SEO
Mangools
Provenance unknown Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Mangools s.r.o. · mangools.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.
The panel's verdict
Mangools is an SEO suite of keyword research, SERP analysis, rank tracking, a backlink checker and a site explorer. Strongest: pricing transparency 5-6 and rank and index data 4. Weakest: technical audit 0-2. Pricing is concrete: three tiers at €452.40, €632.40 and €1,172.40 per year with per-module quotas, and rank tracking published per tier — 200, 700 and 1,500 keywords over unlimited domains, weekly updates on Basic and Premium, daily on Agency, across 65k+ city-level locations. Judges split on technical audit 0-2 over how much to credit metered site-analysis requests of 20 to 150 per 24 hours, and we found no public information on a site crawler, JavaScript rendering or Core Web Vitals. Sovereignty splits 2-4 on how far the s.r.o. form and a published Data Processing Agreement count as European signals, and we found no public information on hosting location or subprocessors. Reporting and API sits at 3-4, as does data portability: a Looker Studio connector, Search Console import and custom data exports are confirmed, and we found no public information on an API or bulk history export.
Speaks for it
- All three tiers priced publicly in euros — €452.40, €632.40 and €1,172.40 per year — with per-tier quotas for keyword research, SERP analysis, rank tracking, backlink lookups and site analysis.
- Rank tracking published per tier with 200, 700 and 1,500 keywords over unlimited domains, weekly updates on Basic and Premium, daily on Agency, and 65,000+ city-level locations.
- A Looker Studio connector for the rank tracker, a Search Console import and custom data exports are confirmed.
- A free account with no credit card required, free mini tools with no sign-up required, and a 48-hour money-back guarantee.
- A stated 2.5B+ keyword database behind the keyword research and SERP analysis modules.
Held against it
- Technical audit scored 0-2: site analysis appears only as metered requests per 24 hours, and we found no public information on a site crawler, JavaScript rendering or Core Web Vitals.
- We found no public information on a documented API, rate limits or credit costs per endpoint.
- We found no public information on bulk export of ranking history, export formats or retention after cancellation.
- Extra seats are counted per tier but not priced, the "Unlimited*" keyword-suggestion asterisk is unexplained, and we found no public information on VAT treatment, minimum term or overage rates.
- We found no public information on hosting location, subprocessors or certification beyond a published Data Processing Agreement.
Best for
- You are a solopreneur or freelance SEO buying keyword research and rank tracking at a published euro price, starting from a free account with no credit card required.
- You track rankings across unlimited domains and need city-level granularity — 65,000+ city-level locations are stated.
- You report rankings through Looker Studio and import Search Console data — both paths are confirmed.
- You want to compare tiers on concrete published limits before committing — quotas are stated for keyword research, SERP analysis, rank tracking, backlinks and site analysis.
Avoid if
- You need a developer-facing audit of your whole site — site analysis is metered at 20 to 150 requests per 24 hours, and we found no public information on a site crawler or JavaScript rendering.
- You must build a data pipeline or automate reporting — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You need bulk export of multi-year rank history if you leave — custom data exports are advertised, and we found no public information on historical export or retention after cancellation.
- You must verify hosting location and subprocessor terms before signing — beyond a published Data Processing Agreement and the s.r.o. vendor form, we found no public information on either.
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
The pages market keyword research, SERP analysis, rank tracking, backlinks and a site explorer, and I found no public information on a site crawler — nothing on crawl page limits, scheduled crawls, JavaScript rendering or Core Web Vitals. The closest item is a quota of site analysis requests per day (20 on Basic up to 150 on Agency), which reads as on-demand checks rather than a crawl, and nothing here would survive being handed to a developer as a ticket. 1
The Agency Owner
The module list shows keyword research, SERP analysis, rank tracking, a backlink checker and a site explorer, with site analysis metered as daily request quotas — but we found no public information on a site crawler, page limits, JavaScript rendering, Core Web Vitals or indexation diagnosis. Site analysis counted in requests per day reads like on-demand checks rather than an audit of a whole site, which is what I would need across forty client domains. 1
The Technical SEO
Site analysis appears only as a metered request quota — 20 to 150 checks per 24 hours — alongside a Site Explorer module, and nothing on the captured page describes a site crawler, JavaScript rendering, Core Web Vitals per template, or indexation and canonical diagnosis. I found no public information on crawl depth, scheduled crawls, or log-file and Search Console comparison, so I can credit little beyond on-demand page checks. 1
The Content Strategist
The published modules are Keyword Research, SERP Analysis, Rank Tracking, Backlink Checker and Site Explorer, with site analysis metered as twenty to one hundred and fifty requests per day — an on-demand look-up rhythm, not a crawl schedule. We found no public information on a site crawler, JavaScript rendering, Core Web Vitals or indexation diagnosis, so there is nothing here to commission a developer-facing audit brief from. 1
The Data Analyst
The published module set is keyword research, SERP analysis, rank tracking, backlink checking and a site explorer, and I found no public information on a site crawler, crawl depth or page limits, JavaScript rendering, Core Web Vitals, or indexation and canonical diagnosis. What is labelled site analysis appears as a metered per-day request quota, not an audited crawl of the customer's own site. 1
The Skeptic
The captured page prices site analysis by requests per 24 hours — 20, 70 or 150 depending on tier — which reads as on-demand lookups rather than a crawl at page scale. We found no public information on crawl depth or page limits, JavaScript rendering, Core Web Vitals, or how issues are prioritised. Nothing here shows the tool comparing what it sees against what Google actually fetched. 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
A database of 2.5 billion keywords with keyword suggestions and a dedicated SERP analysis module covers discovery at scale, but I found no public information on intent classification, difficulty, SERP feature detail or any on-page content guidance. As the person answering for a German site, the decisive gap is that nothing speaks to German-language data depth — the database figure is a single global number. 1
The Agency Owner
A database of 2.5 billion-plus keywords, per-day research quotas and a SERP analysis module are published, but we found no public information on intent classification, keyword difficulty, SERP feature detail or the depth of the German-language data. There is also nothing on content briefs or on-page guidance, so I cannot tell whether it guides content work at all. 1
The Technical SEO
Keyword Research and SERP Analysis modules with a stated 2.5B+ keyword database and daily request quotas give real discovery depth. The page is silent on intent classification, SERP feature composition, topic clustering and content briefs, and I found no public information on the depth of German-language data, which I weigh equally with English. 1
The Content Strategist
The keyword research module advertises a 2.5B+ keyword database with per-day request quotas plus a separate SERP analysis module, which is a real research tool. But we found no public information on intent classification, SERP feature composition, German-market depth or any on-page guidance — no topic clustering, no cannibalisation detection, no briefs — so for content planning this reads as volumes and suggestions only. 1
The Data Analyst
A 2.5 B+ keyword database, SERP analysis across 65k+ city-level locations and a search console import into the rank tracker give a real research base. I found no public information on intent classification, difficulty signals, SERP feature tracking over time, German-market depth, or on-page and content guidance, which holds this near the floor. 1
The Skeptic
Keyword research and SERP analysis modules exist with concrete request ceilings (100 to 1,200 requests per 24 hours by tier) and a self-declared database of 2.5 billion keywords, but the page documents none of the substance a buyer needs: no intent classification, no difficulty methodology, no SERP feature detail, and nothing on German-market depth. A database size is precisely the number no buyer can check; the daily request limits are the only part I can hold. 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
Rank tracking limits are published per tier — 200, 700 and 1,500 keywords across unlimited domains, weekly updates on the two lower tiers and daily only on Agency, plus 65,000+ city-level locations, which puts it a step above a one-country tracker. But I found no public information on device or language granularity, backlink index size or refresh cadence (the backlink figures are monthly lookup quotas), or how historical rankings are retained and reconciled against Search Console. 1
The Agency Owner
Rank updates are weekly on the two lower tiers and daily only on the top tier, and the published backlink figures are monthly usage quotas rather than a documented index size or refresh cadence. The 65,000-plus city-level locations are a genuinely strong coverage signal, but we found no public information on device or country selection, SERP feature attribution, or how long historical rankings are retained. 1
The Technical SEO
Rank update frequency is stated per tier — daily on Agency, weekly on Basic and Premium — with 65k+ city-level locations and per-tier keyword caps over unlimited domains. The backlink figures are monthly lookup quotas rather than index documentation, and I found no public information on index size, refresh cadence, device granularity, methodology, or historical data retention. 1
The Content Strategist
Rank update frequency is stated per tier — weekly on Basic and Premium, daily on Agency — with tracking across unlimited domains and 65k+ city-level locations, which is strong location granularity. But we found no public information on the backlink index's size or refresh cadence, on device or language selection, or on how historical rankings are retained, so the vendor documents only part of its own data story. 1
The Data Analyst
Update frequency is published per tier — weekly on Basic and Premium, daily on Agency — with tracked keyword counts and 65k+ city-level locations stated. The backlink figures are monthly usage quotas rather than a documented index size or refresh cadence, and I found no public information on methodology, device granularity, historical retention, or exportability of the ranking archive. 1
The Skeptic
Update frequency is stated honestly per tier — weekly on Basic and Premium, daily only on Agency — and 65,000+ city-level locations is a concrete granularity claim, which I credit. But the backlink figures are monthly usage allowances (100k to 1.2M per month), not an index size, and we found no public information on index size, refresh cadence, or how rankings and links are collected. The vendor documents the metering of their data far better than the data itself. 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
A Looker Studio connector for the rank tracker, a Search Console import and custom data exports would cover a fair part of my monthly reporting loop. But I found no public information on a documented API with stated limits, scheduled or white-label reporting, or client access — without an API my team cannot build on any of it. 1
The Agency Owner
A Looker Studio connector for the rank tracker and a Search Console import are confirmed, and custom data exports exist, which is a workable start for client reporting. But we found no public information on an API, white-label reports, client access or multi-client management — exactly the things an agency rebilling forty sites lives or dies by. 1
The Technical SEO
There is a Looker Studio connector for SERPWatcher, a Search Console import, and custom data exports, which does get ranking data in front of a stakeholder. I found no public information on a documented API, white-label reporting, or warehouse export, so a team cannot build on this data from what is published. 1
The Content Strategist
A Looker Studio connector for the rank tracker and a Search Console import are genuine get-the-data-out paths, and custom data exports are advertised. We found no public information on an API with stated limits or credit costs, nor on white-label or scheduled reporting, which caps how far an agency can automate client delivery. 1
The Data Analyst
Rank data moves out through a Looker Studio connector, Search Console moves in via import, and custom data exports are listed — more than on-screen views. But I found no public information on a documented API, rate limits, or credit costs per endpoint, so a team cannot build a data pipeline against the published evidence. 1
The Skeptic
A Looker Studio connector for the rank tracker and a Search Console import are real, named integrations, and custom data exports are advertised. We found no public information on an API — no rate limits, no credit costs per endpoint — nor on scheduled reports or white-label client reporting. On the one thing I always look for, the per-endpoint credit price, the captured page is silent. 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
Custom data exports are listed, but the captured pages say nothing about whether ranking history can be exported in bulk, in which formats, or for how long after cancellation it remains retrievable. For a multi-year subscription that history is the only thing that compounds, and the pages are silent on its exit treatment. 1
The Agency Owner
Custom data exports are confirmed as available, but we found no public information on whether historical rankings and tracked keywords export in bulk, in which formats, or what remains retrievable after cancellation. For a multi-year subscription whose only compounding asset is rank history, that silence is the decision point. 1
The Technical SEO
Custom data exports are listed, but nothing states whether historical rankings and keyword lookups are included in bulk, in what format, or via any API. I found no public information on retention after cancellation or an export route sufficient to mirror the account's accumulated history. 1
The Content Strategist
Custom data exports are advertised, but we found no public information on whether ranking or site history exports in bulk, in what format, or through any API, and nothing on a retention period after cancellation. For a tool whose accumulated rank history is the asset a multi-year subscription actually builds, that silence leaves the exit path unevidenced. 1
The Data Analyst
Custom data exports are confirmed, but the pages state no format, no scope, and nothing saying ranking history is included in the export. I found no public information on bulk historical export or on any retention period after cancellation, so whether multi-year history survives the subscription goes unanswered. 1
The Skeptic
Custom data exports are advertised, which is more than an on-screen view, but the page says nothing about whether historical rankings and crawl history are included, in what format, or for how long after cancellation. On the question that decides this — whether the multi-year history a subscription accumulates leaves with the customer — we found no public information. 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
The vendor trades as an s.r.o., a Slovak legal form, and a Data Processing Agreement is offered, which suggests a European contracting entity. Beyond that I found no public information on hosting location, named infrastructure or a subprocessor list, so for a tool that holds my site strategy I cannot confirm where the account and crawl data sit. 1
The Agency Owner
The vendor is named as an s.r.o. company and a Data Processing Agreement is offered, which points to a European contracting entity. Beyond that we found no public information on hosting location, named infrastructure, a subprocessor list, or the legal basis for Search Console data once it is imported into the rank tracker. 1
The Technical SEO
A Data Processing Agreement is offered, and that is the only affirmative signal on this page; I found no public information on hosting location, contracting entity jurisdiction, subprocessors, or any certification. With the chain unpublished this far up, I cannot verify where the account and analytics-imported data sit. 1
The Content Strategist
A Data Processing Agreement is offered and the vendor trades as Mangools s.r.o., an entity form used in EU jurisdictions. But we found no public information on hosting location, named infrastructure, subprocessors or certification — with the subprocessor list absent, the chain cannot be assessed beyond the contracting entity itself. 1
The Data Analyst
The sovereignty record carries nothing on hosting location, subprocessors, or certification, while a Data Processing Agreement is published and the company form in the vendor name reads as European. With the rest of the chain undocumented, only the DPA is concrete. 1
The Skeptic
The only artifacts on record are a downloadable Data Processing Agreement and a 48-hour money-back guarantee; hosting location, the contracting entity's jurisdiction, and the subprocessor list are all unstated on the captured page. For a tool that ingests Search Console data, we found no public information on where that data is processed or under which legal basis. 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
The strongest area: all three tiers priced both monthly and annually — €452.40, €632.40 and €1,172.40 per year at roughly 35% saving versus monthly — with per-tier limits for keyword research, SERP analysis, rank tracking, backlink lookups and site analysis, plus seat counts (none on Basic, 3 on Premium, 5 on Agency) and a 48-hour money-back guarantee. What keeps the real invoice from being computable: the price of an extra seat, VAT treatment, minimum term and any overage pricing are all unstated in the captured pages. 1
The Agency Owner
All three tiers carry public annual and monthly prices with per-module daily quotas spelled out — keyword lookups, SERP analyses, rank-tracking keyword counts, backlink lookups per month — which is more published detail than most of this category. But extra seats are shown as available on two tiers with no price attached, keyword suggestions are billed as "Unlimited*" with an unexplained asterisk, and VAT treatment and minimum term are unstated, so the real agency invoice is not computable from the page. 1
The Technical SEO
All three tiers are priced publicly — Basic at €452.40/yr, Premium at €632.40/yr, Agency at €1,172.40/yr — with per-tier quotas for keyword research, SERP analysis, site analysis, backlinks and rank tracking, plus seat counts per tier. The annual invoice is still not fully computable: extra seats are counted but not priced, and I found no public information on VAT treatment, minimum term, overage rates, or what the asterisk on Unlimited* keyword suggestions covers. 1
The Content Strategist
All three tiers carry public annual prices in euros with monthly equivalents, and the limits are unusually specific — keyword research, SERP analysis and site analysis requests per 24 hours, tracked keywords, backlinks per month, and seat counts per tier. But extra seats are counted without being priced, and we found no public information on VAT treatment, minimum term or overage rates, so the real annual invoice for a growing team is still not computable from the public pages. 1
The Data Analyst
Every tier is priced publicly in euros — "€ 37 70 / mo" Basic, "€ 52 70 / mo" Premium, "€ 97 70 / mo" Agency as annual-billing equivalents with "€452.40 / yr", "€632.40 / yr" and "€1,172.40 / yr" shown — and each tier states per-24h request quotas, tracked keyword counts, monthly backlink quotas and update frequency, plus a 48-hour money-back guarantee. Seat quantities appear without seat prices, and I found no public information on overage rates, VAT treatment, minimum term, or API credit costs. 1
The Skeptic
The limit grid is unusually concrete — per-tier prices in euros with annual and monthly figures, request ceilings per 24 hours, backlink allowances per month, and stated seat counts (none on Basic, three on Premium, five on Agency) — and I credit that. But the price of an additional seat is never stated, the asterisk on "Unlimited*" keyword suggestions is unexplained, and we found no public information on VAT treatment, minimum term, or overage. The headline is public; the invoice for a growing team is not computable. 1
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Incorporated in SK | 3/3 pts | 2 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | 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 29 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- 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
- 9 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
- 7 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
- 6 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
- 4 subprocessors 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 hosting fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 integrations fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (12)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page mangools.com Checked 29 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Terms of service — found from the homepage mangools.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy — found from the homepage mangools.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Data processing agreement (dpa) — found from the homepage mangools.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Keyword research & content guidance — found from sitemap mangools.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Keyword research & content guidance — found from sitemap mangools.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Rank tracking & index quality — found from sitemap mangools.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Rank tracking & index quality — found from sitemap mangools.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Reporting, integrations & API — found from sitemap mangools.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Reporting, integrations & API — found from sitemap mangools.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Data portability & exit — found from sitemap mangools.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Data portability & exit — found from sitemap mangools.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →