consent & visitor tracking — found from sitemap wingify.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Consent & visitor tracking — found from sitemap wingify.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Snippet performance & flicker — found from sitemap wingify.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Analytics, data export & integrations — found from sitemap wingify.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Analytics, data export & integrations — found from sitemap wingify.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →