whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

SEO

Lumar

Provenance unknown Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

0–5 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

Lumar: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai Lumar: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai (dark)

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

Lumar alternatives, European ones first →

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

The Skeptic

Weighted verdict

Knows every vendor claims the largest index and the most accurate rankings, and that no buyer can check either. Reads instead for what can be held to: refresh frequency, stated limits, credit costs per endpoint, and what the invoice does when the team adds a seat.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The Skeptic

Panel median The Skeptic This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.
Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion Panel median The Skeptic
Crawling & technical audit 4.5 of 5 4.5 of 5
Keyword research & content guidance 1 of 5 1 of 5
Rank tracking & index quality 1 of 5 1.5 of 5
Reporting, integrations & API 3 of 5 3 of 5
Data portability & exit 2 of 5 2.5 of 5
European sovereignty 0 of 5 0 of 5

Crawling & technical audit

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Keyword research & content guidance

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Rank tracking & index quality

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Reporting, integrations & API

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Data portability & exit

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

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

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.

Do you know more about Lumar? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (9)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Vendor page www.lumar.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Crawling & technical audit — found from sitemap www.lumar.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Crawling & technical audit — found from sitemap www.lumar.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Keyword research & content guidance — found from sitemap www.lumar.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Keyword research & content guidance — found from sitemap www.lumar.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Rank tracking & index quality — found from sitemap www.lumar.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Rank tracking & index quality — found from sitemap www.lumar.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Reporting, integrations & API — found from sitemap www.lumar.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Reporting, integrations & API — found from sitemap www.lumar.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →