SEO
Moz Pro
Rest of world 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 Moz, Inc. · moz.com
Compare with Searchmetrics → 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
Moz Pro is an SEO and AI-visibility platform that landed in a tight mid-band on this bench — persona-weighted totals ranged 5.0 to 5.3, and the flagged splits between judges returned none. It is strongest on rank and index data and pricing transparency (6), with keyword and content at 5–6 and both technical audit and reporting and API at 5. The clear low is sovereignty at 1–2: the contracting entity is SEOMoz, Inc., a Ziff Davis company, the privacy policy describes processors as "located anywhere in the world", and we found no public information on EU hosting or a named subprocessor list, though the pages document EU-US Data Privacy Framework certification, standard contractual clauses and a data protection officer registered with the Irish Data Protection Commission. Data portability split 4–5 over the unanswered crawl-history export question and post-cancellation retention. Recurring caveats: weekly rather than daily ranking updates, a top-20 cap with deeper positions shown as 21+, and captured pages giving different link-index figures (45.5 trillion and 44.8 trillion).
Speaks for it
- All self-serve tiers carry published prices and limits — $99, $179 and $299 USD per month plus a $49/month entry plan, add-ons at $20 each and $50 per 100 prompts, and a stated 20% yearly saving.
- The entire keyword ranking history exports to CSV at any timeframe from campaign history, with SERP-feature data exported weekly per keyword.
- A documented API offers V2 and V3 docs, JSON-RPC 2.0, single-token authentication and an MCP server for pulling data into an LLM.
- Weekly Rogerbot crawls run at published page caps of 100,000 to 1,250,000 pages per week with severity-tiered issue categories, 'Moz Recommends Fixing' guidance and per-URL Core Web Vitals on Lighthouse weighting.
- Index freshness is published as a 3-day data refresh, with per-keyword SERP-feature attribution across 16 feature types.
Held against it
- Sovereignty scored 1–2, the lowest criterion on the bench: the privacy policy places processors 'located anywhere in the world' and we found no public information on EU hosting, data residency or a named subprocessor list.
- Rankings update weekly rather than daily, only the top 20 positions are tracked, and anything deeper shows as 21+ (blank cells in the CSV export).
- We found no public information on additional-seat pricing, overage rates beyond an 'Overages not included' footnote, minimum term or VAT treatment.
- The captured pages give different figures for the link index — 45.5 trillion links in one place, 44.8 trillion in another.
- The help pages state the crawlers are based in North America, 'which can impact accuracy and performance for international sites'.
Best for
- You manage up to 25 sites and want to price tiers, limits and add-ons in full before committing.
- You need a multi-year rank record that leaves with you — full ranking history exports to CSV at any campaign timeframe.
- You build your own reporting or tooling and value a documented API with an MCP server for LLM access.
- You commission content from keyword research — briefs include structure, target audience, questions and the pages already ranking.
Avoid if
- Your procurement must evidence EU data residency or a named subprocessor list before purchase.
- You manage more than the top tier's 25 tracked sites — above that, 'Ask about Moz Enterprise' is a sales conversation.
- You need daily ranking updates or visibility beyond position 20.
- Your sites are international and crawl geography matters — the help pages place the crawlers in North America.
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
Weekly Rogerbot crawls run at published limits of 100,000 to 1,250,000 pages per week, issues come in categories like Critical Crawler Issues, Crawler Warnings, Redirect Issues, Metadata Issues and Content Issues with fix guidance, and Core Web Vitals are bulk-analysed per page with defined mobile and desktop bands and change tracking between crawls. Two things cap it for me: I found no public information on JavaScript rendering, Search Console or log-file comparison, canonical diagnosis or structured-data validation, and the help page itself says the crawlers are based in North America, which can impact accuracy for international sites — my German site included. 2 4 5
The Agency Owner
Weekly Rogerbot crawls at published page caps of 100,000 to 1,250,000 pages per week, issue categories with "Moz Recommends Fixing" guidance and new-issue alerts between crawls, and Lighthouse-style Core Web Vitals rated for mobile and desktop with weekly re-analysis and ninety days of history put this at the scheduled-crawl level. We found no public information on JavaScript rendering, Search Console or log-file comparison, structured-data validation, or canonical diagnosis, so the deeper diagnostic layer rests on nothing I can verify — and the vendor's own help pages say the crawlers run from North America, an accuracy caveat for my European sites. 2 4 5
The Technical SEO
Weekly Rogerbot crawls run at stated per-plan page limits with issue categories and severity, new issues flagged against the previous crawl by email, fix visibility, and Core Web Vitals analysed per tracked URL on a weekly re-check with 90 days of history — that part is genuine diagnosis, though the crawler sits in North America, which the vendor itself says can impact accuracy for international sites. Prioritisation is by issue type and frequency rather than traffic impact, and I found no public information on JavaScript rendering, log files, Search Console integration, indexation or canonical diagnosis, or structured-data validation. 2 4 5
The Content Strategist
Weekly scheduled crawls at published page limits, issue categories graded from Critical Crawler Issues down to Content Issues, Core Web Vitals with per-metric thresholds and Moz Recommends Fixing guidance put this at the scheduled-crawl level. We found no public information on JavaScript rendering, log-file or Search Console comparison, or indexation and canonical diagnosis, and issues are prioritised by type and frequency rather than by traffic impact. 4 5
The Data Analyst
Weekly Rogerbot crawls run at published page limits with issue categories, expert fix guidance and new issues flagged between crawls, and Core Web Vitals are measured per URL on a weekly reanalysis with 90 days of history. I found no public information on JavaScript rendering, log-file or Search Console comparison, indexation or structured-data diagnosis, and issues are prioritised by type and frequency rather than traffic impact. 4 5 2
The Skeptic
Weekly crawls at published page limits per plan, severity-tiered issue categories with "Moz Recommends Fixing" guidance, and per-URL Core Web Vitals scored on Lighthouse weighting match the mid-tier package. Issues are prioritised by type and frequency rather than traffic impact, and the pages state the crawlers are based in North America, "which can impact accuracy and performance for international sites". I found no public information on JavaScript rendering, log-file or Search Console comparison, or structured-data validation. 2 4 5
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
Keyword Explorer covers volume, difficulty, organic CTR and AI-grouped intent, Keyword Gap compares against up to three competitors with a traffic-lift estimate, and the AI Content Brief builds structure, target audience and questions into an editable, PDF-exportable brief — real substance above a basic keyword list. It sits below the top of the scale because I found no public information on the depth or freshness of German-language keyword data specifically, and none on topic clustering, entity coverage or cannibalisation detection. 1 6 7 10
The Agency Owner
Volume, difficulty, organic CTR and priority metrics, intent grouping across informational to transactional, a keyword gap comparison against up to three competitors, and AI content briefs that show which pages already rank for the target keyword give me a workable content pipeline across sites. We found no public information on cannibalisation detection, entity coverage in the briefs, or the depth of the German-language data, which matters for EU clients, so the guidance stays at gap-and-brief level rather than closing the loop against my own pages. 1 6 7 10
The Technical SEO
Volume, Difficulty, Organic CTR and Priority are documented, intent is classified into four groups, Keyword Gap compares against up to three competitors with Traffic Lift sizing the prize, and SERP feature composition is tracked weekly across 16 features with trended views. AI Content Briefs ground guidance in a 'What's Already Ranking' list of pages currently ranking for the target keyword, but I found no public information on German-language data depth, cannibalisation detection, or entity coverage in briefs. 1 6 7 9 10
The Content Strategist
Volume, difficulty, organic CTR and four-way intent grouping, a gap tool against up to three competitors with a Traffic Lift estimate, and a brief that shows pages already ranking for the target term are real commissioning material. We found no public information on topic clustering or cannibalisation detection, and nothing on the depth of German-language data, so the loop between opportunity, brief and what ranks is not closed. 1 6 7 10
The Data Analyst
Volume, difficulty, intent grouping and SERP-feature presence are all documented in Keyword Explorer, Keyword Gap compares against three competitors with a Traffic Lift estimate, and AI content briefs ship structure, questions, target audience and the pages already ranking. I found no public information on the depth of the German-language data, entity coverage or cannibalisation detection, so the top band stays out of reach. 6 7 10
The Skeptic
Keyword Explorer documents volume, difficulty and organic CTR, intent is grouped into four classes, Keyword Gap compares up to three competitors with a Traffic Lift estimate, and AI content briefs include a target audience, suggested structure and the pages already ranking. SERP feature presence is tracked for sixteen feature types with weekly updates. I found no public information on the depth of German-language data, topic clustering, entity coverage or cannibalisation detection, and market selection is an unnamed dropdown. 1 6 7 9
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
Index scale and freshness are published — the captured pages give different figures for links indexed, tens of trillions across about a billion domains, with a three-day data refresh — and SERP feature attribution plus a mobile-versus-desktop comparison tab exist. Campaign rankings update weekly rather than daily, only the top 20 positions are tracked with anything deeper shown as 21+, and I found no public information on city-level tracking, lost-and-found link detection, or how discrepancies against Search Console would be explained. 8 9 10 11
The Agency Owner
Rankings update weekly with national or local tracking, mobile-versus-desktop comparison, featured snippets counted as rank one, and full ranking history exportable from campaign history. The captured pages give different figures for the link index — both in the tens of trillions of links across a billion domains — alongside a stated 3-day data refresh and SERP feature attribution to my site or competitors. Weekly rather than daily collection, and we found no public information on methodology documentation or lost-and-found link detection, hold this below the top. 8 9 10 11
The Technical SEO
The cadence is stated plainly — weekly, national or local, mobile and desktop side by side, up to four search engines, top 20 tracked with anything beyond shown as 21+ — with per-keyword SERP feature attribution and rankings history kept to "all time" and exportable in full. The link index is published at scale with a 3-day refresh rate, though the captured pages give different figures for its size (44.8 trillion on one, 45.5 trillion on another); I found no public information on daily collection, city-level locations, or lost-and-found link detection. 8 9 10 11
The Content Strategist
Index scale and freshness are published — the captured pages give different figures for the link count, on the order of forty-five trillion links across a billion domains with a stated 3-day refresh — and SERP feature attribution is documented down to which campaign site sits in each of sixteen features. Rankings update weekly rather than daily, and we found no public information on city-level tracking, lost-and-found link detection, or how discrepancies against Search Console are handled. 8 9 10 11
The Data Analyst
Rankings update weekly across up to four search engines with national and local tracking and a mobile/desktop split, anything past position 20 shows as 21+, and the link index publishes both its size and a 3-day refresh rate — though the captured pages give different figures for the link count. I found no public information on city-level tracking, lost-and-found link detection, collection methodology, or how discrepancies against Search Console are handled. 8 9 10 11
The Skeptic
A 3-day data refresh rate and published index sizes are stated plainly enough to hold the vendor to, and per-keyword SERP feature attribution is documented. Rankings update weekly rather than daily, anything beyond the top 20 positions is reported as "21+" with no number, and I found no public information on lost-and-found link detection, ranking methodology, or how discrepancies against Search Console are explained. The captured pages also give different figures for the link index: 45.5 trillion links in one place and 44.8 trillion in another. 8 9 10 11
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
Custom dashboards, custom reports, Google Analytics traffic overlays and a documented API with V2 and V3 docs, JSON-RPC architecture and an MCP server put this solidly in the middle of the scale. I found no public information on Search Console integration, white-label client reporting, or per-endpoint API credit costs, which is exactly what I would need to defend my monthly numbers internally. 1 8 10 11
The Agency Owner
Custom dashboards, tailored campaign reports, a Google Analytics traffic overlay, and a documented API in V2 and V3 with published per-tier limits such as 5,000 to 70,000 backlink queries a month and 200 to 500 rank checker queries a day form the core. Multi-site campaigns up to 25 tracked sites and an account-wide shared recrawl allowance are documented, but we found no public information on white-label reporting, client access, Search Console integration, or data-warehouse export — exactly the pieces a forty-client book rebills on. 1 2 5 8 10 11
The Technical SEO
Custom reports and dashboards exist, Google Analytics connects to overlay traffic against rankings, and the API is genuinely documented — JSON-RPC 2.0, single-token auth, V2 and V3 docs, HTTPS enforced from August 2024, an MCP server, and per-plan quotas for backlink queries per month and rank-checker queries per day. I found no public information on Search Console integration, white-label reporting, or data-warehouse export, and endpoint weightings are pointed at the Help Hub rather than priced on the captured page. 1 2 5 10 11 13
The Content Strategist
Customisable dashboards, tailored reports, a Google Analytics traffic overlay, a unified documented API with per-plan query quotas published on the pricing page, and even an MCP server for pulling insights into an LLM make a decent mid-table offering. We found no public information on Search Console integration, white-label client reporting, or warehouse export, and endpoint weighting is only signposted to a help hub without published credit costs. 1 2 8 10
The Data Analyst
There is a documented API with V2 and V3 documentation, JSON-RPC 2.0, token authentication and even an MCP server for LLM access, alongside custom dashboards, custom reports, multi-site campaigns and a Google Analytics connection. I found no public information on Search Console integration, white-label or client access, data-warehouse export, or credit costs per endpoint — the pages reference weighted endpoints without showing what they cost. 1 10 11 13
The Skeptic
The API is real and documented — V2 and V3 docs, JSON-RPC 2.0, single-token auth, an MCP server, and 24/7 support — and Google Analytics connects for traffic overlays, with custom dashboards and custom reports in evidence. I found no public information on Search Console integration, white-label or client-facing reporting, data-warehouse export, or stated API rate limits; the only hint at endpoint pricing is a pointer to a Help Hub about "weighted endpoints", with no numbers on the captured pages. 5 10 11 13
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 entire keyword ranking history is exportable as CSV over any timeframe from campaign history, and SERP feature data exports weekly per keyword. The help pages raise exporting past crawl data only as an unanswered question, featured snippet presence and ranks beyond the top 20 are blank or unmarked in the rankings CSV, and I found no public information on a retention period after cancellation. 4 8 9 12
The Agency Owner
The entire keyword ranking history exports as CSV with a selectable timeframe from campaign history, and SERP feature data exports per keyword and week, so the ranking history a multi-year subscription accumulates is genuinely portable. The captured help pages only pose the questions of past-crawl export and historical crawl data without showing the answers, and the one retention statement found — "for the life of the account and a reasonable and legally compliant time thereafter" — is privacy-policy language; we found no public information on a grace period after cancellation. 3 4 8 9 12
The Technical SEO
Rankings history is exportable in full via CSV at any campaign timeframe, one row per data collection, with SERP feature data and performance-metric history alongside — that part is properly done. The captured help page poses the question of exporting past crawl data without showing the answer, and I found no public information on retention of the archive after cancellation or on API access sufficient to mirror the history continuously. 4 5 8 12
The Content Strategist
The entire keyword ranking history exports to CSV with any timeframe from campaign history selectable, and SERP feature data exports weekly, so the multi-year ranking record is genuinely the customer's. The crawl-history export question appears in the help pages with no answer shown, and we found no public information on open formats beyond CSV or on any retention period after cancellation. 4 8 9 12
The Data Analyst
The entire keyword ranking history exports to CSV across any timeframe in the campaign's life, and SERP-feature data exports weekly per keyword, so multi-year history genuinely leaves with the customer. It is interface CSV only — featured-snippet presence is not noted in the export and ranks outside the top 20 come back blank — and I found no public information on bulk crawl export, API access to your own history, or any retention window after cancellation. 8 9 12
The Skeptic
Rankings export to CSV for any timeframe from the campaign history, one row per data collection, and SERP feature data exports per week for every keyword. Rank cells outside the top 20 export blank, Featured Snippet presence is not noted in the CSV, and I found no public information on exporting crawl history — a help page asks the question and the captured text shows no answer — nor on any retention period after cancellation or API access to one's own tracked history. 4 8 12
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where the account and crawl data live and who the contracting entity is. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; weighted lower here than in categories holding personal data, because an SEO tool mostly holds the customer's own strategy rather than their customers' identities.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors unnamed, and site or user data of unclear scope leaving the EU.
3 — EU hosting offered as an option while the contracting entity is non-EU, or the subprocessor list is absent.
5 — EU hosting as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessor list published, and any analytics or Search Console data handling described with its legal basis.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, entity, hosting and every subprocessor European, certification published, and a DPA that covers the crawl and analytics data the tool ingests.
The In-House SEO Lead
The contracting entity is a Seattle-based United States company under Ziff Davis, hosting location and data residency are unstated, and the privacy policy describes processors located anywhere in the world. The published EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework certification, standard contractual clauses and an Irish DPC-registered DPO are genuine transfer safeguards, but nothing evidences where my crawl and ranking data would physically sit. 1 3
The Agency Owner
Moz contracts as SEOMoz, Inc., a Ziff Davis company in the United States, with processors described only as "located anywhere in the world". Published transfer safeguards — EU-US Data Privacy Framework certification, standard contractual clauses, and a data protection officer registered with the Irish Data Protection Commission — are the only European-facing facts, but we found no public information on EU hosting, data residency, or a named subprocessor list, and the crawler itself runs from North America. 1 3 5
The Technical SEO
The contracting entity is SEOMoz, Inc., a Ziff Davis company in the United States, hosting is unstated, and processors are described only as "located anywhere in the world" — no named subprocessor list. Transfers lean on standard contractual clauses and the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework with a DPO registered with the Irish Data Protection Commission, which lifts it slightly above the floor, but I found no public information on EU hosting or a European contracting option. 1 3
The Content Strategist
The vendor and contracting entity are American (SEOMoz, Inc., a Ziff Davis company), subprocessors are described only as located anywhere in the world, and we found no public information on hosting location. The documented standard contractual clauses, Data Privacy Framework certification and an Irish-registered DPO give a stated transfer basis, but no part of the evidenced chain is European. 1 3
The Data Analyst
The contracting entity is SEOMoz, Inc., a Ziff Davis company under US ownership, hosting location is unstated, subprocessors are described only as located anywhere in the world, and the performance crawlers run from North America. EEA transfers rely on standard contractual clauses and the EU-US Data Privacy Framework with an Irish-registered DPO — a documented mechanism, but nothing in the captured pages shows European hosting or a published subprocessor list. 1 3 5
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is SEOMoz, Inc., a Ziff Davis company with a New York parent, and the privacy policy locates processors "anywhere in the world"; I found no public information on EU hosting or a named subprocessor list. Data Privacy Framework certification and standard contractual clauses document the transfer mechanism, and a DPO is registered with the Irish Data Protection Commission, but no captured page evidences a European hosting chain. 1 3
Pricing transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The category where the headline price is least often the invoice. Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost including keyword limits, crawl credits, API units, extra users and client seats — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A monthly headline exists, but keyword limits, crawl credits or the cost of an additional user are unstated — the invoice is unknowable.
5 — Tier prices public with the main limits given, but at least one commonly needed piece (extra seats, API credits, historical data) is unpriced or metered opaquely.
8 — Every tier priced publicly with keyword, crawl and API limits, overage rates, per-seat costs, minimum term and VAT treatment stated.
10 — Complete price computability: annual invoice derivable for a given keyword count, crawl volume, API usage and team size, with overage and every credit cost published.
The In-House SEO Lead
Tier prices are public with unusually granular limits — tracked keywords, pages crawled per week, campaigns, backlink queries per month, rank checker queries per day — and even add-ons are priced exactly as "$20 each" for extra AI dashboards and "$50 per 100 prompts". The cost of an additional user seat, API credit pricing, overage handling beyond a "not included" footnote, minimum term and VAT treatment are not stated, so my real annual invoice with a growing team is not computable from public pages. 2 11 2
The Agency Owner
Every self-serve tier is priced publicly — "$ 99 USD / mo", "$ 179 USD / mo", "$ 299 USD / mo", each with a stated 20% yearly saving — plus an entry-level plan at "$49/month", together with keyword, crawl, campaign, user and query limits and add-ons at $20 per AI Visibility Dashboard and $50 per 100 tracked prompts. What I still cannot compute is the cost of a seat beyond the included one to three users, VAT treatment, the minimum term, or what happens when "Overages not included" meets real usage; and since the top tier tracks 25 sites, a forty-site book like mine is steered to "Ask about Moz Enterprise", which I read as a margin problem. 2 2
The Technical SEO
All three self-serve tiers are public — $99, $179 and $299 USD per month, plus a $49/month entry level — with keyword, crawl, campaign, seat, backlink-query and rank-checker limits stated per plan, and AI add-ons priced at $20 each per dashboard and $50 per 100 prompts. Overages are declared "not included" with no rate published, enterprise is a conversation, and I found no public information on per-seat costs for additional users, minimum term, or VAT treatment. 2 2
The Content Strategist
Tiers are public with unusual specificity — keyword, crawl and query limits per plan, plus priced AI add-ons at "$20 each" and "$50 per 100 prompts" — so a buyer can price the core product. We found no public information on the cost of an additional user seat, on what happens past a limit beyond an "Overages not included" footnote, on VAT treatment or on enterprise terms, so the real annual invoice is not fully computable. 2 2
The Data Analyst
Three tiers are priced publicly at $99, $179 and $299 USD per month with a 20% yearly discount, and each tier states keyword, weekly-crawl, backlink-query and rank-checker limits plus AI add-ons at $20 per dashboard and $50 per 100 prompts. I found no public information on additional-seat pricing, API credit costs, overage rates, minimum term or VAT treatment, so I still cannot compute the real annual invoice for a given team size from public pages. 2 2
The Skeptic
Tier prices are public with unusually granular limits — tracked keywords, pages crawled per week, backlink queries per month, rank checker queries per day — and two add-ons carry published prices, "$20 each" for an AI Visibility Dashboard and "$50 per 100 prompts". But "Overages not included" appears without any rates, the enterprise tier is a sales conversation, and I found no public information on the cost of an additional user seat, minimum term, VAT treatment, or API unit pricing — so a growing team's annual invoice is not derivable from public pages alone. 2 10 2
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 | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Foreign-controlled ⚠ unverified | 0/2 pts | 3 Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 2 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Ownership. The excerpt never states Ziff Davis, Inc.'s place of incorporation or whether it is publicly listed, so foreign control rests only on the parent's New York, NY address.
- 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.
- 34 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
- 23 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
- 5 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
- 3 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
- 1 data 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
Sources (13)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Product page moz.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing moz.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 15 Sep 2026, 2 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy moz.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Crawling & technical audit — found from sitemap moz.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Crawling & technical audit — found from sitemap moz.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Keyword research & content guidance — found from sitemap moz.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Keyword research & content guidance — found from sitemap moz.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Rank tracking & index quality — found from sitemap moz.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Rank tracking & index quality — found from sitemap moz.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Reporting, integrations & API — found from sitemap moz.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Reporting, integrations & API — found from sitemap moz.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Data portability & exit — found from sitemap moz.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Data portability & exit — found from sitemap moz.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →