SEO
Ahrefs
Rest of world Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Ahrefs Pte. Ltd. · ahrefs.com
Compare with Semrush → 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
Ahrefs is an SEO platform. Its strongest evidence is in technical audit, scored 5 to 6, and pricing transparency, scored 4 to 5: Site Audit is documented as a configurable crawler with scheduling, regex scoping, a JavaScript toggle and speed settings up to 30,000 URLs per minute, and five paid tiers are priced publicly from € 27 /mo to € 1,394 /mo with a free tier and up to 17% off annual payment. The backlink index is disclosed in unusual detail — fresh data every 15–30 minutes and a full database refresh of about two months. The weakest categories are sovereignty, scored 1 to 3, where the contracting entity is in Singapore, a sub-processor list and data processing agreement are published, and we found no public information on hosting location or data residency; and data portability, scored 3 to 4, where unlimited historical data is listed only for Enterprise. Keyword and content splits 4 to 6: some judges credit the documented keyword depth while others found no public information on content briefs, cannibalisation detection or German-language data depth.
Speaks for it
- Site Audit is documented as a configurable crawler with day, time and timezone scheduling, regex include/exclude and a JavaScript execution toggle.
- Five paid tiers are priced publicly from € 27 /mo to € 1,394 /mo, with a free tier, up to 17% off annual payment and one included user on every plan except Enterprise.
- The backlink index is documented with fresh data every 15–30 minutes, a full database refresh of about two months and crawl priority explained through the vendor's own metrics.
- A versioned API (3.0.0) with a rank-tracker endpoint is documented, and uncapped API access is listed on the Enterprise plan.
- SERP features including AI Overview are tracked and filterable on all plans, with positions tracked for features that carry URLs.
Held against it
- The vendor states that white-labelling reports is not allowed at present.
- Unlimited historical data and higher data-export limits are listed only as Enterprise features, and we found no public information on retention after cancellation.
- The contracting entity is Ahrefs Pte. Ltd. of Singapore, and we found no public information on hosting location or data residency.
- We found no public information on the price of an additional user, credit amounts for the credit-limited Starter and Lite tiers, API credit costs or VAT treatment.
- We found no public information on rank-tracking frequency, country or device granularity, or index size.
Best for
- You audit large sites and need a configurable crawler whose credit rules are stated, with only internal HTML pages returning HTTP 200 consuming crawl credits.
- You build internal tooling and can work against a documented version 3.0.0 rank-tracker API.
- You want to compare vendors on public euro pricing before contacting sales, from € 27 /mo with a free tier available.
- You weigh vendors on index transparency, since the refresh cadence and full-database cycle are published.
Avoid if
- You send client-facing reports under your own brand, since the vendor states white-labelling reports is not allowed at present.
- Your procurement requires contracting with an EU entity or a stated EU data-residency option, since the contracting party shown is Ahrefs Pte. Ltd. of Singapore and we found no public information on where data is hosted.
- You need multi-year historical data and higher export limits, since these are listed as Enterprise features at € 1,394 /mo with annual commitment required.
The scores
Crawling & technical audit
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Site crawling at real scale: what the crawler finds, how deeply it checks, whether Core Web Vitals and indexation problems are diagnosed rather than merely listed.
0 — No site crawler; the product is keyword data only.
3 — A crawler with a low page cap that reports broken links and missing tags, with no prioritisation and no rendering of JavaScript.
5 — Scheduled crawls at a stated page limit, JavaScript rendering, issue categories with severity, and Core Web Vitals pulled per template.
8 — Log-file or Search Console integration to compare what the crawler sees against what Google fetched, indexation and canonical diagnosis, structured-data validation, and issues prioritised by traffic impact rather than count.
10 — The audit is diagnostic rather than a list: crawl budget analysed, rendering differences surfaced, regressions detected between crawls with the deploy that caused them inferrable, and remediation guidance specific enough for a developer ticket.
The In-House SEO Lead
Site Audit is documented in real operational depth — scheduled crawls by day and timezone, configurable page and time limits, JavaScript rendering as a toggle with regex include/exclude and HTTP-authenticated crawling, and PageSpeed flags when I supply my own Google API key. We found no public information on issue prioritisation by traffic impact, structured-data validation, canonical or indexation diagnosis, or any comparison of the crawl against what Google actually fetched — without that, findings stay a list rather than a ticket queue. 4 5 1
The Agency Owner
Site Audit is a real, configurable crawler — scheduled by day, time and timezone, JavaScript execution toggle, regex include/exclude, robots.txt override, HTTP-auth crawling on Advanced and higher — and crawl credits are metered clearly enough that I can cost a client crawl. The speed check runs through PageSpeed Insights but needs my own Google API key, and I found no public information on severity-ranked issue categories, log-file or Search Console comparison, or prioritisation by traffic impact, so this reads as strong configuration rather than diagnosis. 4 12
The Technical SEO
Site Audit is a real crawler with the knobs that matter: documented examples of a 10,000-page or 48-hour stop limit, speed settings up to 30,000 URLs per minute, scheduling by day, time and timezone, a JavaScript execution toggle, HTTP-authenticated crawling on Advanced and higher, and PageSpeed Insights flagging low-scoring pages — though through the customer's own Google API key. That clears the mid bar for crawling at scale. I found no public information on log-file or Search Console comparison, indexation or canonical diagnosis, structured-data validation, or issues prioritised by traffic impact rather than count, so the audit reads as a configurable list rather than a diagnosis. 4 12 1
The Content Strategist
The Site Audit crawler is configurable at a level most are not — scheduled to the timezone, a JavaScript rendering toggle, speed and depth controls, regex scoping, and PageSpeed scoring that requires the customer's own Google API key. We found no public information on issue severity, prioritisation by traffic impact, log-file or Search Console comparison, structured-data validation, or regression detection between crawls. A configurable auditor, not yet a diagnostic that writes the developer ticket. 4 1 12
The Data Analyst
Site Audit is documented as a genuinely configurable crawler — day, time and timezone scheduling, JavaScript execution behind a toggle, custom URL list uploads, regex include/exclude, ignore-robots control and HTTP-authenticated crawling — with PageSpeed scores flagged when low, though the user must supply their own Google API key. We found no public information on log-file or Search Console comparison against what Google fetched, structured-data validation, or issue prioritisation by traffic impact, so the evidence describes a well-configured crawler rather than a diagnosis. 4 12
The Skeptic
A dedicated crawler with scheduled crawls, user-set limits, regex scoping and a JavaScript execution toggle is documented, and the crawl-credit mechanics are stated down to which HTTP status consumes them — limits I can hold a vendor to. What the captured pages don't show is issue categories with severity prioritisation, Core Web Vitals per template, or any log-file and Search Console comparison; the speed check runs through PageSpeed Insights only if you supply your own Google API key. 4 12 9
Keyword research & content guidance
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Keyword discovery, intent classification, SERP feature analysis and on-page guidance — judged on the depth of the German-language data as much as the English.
0 — A keyword list with volumes from one source and no intent or difficulty signal.
3 — Volume and difficulty for major markets, with thin or stale German data and no SERP feature detail.
5 — Keyword research with volume, difficulty and intent across German and other EU markets, SERP feature presence, and basic on-page recommendations.
8 — Topic clustering, competitor gap analysis, SERP composition tracked over time, content briefs with entity coverage, and cannibalisation detection.
10 — Research and guidance close the loop: opportunity sized against realistic traffic, content scored against what currently ranks rather than against a keyword density heuristic, and recommendations that reference the specific pages in the customer's own site.
The In-House SEO Lead
Volume, keyword difficulty, CPC, clicks, intent filtering and Parent Topic are all documented, and SERP feature tracking is genuinely strong — seventeen features including AI Overview and local pack, with positions tracked on all plans. But we found no public information confirming the depth of the German-language data, nor on content briefs, entity coverage or cannibalisation detection. 6 7 1
The Agency Owner
The research core is documented — CPC, keyword difficulty, clicks and parent topic metrics, intent filtering, trending-keyword growth data, and SERP features tracked and filterable on every plan including AI Overviews. What I could not see is German-language data depth, content briefs, cannibalisation detection or competitor gap analysis; for a European client roster that guidance layer is unproven. 6 7
The Technical SEO
The keyword documentation shows genuine depth: volume, KD, clicks, CPC, intent filtering, Parent Topic, volume forecasting, a growth metric for trending keywords, and SERP feature tracking down to position-level for AI Overviews and featured snippets on every plan. For closing the loop back to the customer's own pages, I found no public information on content briefs with entity coverage, cannibalisation detection, or the depth of German-language data — only a help article title asking which languages Keywords Explorer supports. 6 7
The Content Strategist
Volume, CPC, difficulty, clicks and search-intent filtering are documented, and the SERP feature set you can see and filter by is genuinely broad — AI Overview included. But I plan German-language content for a living and the captured pages answer nothing on German or EU market depth; the language-support question appears as a help-centre title with no answer shown. We also found no public information on topic clustering, competitor gap analysis, content briefs with entity coverage, or cannibalisation detection. 6 7 1
The Data Analyst
Keywords Explorer is documented with volume and CPC accuracy statements, difficulty, search-intent filtering, Parent Topic, volume forecasting and a long tracked list of SERP features including AI Overview, with position tracking for features that carry URLs. For what sits above that — competitor gap analysis, content briefs with entity coverage, cannibalisation detection, and any statement of German-language data depth — we found no public information. 6 7
The Skeptic
Volume, difficulty and intent filtering are documented, and seventeen SERP features are tracked with position tracking for those carrying URLs — more checkable detail than most vendors publish. But we found no public information on German-language data depth, topic clustering, content briefs or cannibalisation detection, so this reads as keyword research without the guidance layer. 6 7
Rank tracking & index quality
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The proprietary data: ranking accuracy and frequency, backlink index size and freshness. Scored on what the vendor documents about their own data, because nothing here can be verified from outside.
0 — Rankings and backlinks with no stated update frequency, no country or device granularity, and no documentation of how either is collected.
3 — Weekly rankings for one country and device, a backlink index with no stated refresh cadence or size.
5 — Daily rankings with country, language and device selection, local results, and a backlink index with a documented crawl frequency.
8 — Rankings at stated frequency across many locations including city-level, SERP feature attribution, backlink index size and refresh published, lost-and-found link detection, and historical data retained for the life of the account.
10 — The vendor is accountable for their own data: methodology documented, index size and freshness published and updated, historical rankings retained and exportable in full, and discrepancies against Search Console explained rather than hidden.
The In-House SEO Lead
The backlink side is unusually well documented — fresh data every 15–30 minutes, a full database refresh of about two months, and crawl priority driven by Domain Rating and URL Rating. The rank-tracking side gives me almost nothing to defend in a monthly report: we found no public information on update frequency, country or device granularity, index size, historical retention below the Enterprise plan, or how their numbers square with Search Console. 8 9 2 11
The Agency Owner
They are unusually open about their own index: fresh data every 15–30 minutes, a full database refresh in about two months, popularity-driven crawl priority, and the most active SEO crawler on Cloudflare Radar. But I found no public information on index size, rank-tracking frequency, or country and device granularity, and unlimited historical data is listed only as an Enterprise feature — the multi-year history I would be rebilling clients on is tier-limited. 2 8 9
The Technical SEO
The backlink index is documented unusually well: fresh data every 15–30 minutes, a complete refresh in about two months, and crawl priority and update speed explained through Domain Rating and URL Rating. The ranking side is silent by comparison — I found no public information on how often positions are checked, on country or device granularity, or on index size in numbers — and the only historical-data statement is 'Unlimited historical data' on the Enterprise plan. That leaves roughly half of the proprietary picture accountable to the public record. 8 9 2
The Content Strategist
The backlink index is documented with unusual candour: their own crawler ranked by Cloudflare Radar activity, fresh data every 15–30 minutes, a full database refresh in about two months, and crawl priority and speed explained through their own rating metrics. The index size itself is not published, and we found no public information on rank tracking frequency or country, language and device granularity — unlimited historical data appears as an Enterprise feature rather than a baseline. 8 9 2
The Data Analyst
The backlink side is unusually accountable: refresh every 15–30 minutes, a full database cycle of about two months, and crawl priority and update speed explained as functions of their own Domain and URL ratings. We found no public information on index size, rank tracking frequency, or country and device granularity, and historical retention is tier-gated in the captured pages — unlimited historical data appears as an Enterprise feature. 8 9 2
The Skeptic
The freshness statements are unusually holdable: fresh index data every 15–30 minutes, a complete database refresh of about two months, and crawl priority explained through their own metrics. We found no public information on a published index size, ranking frequency, country or device granularity, or historical retention — the only history statement is unlimited historical data reserved for the Enterprise plan. 8 9 2
Reporting, integrations & API
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Getting the data out and in front of someone: dashboards, white-label reporting for agencies, Search Console and analytics integration, and an API a team can build on.
0 — On-screen views only; export is a manual CSV and there is no API.
3 — Scheduled PDF reports and CSV export, one analytics integration, no API worth building against.
5 — Customisable dashboards, scheduled reports, Search Console and analytics integration, and a documented API with stated limits.
8 — White-label reporting with client access, data-warehouse or BigQuery export, multi-site and multi-client management, and an API with credit costs published per endpoint.
10 — The tool is a data source rather than a destination: full historical export in open formats, a versioned API with a deprecation policy, integrations the vendor maintains, and reporting an agency can hand a client unedited.
The In-House SEO Lead
A versioned rank-tracking API and an AI assistant that runs API queries and generates exports exist, so data can move; the vendor also states outright that white-label reports are not allowed at present. We found no public information on Search Console or analytics integrations, dashboards or scheduled reports, or API limits and per-call costs. 11 10 1 2
The Agency Owner
The help centre says it outright: "At present we do not allow to white-label our reports" — that alone kills the unedited client-report workflow across my forty sites. A documented, versioned API is the one genuine asset, with uncapped access and custom endpoints on Enterprise, but I found no public information on multi-client management, scheduled client reports, or Search Console and analytics integration. 2 10 11
The Technical SEO
There is a documented, versioned API — version 3.0.0 with a rank-tracker endpoint — alongside row exports and an AI assistant that generates charts and exports. The help pages state plainly that white-labelling of reports is not allowed at present. I found no public information on Search Console or analytics integration, customisable dashboards, or stated API limits beyond 'Uncapped API access' on Enterprise. 11 10 1 12
The Content Strategist
There is a documented API at version 3.0.0 with a rank-tracker reference, so a team can genuinely build against this. But the vendor states white-labelling reports is not currently allowed, and we found no public information on customisable dashboards, scheduled reports, Search Console or analytics integration, warehouse export, or per-endpoint credit costs; only Enterprise is described as having uncapped API access. 10 11 12 2
The Data Analyst
There is a real, versioned Rank Tracker API at version 3.0.0, and the Enterprise plan advertises uncapped access and custom endpoints — more than a CSV button, but not yet a data source. We found no public information on API credit costs per endpoint, data-warehouse or BigQuery export, or Search Console and analytics integration, and the vendor states that at present reports cannot be white-labelled. 11 2 10
The Skeptic
A versioned API (3.0.0) is documented and the built-in assistant runs API queries and generates exports, which is a foundation a team could build on. But the vendor's own help pages state that white-labelling reports is not allowed, and we found no public information on API limits or credit costs per endpoint, Search Console or analytics integrations, or scheduled reporting. 11 10 1 2
Data portability & exit
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the ranking and crawl history — the only thing a multi-year subscription actually accumulates — remains the customer's when they leave.
0 — No bulk export; history is visible in the interface and nowhere else, and ends with the subscription.
3 — CSV export of current views only, with historical data capped or unavailable in bulk.
5 — Bulk export of rankings, keywords and crawl results including history, via interface or API.
8 — Complete historical export in open formats without credit metering that prices it out of reach, plus a documented retention period after cancellation.
10 — Exit is designed for: the full account exportable including every historical data point, API access sufficient to mirror the data continuously, and a stated grace period during which the archive remains retrievable.
The In-House SEO Lead
Row exports and a rank-tracking API give a route out, and unlimited historical data is advertised as an Enterprise feature, leaving the treatment of history on the lower tiers unstated. We found no public information on bulk historical export in open formats, retention after cancellation, or whether credit metering on the credit-limited plans prices a full export out of reach. 12 11 2
The Agency Owner
A documented rank-tracker API endpoint exists and exports are part of the workflow, but the help pages describe per-plan export row limits, and unlimited historical data plus higher data-export limits sit behind Enterprise. I found no public information on what remains retrievable after cancellation — for a multi-year subscription that is the exit risk I care about most. 1 2 11 12
The Technical SEO
Row export and a documented rank-tracker API endpoint mean the data is not trapped in the interface. The Enterprise plan is sold with 'Unlimited historical data' and 'Personalized higher limits & data exports', which points at caps on lower tiers, and I found no public information on bulk historical export, on export formats, or on any retention period after cancellation. 11 12 2
The Content Strategist
Export rows and a documented rank-tracker API give two paths out. Historical data is capped below the Enterprise plan, exports carry plan-specific credit limits on the credit-limited tiers, and we found no public information on any retention or grace period after cancellation — so the multi-year archive a subscription actually accumulates has an unclear exit cost. 2 11 12
The Data Analyst
Export exists but is metered: help documentation ties exports to per-plan row limits, and unlimited historical data plus higher data-export limits are presented as Enterprise features, so multi-year rankings appear tier-gated rather than the customer's by default. We found no public information on retention of the archive after cancellation or any grace period during which it stays retrievable. 12 2 11
The Skeptic
Exports exist through the interface and the built-in assistant, and an API is documented, but nothing captured shows bulk export of historical rankings or crawl results in open formats. Unlimited historical data is an Enterprise-plan feature, so history below it is capped, and we found no public information on retention or any grace period after cancellation. 12 2 11
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where the account and crawl data live and who the contracting entity is. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; weighted lower here than in categories holding personal data, because an SEO tool mostly holds the customer's own strategy rather than their customers' identities.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors unnamed, and site or user data of unclear scope leaving the EU.
3 — EU hosting offered as an option while the contracting entity is non-EU, or the subprocessor list is absent.
5 — EU hosting as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessor list published, and any analytics or Search Console data handling described with its legal basis.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, entity, hosting and every subprocessor European, certification published, and a DPA that covers the crawl and analytics data the tool ingests.
The In-House SEO Lead
The contracting entity is Ahrefs Pte. Ltd. of Singapore, with an American entity for US customers, so there is no European contracting party, and we found no public information on where accounts and crawl data are hosted. A published subprocessor list with services and locations, plus a data processing agreement, are the only positives on an otherwise non-European picture. 3
The Agency Owner
The contracting entity is Ahrefs Pte. Ltd. at 16 Raffles Quay, Singapore, with a separate Ahrefs Services LLC path for US customers, and I found no public information on hosting location, data residency or ownership. Credit where due: a subprocessor list with services and locations is published and a data processing agreement is available. 3
The Technical SEO
The contracting entity is Ahrefs Pte. Ltd. at a Singapore address, with separate US terms referencing Ahrefs Services LLC; a subprocessor list is published and a data processing agreement is available. I found no public information on hosting location or EU data residency, so nothing on the captured pages evidences a European option for where account and crawl data live. 3
The Content Strategist
The contracting entity is Ahrefs Pte. Ltd. of Singapore, and we found no public information on where account or crawl data is hosted. A sub-processor list and a data processing agreement are published, which keeps this just above the floor for a tool that mostly holds the customer's own strategy rather than their customers' identities. 3 2
The Data Analyst
The contracting entity is Ahrefs Pte. Ltd. of Singapore, and we found no public information on data residency or hosting location. A published sub-processor list with services and locations, plus an available data processing agreement, lifts this just above the floor for a non-EU chain with nothing European evidenced. 3
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is Ahrefs Pte. Ltd. in Singapore, with a US arm and a US-specific data processing addendum, and we found no public information on hosting location or data residency. The one checkable disclosure is a published sub-processor list with services and locations; everything else about where the data sits is unstated. 3
Pricing transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The category where the headline price is least often the invoice. Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost including keyword limits, crawl credits, API units, extra users and client seats — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A monthly headline exists, but keyword limits, crawl credits or the cost of an additional user are unstated — the invoice is unknowable.
5 — Tier prices public with the main limits given, but at least one commonly needed piece (extra seats, API credits, historical data) is unpriced or metered opaquely.
8 — Every tier priced publicly with keyword, crawl and API limits, overage rates, per-seat costs, minimum term and VAT treatment stated.
10 — Complete price computability: annual invoice derivable for a given keyword count, crawl volume, API usage and team size, with overage and every credit cost published.
The In-House SEO Lead
Five tiers are priced openly — from € 27 /mo Starter to € 1,394 /mo Enterprise with annual commitment — plus a free tier and up to 17% off for annual payment. The invoice is still not computable: we found no public euro figure for the credit allowances of the credit-limited plans or for an additional user (one user included, extra users carry plan-specific credit limits), and no public information on API costs or VAT treatment. 2 12 1
The Agency Owner
Six public price points from a free tier to € 1,394 /mo with annual commitment required, annual savings of up to 17%, and one included user per subscription except Enterprise give good headline visibility. But I found no public information on the price of an additional user, per-plan credit amounts for the credit-limited Starter and Lite tiers, API credit costs, overage rates or VAT treatment — for a growing team the annual invoice is not computable from these pages. 2 12
The Technical SEO
All tiers are priced publicly, from € 27 /mo to € 1,394 /mo with annual commitment required at the top, alongside a free tier, a stated saving of up to 17% annually, one included user on every plan except Enterprise, and credit mechanics documented down to which HTTP statuses consume crawl credits and the 5,000 bonus credits per verified project. I found no public information on the price of an additional user, on API credit costs, or on VAT treatment, so the real annual invoice for a growing team is not computable from public pages alone. 2 12
The Content Strategist
Five paid tiers from € 27 /mo to € 1,394 /mo are public in euros, with the up-to-17% annual discount and the Enterprise annual commitment stated. But we found no public information on per-plan keyword limits, crawl credit allotments, API credit prices or per-seat costs — additional-user limits are described as plan-specific with no numbers — so the real annual invoice for a given team size cannot be computed from public pages. 2 12 1
The Data Analyst
Every tier is public — € 27 /mo Starter through € 1,394 /mo Enterprise with annual commitment required — with monthly billing, a save up to 17% annual option, and the credit rules documented: Starter and Lite are credit-limited, crawl credits only count internal HTML pages returning a 200, and each subscription except Enterprise includes one user. The invoice stays partly unknowable because we found no public information on the price of an additional user, API credit costs, overage rates or VAT treatment, and historical data is priced only implicitly through the Enterprise tier. 2 12
The Skeptic
Every tier carries a public monthly price from € 27 /mo up to € 1,394 /mo with the annual discount stated, which is more than most vendors show. But the invoice is not computable: additional users are described with plan-specific credit limits and no price, Starter and Lite are credit-metered without stated credit amounts, and we found no public information on VAT treatment — only the Enterprise plan states its annual commitment. 2 12
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited 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 2 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. 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.
- We could not confirm any compliance 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
- 127 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
- 122 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
- 26 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
- 21 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
- 9 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
- 7 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 hosting 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
Sources (12)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage ahrefs.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 +3 earlier captures: 2 Sep 2026, 2 Sep 2026, 2 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing ahrefs.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 +4 earlier captures: 11 Sep 2026, 2 Sep 2026, 2 Sep 2026, 2 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Legal notice ahrefs.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Crawling & technical audit — found from sitemap help.ahrefs.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Crawling & technical audit — found from sitemap help.ahrefs.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Keyword research & content guidance — found from sitemap help.ahrefs.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Keyword research & content guidance — found from sitemap help.ahrefs.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Rank tracking & index quality — found from sitemap help.ahrefs.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Rank tracking & index quality — found from sitemap help.ahrefs.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Reporting, integrations & API — found from sitemap help.ahrefs.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Data portability & exit — found from sitemap docs.ahrefs.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Data portability & exit — found from sitemap help.ahrefs.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →