SEO
Lumar
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Lumar (formerly DeepCrawl) · www.lumar.io
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
Lumar at a glance
- Vendor
- Lumar (formerly DeepCrawl)
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Lumar 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. Lumar (formerly DeepCrawl) is strongest on technical audit, where scores hold at 9: a crawler at up to 450 URLs per second non-rendered and 350 rendered on Google's own engine, log-file crawl-budget breakdowns, Source Gap charts, build gates and an AI dev-ticket writer. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Lumar (formerly DeepCrawl) is strongest on technical audit, where scores hold at 9: a crawler at up to 450 URLs per second non-rendered and 350 rendered on Google's own engine, log-file crawl-budget breakdowns, Source Gap charts, build gates and an AI dev-ticket writer. Weakest are keyword and content, 1 to 2, and rank and index data, 2 to 3 — the captured keyword pages are educational notes from Google's Office Hours and title-length guidance, with no public information on volumes, difficulty, intent or SERP features. Its documented dataset is AI-answer visibility — six named models, a chosen refresh cadence and up to two years of stored data — with no public information on traditional rank tracking or backlink data. Reporting and API scores span 5 to 7 — a GraphQL API and a Data Studio connector — with no published rate limits or per-endpoint costs; data portability spans 4 to 5, and sovereignty 0 to 1, with no public information about hosting or subprocessors. Captured pages give different figures for built-in report counts (250+, 350+, 500+); pricing is a "Get pricing" enquiry.
Speaks for it
- Technical audit scores sit at 9, with crawl speeds of up to 450 URLs per second non-rendered and 350 rendered on Google's own rendering engine.
- Log-file crawl-budget breakdowns and Source Gap charts set what the crawler found against sitemaps, Search Console, analytics and log files.
- A single documented GraphQL API makes every report pullable, with custom apps deployable in your own environment and a Data Studio connector.
- AI visibility is documented across six named models, refreshed at your chosen cadence and backed by up to two years of stored data.
- Pre-production QA gates can halt a CI/CD build when metrics dip, and an AI dev-ticket writer turns findings into developer-ready tasks.
Held against it
- Keyword and content scores sit at 1 to 2, with the captured keyword material limited to educational advice and no public information on volumes, difficulty or intent.
- No public information on traditional rank tracking or a backlink index leaves rank and index data at 2 to 3.
- Sovereignty scores sit at 0 to 1 on no public information about hosting location, contracting entity or subprocessors.
- No published API rate limits, per-endpoint credit costs or white-label client reporting keep reporting and API at 5 to 7.
- No public information on export formats, bulk historical export or retention after cancellation, with data portability at 4 to 5.
Best for
- You run technical SEO at scale and need log-file analysis, crawl-budget breakdowns and pre-production gates inside your CI/CD pipeline.
- You want crawler findings converted into developer-ready tickets your engineering teams can action.
- You are tracking AI-answer visibility — brand mentions, sentiment and citations across named models — and want a defined, weighted score with stored history.
- You build in-house tooling on a documented GraphQL API and deploy custom apps in your own environment.
Avoid if
- You need keyword research — volumes, difficulty, intent or SERP feature data — to plan content; keyword and content scored 1 to 2.
- You depend on traditional rank tracking or a backlink index with stated size and freshness.
- Your procurement must see published hosting, contracting-entity or subprocessor details before signing.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Crawling & technical audit | 4.5 of 5 |
| Keyword research & content guidance | 1 of 5 |
| Rank tracking & index quality | 1 of 5 |
| Reporting, integrations & API | 3 of 5 |
| Data portability & exit | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0 of 5 |
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
Crawling runs at real scale — up to 450 URLs per second non-rendered and 350 rendered, millions of pages — with JavaScript rendering via Google's own engine, and findings arrive traffic-weighted: log-file crawl budget breakdowns of which page types receive bot hits, Source Gap and Search Console reports comparing what the crawl found against what Google fetched and clicked, indexation and structured-data categories, and error pages joined to actual visits. Core Web Vitals are measured both in a lab environment through their own rendering service and Lighthouse runs and as origin-level CrUX field data, with per-metric sourcing documented. The AI dev ticket writer turns issues into developer-ready tasks, which is exactly what I need for our board; we found no public information on surfacing rendering differences between crawls. 1 2 3 9
The Agency Owner
Log-file crawl-budget breakdowns, Source Gap charts lining the crawl up against sitemaps, Search Console, analytics and log files, JavaScript rendering on Google's own engine, and Core Web Vitals from both Lighthouse lab data and CrUX field data — plus an AI dev-ticket writer that turns findings into assignable work. It sits just under the top mark because I found no public information on regression comparison between crawls tied to a specific deploy; pre-production QA and CI/CD triggers get close but do not evidence deploy-level attribution. 1 2 3 9
The Technical SEO
Log files are a first-class product here, not a bolt-on: crawl budget broken down across primary pages with and without bot hits, bot trend charts over time, and a Source Gap view of what the crawler found versus sitemaps, Search Console, analytics and log files — that is crawler-versus-Google comparison, not a link count. Rendering runs on Google's own engine at a stated 350 rendered URLs per second, Search Console and analytics funnel reports prioritise by actual clicks and visits, and pre-production QA that can halt a build plus an AI dev ticket writer close the loop from regression to developer ticket. The only gaps against the top of the scale: nothing evidences rendered-versus-raw differences surfaced as such, and structured data appears as a chart category rather than documented validation. 1 2 3 9
The Content Strategist
The strongest-documented part of the product: millions of pages at up to 450 URLs per second, JavaScript rendering on Google's own engine, log-file crawl budget breakdowns, and Source Gap charts that line up what the crawler found against sitemaps, Search Console, analytics and log files — then an AI ticket writer turns findings into developer-ready tasks, with pre-production QA gates that can halt a CI/CD build when metrics dip. That closes the loop from finding to fixing and makes deploy-level attribution plausible. I hold back the last point because canonical and structured-data handling appear only as report categories without documented validation. 1 2 3 9
The Data Analyst
This is the diagnostic end of the market: a crawler at 350 rendered URLs per second on Google's own rendering engine, log-file analysis with a Crawl Budget Breakdown, a Search Console funnel, and Source Gap charts that cross-reference web, sitemaps, Search Console, analytics and log files so what the crawler saw can be compared against what Google fetched. Protect pre-production tests with thresholds to halt builds plus an AI dev-ticket writer push remediation toward deploy-level attribution; the only gap I see is that a crawled-versus-rendered difference view is not described in the captured pages. 1 2 3 9
The Skeptic
The crawl story is stated in numbers I can hold vendors to: millions of pages, up to 450 URLs per second unrendered and 350 rendered, rendering through Google's own engine, and Core Web Vitals methodology documented down to which metrics are Lighthouse-only versus CrUX origin-level. Log-file crawl-budget breakdowns, Search Console funnel reports and source-gap charts compare what the crawler sees against what Google actually fetched, issues are cross-referenced with visits and click bands rather than counted, and build gates plus an AI ticket writer turn findings into developer work. What keeps it off the top is that the captured pages show no stated page limits or crawl scheduling terms, and no report that surfaces rendering differences as such. 1 2 3 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
We found no public information on a keyword database — no volumes, difficulty, intent or SERP feature analysis for any market, German included; the keyword material captured is educational notes from Google's office hours and title-length guidance rather than product capability. What is evidenced is AI-era content guidance: a content evaluator scoring precision and semantic relevance for AI inclusion, with instant AI-powered suggestions. Useful, but it is not keyword research, and nothing German-specific is published. 1 4 5 6
The Agency Owner
I found no evidence of keyword research — no volumes, difficulty, intent classification or SERP feature data, and nothing on German-language coverage; the keyword material on the site is educational notes from Google's office-hours sessions. What does exist is AI-era content guidance, a GEO content evaluator scoring pages on precision and semantic relevance with AI-powered suggestions, which is novel but is not the keyword machine my content teams bill against. 4 5 6
The Technical SEO
This is a technical crawler wearing a content hat: what the captured pages show is Google Office Hours advice on keyword repetition and page-title pixel widths, plus a GEO content evaluator judging pages on semantic relevance and precision for AI selection with AI-powered suggestions. We found no public information on keyword volumes, difficulty, intent classification, SERP feature analysis, or any German-language keyword data. 1 4 5 6
The Content Strategist
The keyword evidence is educational copy — hyphen and repetition advice, title-length guidance per engine — rather than product capability: we found no public information on keyword volumes, difficulty, intent classification, SERP features, German-market data, or cannibalisation detection. The nearest real features are the GEO content evaluator and prompt-level topic clustering, which track AI visibility rather than research keyword opportunity. 4 5 6
The Data Analyst
The captured keyword pages are learning content — Google Office Hours notes and title-length guidance per engine — and we found no public information on keyword discovery, volumes, difficulty, intent or SERP feature data. The GEO content evaluator that scores precision and semantic relevance for AI answers is genuine content guidance, but it is not the keyword research this criterion asks about. 4 5 6
The Skeptic
The keyword material captured is educational advice — title lengths, bold text, keyword repetition — compiled from Google Office Hours notes, and we found no public information on keyword volumes, difficulty, intent classification, SERP feature detail or any German-language keyword data. A GEO content evaluator promises scoring against AI selection, but with no keyword database in evidence behind it, this remains guidance rather than research. 4 5 6
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
We found no public information on traditional rank tracking or a backlink index — no ranking frequency, country or device granularity, and no index size or freshness figures. The proprietary data that is documented is AI-answer tracking: named models, refresh at a chosen cadence, a weighted visibility score built from mention frequency and citation quality, and up to two years of stored data. I need rankings I can defend when they disagree with Search Console, and nothing published addresses accuracy or discrepancy handling. 6 7 9
The Agency Owner
I found no public information on traditional rank tracking or a backlink index — no ranking frequency, country or device granularity, or index size and freshness. The proprietary data that is documented is the AI visibility layer: mentions, citations and sentiment across named models including ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity and Claude, refreshed at a chosen cadence and backed by up to two years of stored data, but with no methodology documentation behind it. 1 6
The Technical SEO
The captured pages show no classic rank tracker or backlink index: no stated update frequency, country or device granularity, index size, or collection methodology for rankings or links. Their actual proprietary dataset is the AI visibility score, and they do publish its composition as a weighted combination of mention frequency and citation quality, a user-chosen refresh cadence, and up to two years of stored data — more methodology than most, but it is not rank or backlink data. 1 6
The Content Strategist
The only proprietary dataset documented is AI visibility: six named AI platforms tracked, refresh at a cadence you choose, a weighted score definition, and up to two years of stored data — genuine accountability for their own numbers. We found no public information on classic SERP rank tracking, its frequency or country and device granularity, or any backlink index. 6
The Data Analyst
The only documented proprietary dataset is AI-answer tracking: brand appearance, sentiment and citations across six named models, refreshed at a chosen cadence and backed by up to two years of stored data, which is refreshingly specific retention. We found no public information on keyword rank tracking frequency, country or device granularity, or any backlink index, so the core of this criterion rests on unreported data. 6 9
The Skeptic
What the vendor documents about their own data is refresh and retention, both checkable claims: AI visibility refreshed at a chosen cadence, backed by up to two years of stored data, across named models from ChatGPT to Claude, with crawl measurement methods spelled out. But we found no public information on traditional keyword rank tracking, any backlink index with a size or freshness, or country, device and city-level granularity. 3 6
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 single documented GraphQL API covers all current and future apps and supports custom applications deployed in our own environment, with the new metrics and reports stated as available through it; alongside that sit a Data Studio connector, CI/CD triggers, custom dashboards, alerts, multi-site management, and Search Console and analytics data separated into their own report subcategories. We found no public information on white-label client reporting, data-warehouse export, or API rate limits and per-endpoint costs. 1 3 8 9
The Agency Owner
Multi-site dashboards, per-category charts with trend lines, a Data Studio connector carrying all reports, and a documented GraphQL API I can build custom apps on cover most of my forty-site workflow. I found no public information on white-label reporting a client could receive unedited, on published API limits or credit costs, or on warehouse export; integrating SEO data into client-facing platforms is pitched as a use case rather than a delivered feature. 1 3 8 9
The Technical SEO
A single documented GraphQL API covering all apps, every report pullable through it, custom applications in your own environment, a Data Studio connector, CI/CD integration and auto-triggered crawls on staging — an API a team can genuinely build on. Customisable multi-site dashboards and Search Console plus analytics integration are evidenced. We found no public information on white-label client access, data-warehouse export, API rate limits or per-endpoint credit costs. 1 3 8 9
The Content Strategist
A single documented GraphQL API gives programmatic access to crawler and website-intelligence data, with custom apps in your own environment, a Data Studio connector, CI/CD triggers and multi-site dashboards — a real API to build on, not a checkbox. We found no public information on scheduled reports, stated API limits, white-label client reporting, data-warehouse export, or per-endpoint credit costs, which keeps this short of the top bands. 8 3 1 9
The Data Analyst
A documented GraphQL API that exposes all reports and metrics programmatically, plus a Data Studio connector, custom dashboards, custom apps in your own environment and CI/CD integration, means the numbers can reach a warehouse — more than most vendors publish. But we found no public information on rate limits or credit costs per endpoint, nor on white-label reporting, so a team cannot budget API usage from public pages alone. 1 3 8
The Skeptic
A documented GraphQL API with a single endpoint for crawler and website intelligence data, custom apps deployed in the buyer's own environment, a Data Studio connector, and category dashboards with trend lines make this genuinely buildable, with Search Console and analytics sitting inside the platform's traffic funnel. We found no public information on white-label reporting, data-warehouse export, or published API rate limits and per-endpoint credit costs — the pages document the API's existence, not its cost per call — and the captured pages give different figures for built-in report counts (250+, 350+ and 500+), which I note without choosing. 3 8 9
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
The API provides programmatic access to the crawler and website intelligence data and can pull reports into our own workflows, and the AI visibility data is stated as backed by up to two years of stored data, so continuous mirroring looks feasible. We found no public information on bulk historical export in open formats, export credit metering, or any retention period after cancellation, which leaves the fate of multi-year crawl history at exit unanswered. 3 6 8
The Agency Owner
The API is pitched explicitly as programmatic access to crawler and website intelligence data for pulling into your own workflows, so continuous mirroring looks feasible. I found no public information on bulk historical export formats or on what happens to the archive after cancellation — the only retention statement anywhere is up to two years of stored visibility data. 3 6 8
The Technical SEO
The API grants programmatic access to crawler and website intelligence data and the captured pages say every report can be pulled into your own workflows, which is a real mirroring route for crawl data. We found no public information on bulk historical export in open formats, on export credit metering, or on any retention period after cancellation; the only stated retention is up to two years for the AI visibility score. 3 6 8
The Content Strategist
Programmatic API access to crawl and report data is stated plainly enough to amount to bulk export, and AI visibility history is retained up to two years. We found no public information on open export formats, whether historical crawl data exports in full, retention after cancellation, or any grace period during which the archive stays retrievable. 8 3 6
The Data Analyst
Programmatic access to the crawler's data and the invitation to build applications deployed in your own environment mean a customer can in principle mirror data continuously rather than screenshot it. We found no public information on full historical export in open formats, on export metering, or on any retention or grace period after cancellation — whether the multi-year crawl archive leaves with the customer is undocumented. 3 6 8
The Skeptic
The API grants programmatic access to the crawler and website intelligence data, with up to two years of stored visibility history behind it, which is the makings of a bulk pull into the customer's own workflows. We found no public information on export formats, on whether full crawl history is retrievable in bulk, or on any retention period after cancellation — the part that matters the day a multi-year subscriber walks. 3 6 8
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
We found no public information on hosting location, the contracting entity, subprocessors, certification, or a data-processing agreement covering the crawl, log-file and Search Console data the tool ingests. With nothing published on any of these points, no part of the chain can be assessed as European from the captured pages. 1 8
The Agency Owner
The captured pages give me nothing on where accounts and crawl data are hosted, who the contracting entity is, or which subprocessors are in the chain — I found no public information on any of it. For a tool crawling my clients' sites, that silence is the whole answer. 1 8
The Technical SEO
No sovereignty attributes are on record: we found no public information on hosting location, contracting entity, subprocessors, or certification in the captured pages. Judged on that absence this sits at the bottom of the scale, though the weighting is lighter given an SEO platform mainly ingests the customer's own site and crawl data. 1 7
The Content Strategist
No sovereignty attributes are on record: we found no public information on where account and crawl data is hosted, on the contracting entity, or on any subprocessor list in the captured pages. With hosting unstated and subprocessors unnamed, this sits at the bottom of the published scale. 1 7
The Data Analyst
We found no public information on hosting location, contracting entity, subprocessors or certification in any of the captured pages. With nothing evidenced on where the crawl and connected Search Console data reside, this criterion scores at the floor. 1 7
The Skeptic
Nothing captured addresses where the account and crawl data are hosted, who the contracting entity is, or which subprocessors are involved, and no sovereignty information is on record anywhere in the captured pages. For a tool that ingests Search Console and analytics data alongside site URLs, that silence about the processing chain is what the bottom of this scale describes. 1
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
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
The captured pages show only a "Get pricing" enquiry alongside a demo request. We found no public information on tier prices, keyword or crawl limits, API costs, seat pricing, minimum terms or VAT treatment — the real annual invoice is a sales conversation. 7
The Agency Owner
The only pricing signal anywhere is a "Get pricing" call to action beside "Get a demo" — no numbers, no tiers, no crawl or keyword limits, and no per-seat cost I can build into a retainer model. Every tier is a sales conversation, which for my margin planning is the worst outcome there is. 7
The Technical SEO
The captured pages show a 'Get pricing' contact route and a demo call, with an email address for very specific requirements — a sales conversation for every tier. We found no public prices, keyword limits, crawl credits or seat costs to compute an invoice from. 7 8
The Content Strategist
The only pricing signal in the captured pages is a 'Get pricing' call to action beside 'Get a demo' — every tier is a sales conversation. No tier prices, crawl or API limits, seat costs, minimum terms or VAT treatment are published, so an annual invoice is not computable from public pages. 7
The Data Analyst
The only pricing artefact captured is a contact call-to-action alongside a demo request; we found no public information on tier figures, crawl or keyword limits, seat costs, minimum terms or VAT treatment. The invoice is a sales conversation, which is as far from computable as this scale goes. 7 1
The Skeptic
The only pricing artefact captured is a "Get pricing" call to action beside "Get a demo" — a sales conversation, not a number. No tier prices, crawl volume limits, API units, extra-seat costs or overage rates appear on any captured page, so the annual invoice cannot even be estimated in public. 7
Questions about Lumar
Is Lumar European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Lumar is based.
Where does Lumar store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Lumar have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Lumar?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates SE Ranking (3/5), Semrush (3/5) and SISTRIX (3/5) highest among the other 32 SEO products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is SISTRIX (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Lumar alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- 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.
- 9 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
- 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 (9)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.lumar.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Crawling & technical audit — found from sitemap www.lumar.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Crawling & technical audit — found from sitemap www.lumar.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Keyword research & content guidance — found from sitemap www.lumar.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Keyword research & content guidance — found from sitemap www.lumar.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Rank tracking & index quality — found from sitemap www.lumar.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Rank tracking & index quality — found from sitemap www.lumar.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Reporting, integrations & API — found from sitemap www.lumar.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Reporting, integrations & API — found from sitemap www.lumar.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →