SEO
Majestic
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Majestic Marketing Ltd · majestic.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
No written verdict for this product
The panel scored Majestic, but the summary our synthesizer wrote did not survive our own contradiction check — twice. Rather than print a paragraph we cannot stand behind, we print none. Every score, rationale and source below is unaffected; read them and draw the conclusion yourself.
The scores
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
Everything captured serves the vendor's web-wide backlink index — 'specialists in backlink analysis, established 2004' — and we found no public information on a crawler for the customer's own site, JavaScript rendering, Core Web Vitals or indexation diagnosis. There is nothing here my developers could turn into a ticket. 1
The Agency Owner
No site crawler or audit tooling appears anywhere in the captured material — the product is presented purely as backlink analysis — so I found no public information on crawling client sites, Core Web Vitals or indexation diagnosis. Forty client sites would need a second tool for this job. 1
The Technical SEO
The captured pages describe an index-side product — Site Explorer, Flow Metric scores, Campaigns, Bulk Backlink Checker — and I found no public information on a crawler for the customer's own site, JavaScript rendering, Core Web Vitals, log-file or Search Console tie-ins, or issues prioritised by traffic impact. With no site crawler of the customer's site evidenced anywhere, this lands at the bottom of the scale by definition. 1
The Content Strategist
The captured pages describe a web-scale crawler — hundreds of billions of unique URLs found and crawled — but that is Majestic crawling the open web for links, not a crawler auditing the customer's own site. We found no public information on Core Web Vitals, indexation diagnosis, JavaScript rendering or issue prioritisation, so there is nothing here to build a technical audit brief from. 1
The Data Analyst
The captured pages present a web-wide backlink index, not an auditor of the customer's own site; we found no public information on site crawling, JavaScript rendering, Core Web Vitals, or indexation diagnostics. Nothing here resembles a technical audit product. 1
The Skeptic
The vendor's own positioning is "Specialists in backlink analysis", and everything captured is link data and flow metrics; we found no public information on a site crawler, Core Web Vitals, indexation diagnosis or JavaScript rendering. There is nothing here a buyer could hold against an audit claim. 1
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 keyword volumes, intent, difficulty or SERP feature data in German or any other market; the topical scoring that does exist grades a site's link relevance across 800-plus categories rather than keyword opportunity. For a German-language content roadmap this is simply not addressed by the captured material. 1
The Agency Owner
The captured pages show no keyword research of any kind: no volumes, difficulty, intent or SERP feature data, and nothing on German-language depth. The closest content features are author discovery and topical link scoring, which is link intelligence rather than keyword guidance. 1
The Technical SEO
No keyword volumes, difficulty, intent signals or SERP feature data appear in the captured pages; the filters on offer (topic, quality, language) are for backlink lists, not keyword research. I found no public information on German-language keyword data, topic clustering, content briefs or cannibalisation detection. 1
The Content Strategist
The captured pages contain no keyword discovery, volume, intent, difficulty, SERP feature detail, topic clustering, briefs or cannibalisation detection, and no German-language data signal at all. Author Explorer and topical filtering across 800-plus categories are genuinely interesting for author-level and topical discovery, but that is outreach research, not keyword and content guidance. 1
The Data Analyst
Everything on the captured pages is framed around links, web authors and topical trust scores; we found no public information on keyword volumes, intent classification, SERP features or content guidance. This capability is simply not evidenced. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on keyword research of any kind — no volumes, difficulty, intent, SERP features or German-language data; the nearest feature is a beta Author Explorer that inspects web authors' backlinks, which is not keyword discovery. This capability is simply not evidenced on the captured pages. 1
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 pillar is documented to a standard I could defend in a board meeting: a Fresh Index of 180,135,964,705 unique URLs crawled over a stated 120-day window, deletion and loss data on discovered links, a Historic Index reaching back to 2006, and a live freshness stamp of 'last updated 1 hour 18 minutes ago'. Rank tracking is the other pillar of this criterion, and we found no public information on ranking frequency, country or device granularity, or anything reconcilable against Search Console. 1
The Agency Owner
The backlink index is genuinely documented — the Fresh Index publishes unique URLs found and crawled with its date range, refresh recency is shown on the page, deleted and lost links are covered, and the Historic Index is sized back to 2006 — but I found no public information on rank tracking of any kind, which is half of what this criterion asks. 1
The Technical SEO
The backlink half is documented to a standard few vendors reach: index size published to the URL (543.8 billion URLs found in the Fresh Index, 21.7 trillion in the Historic back to 2006), freshness stamped live on the page ('last updated 1 hour 18 minutes ago'), crawl scope disclosed (180 billion URLs crawled for the Fresh Index) and deleted-or-lost link data inside the 120-day window. But I found no public information on rank tracking of any kind — no update frequency, country or device granularity, and no reconciliation with Search Console — so the ranking half of the criterion is entirely unevidenced. 1
The Content Strategist
The backlink index is documented at close to the top of the scale: published size and date ranges for both the 120-day Fresh Index and the Historic Index going back to 2006, a page-level update recency, and lost and deleted links flagged within the Fresh window. We found no public information on rank tracking of any kind — no frequency, country or device granularity, no methodology — which holds this at the middle. 1
The Data Analyst
The index documentation is the strongest thing here: sizes, crawl counts and date ranges for both indices are published, the page reads "last updated 1 hour 18 minutes ago", and the Fresh Index records deleted and lost links. But no ranking product is evidenced at all, and the Historic Index's published date range ends 26 March 2024, so its freshness beyond that is unstated. 1
The Skeptic
The one thing the vendor publishes and updates: Fresh Index counts of 180,135,964,705 URLs crawled and 543,798,079,785 found over a stated 120-day window, marked "LAST UPDATED 1 HOUR 18 MINUTES AGO", a Historic Index dating to 2006, and tracking of links "deleted or lost". Against that we found no public information on rank tracking, country or device granularity, or crawl methodology — strong backlink transparency, no rankings to assess. 1
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
The API is one a team could genuinely build on — a connector library, connectors on GitHub, multiple manageable API keys, and Open Apps to plug the data straight into third-party tools — with export to Excel, CSV and TSV, Google Sheets import and bulk checks on up to 1,000,000 websites at once. We found no public information on scheduled or white-label reports, Search Console or analytics integration, or per-endpoint costs for the 'regular, large, or extra large resource volumes'. 1
The Agency Owner
There is a documented API with a connector library, GitHub connectors, multiple manageable API keys and bulk upload of up to a million sites, plus Excel/CSV/TSV export — but no stated API limits or credit costs, and no public information on white-label reporting, client access, multi-client management, or Search Console and analytics integration. For an agency that hands reports to clients unedited, that absence is decisive. 1
The Technical SEO
The API is real and buildable — connector library, developer documentation, connectors on GitHub, multiple keys you can generate and revoke — and data leaves the tool in Excel, CSV and TSV, plus a million-site bulk upload and free browser plugins. What I found no public information on: dashboards, scheduled or white-label reporting, Search Console and analytics integration, and per-endpoint credit costs; the API is sold only as 'regular, large, or extra large resource volumes' with no numbers attached. 1
The Content Strategist
There is a documented API with a connector library on GitHub, multiple manageable API keys, Open Apps to push data into third-party tools, bulk upload of up to a million sites, and export to Excel, CSV, TSV and Google Sheets — an API a team could build against. We found no public information on stated API limits or per-endpoint costs, dashboards, scheduled reports, white-labelling or Search Console integration. 1
The Data Analyst
A documented API with a connector library, GitHub connectors and multiple-key management is published, alongside bulk analysis of up to one million uploaded sites and export to Excel, CSV, TSV and Google Sheets. We found no public information on stated API limits or per-endpoint credit costs, dashboards, white-label reporting, or Search Console and analytics integration. 1
The Skeptic
A documented API with connector library, GitHub connectors and multiple manageable keys, plus bulk upload of a million sites and Excel, CSV and TSV export, is genuinely buildable. But we found no public information on API rate limits or credit costs per endpoint, dashboards, scheduled reports, or Search Console and analytics integration. 1
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
Backlink data exits in open formats via CSV, Excel and TSV or programmatically through the API, with on-demand Advanced Extracts and bulk uploads of up to a million websites, so the mechanics of leaving are partly in place. Those extracts are available 'on all but the biggest websites', higher volumes are steered into a bespoke conversation, and we found no public information on retention after cancellation or a grace period. 1
The Agency Owner
Current backlink views export to Excel, CSV and TSV, and bulk analysis of up to a million sites returns a CSV of metrics, but what accumulates here is the vendor's link index rather than my own account history. I found no public information on bulk export of my own analyses or any retention period after cancellation. 1
The Technical SEO
Bulk export is genuinely evidenced: best-links export to Excel/CSV/TSV, on-demand Advanced Extracts, and an API that can pull the Historic Index back to 2006, so the long history is reachable in open formats. What the captured pages never address is the exit itself — I found no public information on post-cancellation retention, a grace period, or a full-account export — so bulk export including history is evidenced but a designed exit is not. 1
The Content Strategist
Export of the best links of any website to Excel, CSV and TSV plus on-demand Advanced Extracts give real bulk routes for link data out of the tool. We found no public information on exporting the account's own accumulated history — campaigns and saved work — or on any retention window after cancellation, so exit is only partially designed for. 1
The Data Analyst
Link data leaves in open formats via interface and API, with on-demand Advanced Extracts and a Historic Index reaching back to 2006. Advanced Extracts are described as available "on all but the biggest websites", and we found no public information on any retention period after cancellation or on how extracts are metered. 1
The Skeptic
Export exists in open formats and the API can pull data in bulk, including on-demand Advanced Extracts on all but the biggest websites. But we found no public information on exporting the account's own accumulated history, or on any retention of data after cancellation — the multi-year investment has no documented exit. 1
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
A GDPR page is linked in the footer, and beyond that we found no public information on where account and crawl data are hosted, the jurisdiction of the contracting entities (the company history names a 2004 incorporation with no stated seat), or any subprocessor list. For monthly reporting to my DPO on an SEO toolset, there is nothing here to prepare with. 1
The Agency Owner
A GDPR page is published in the footer and the company timeline runs back to a 2004 incorporation, but hosting location, the contracting entity's jurisdiction, subprocessors, certification and any DPA are all without public information in this capture. Nothing here lets me tell a client where their data sits. 1
The Technical SEO
No sovereignty attributes are on record: the captured pages are silent on hosting location, subprocessors and the domicile of the contracting entity, with the incorporation of Majestic-12 Ltd in 2004 telling me the lineage but not where account and crawl data would sit. The only governance artefact in evidence is a footer link to a GDPR policy page, whose contents the capture does not show. 1
The Content Strategist
No sovereignty attributes are on record and the captured pages leave hosting, the contracting entity's location and every subprocessor unstated; the only signal is a GDPR page in the site footer. I cannot place where account or crawl data sits from anything public here, and a footer link is not a data-processing agreement. 1
The Data Analyst
The captured page links a GDPR policy and records an origin as Majestic-12 incorporated in 2004, but we found no public information on hosting location, contracting-entity jurisdiction or any subprocessor list. The basics this criterion needs are unevidenced beyond that footer link. 1
The Skeptic
The sovereignty record is empty: we found no public information on where account or crawl data is hosted, on the contracting entity's location (the page notes only that Majestic-12 Ltd was incorporated in October 2004), or on any subprocessor. A GDPR policy link is the only relevant evidence captured. 1
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
Tiers are named and scoped publicly — Lite as 'low-use Fresh Index and Site Explorer', Pro with the Historic Index and all web tools, an API plan in three resource volumes, plus free registration plans and a rotating free demo site — but we found no public price figure on any of them: no monthly amount, no VAT treatment, nothing from which a real annual invoice could be computed. 1
The Agency Owner
Tier names and inclusions are published — Lite, Pro, an API plan in three resource volumes, accepted payment methods — but no price figure appears anywhere in the captured pages, per-seat costs and API resource costs are unstated, and the higher-volume route reads "Let us know what you have in mind." From public pages alone I cannot compute an annual invoice for a forty-site book, and that contact-us route is a margin problem. 1
The Technical SEO
Plan structure is public — Lite for low-use Fresh Index, Pro for the Historic Index and all web tools, API plans in three resource volumes, free plans and a rotating demo site — but I found no public price figures for any tier, and seat costs, overage rates, minimum term and VAT treatment are all unstated. Only payment methods and the bank-transfer condition (annual billing on Pro and above) are pinned down, so the annual invoice is not computable from the captured pages. 1
The Content Strategist
Tier names, plan descriptions, accepted payment methods and a free registration tier are public, but the captured pages contain no price figures for any plan, no seat or analysis-unit costs, no minimum term and no VAT treatment. A buyer cannot compute a year's invoice from this; the headline is a doorway to a sales conversation. 1
The Data Analyst
Plan names and free access are public — a rotating free demo site, free registration plans, Lite and Pro tiers, and API plans in regular, large or extra large resource volumes — but no monetary figure appears anywhere on the captured page. The "low-use" limits and resource volumes are unquantified, so a real invoice cannot be computed from public information. 1
The Skeptic
Tier names and inclusions are described — Lite as "low-use Fresh Index and Site Explorer", Pro with the Historic Index, an API plan in "regular, large, or extra large resource volumes" — with payment methods and a free registration tier listed. But we found no public price figures for any tier, no overage rates, and no per-seat or API credit costs; the real invoice cannot be computed from the captured page. 1
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 22 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity. 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
- 12 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
- 7 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
- 5 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 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
- 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
- The panel’s written verdict is withheld: our own re-read found claims in it that the evidence does not carry, and a second synthesis did not fix them. The scores and the material below are unaffected. Know more? Tell us
Sources (8)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page majestic.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Terms of service — found from the homepage majestic.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Keyword research & content guidance — found from sitemap majestic.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Rank tracking & index quality — found from sitemap majestic.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Rank tracking & index quality — found from sitemap majestic.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Reporting, integrations & API — found from sitemap majestic.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Reporting, integrations & API — found from sitemap majestic.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Data portability & exit — found from sitemap majestic.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →