SEO
OnCrawl
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by OnCrawl (Data On Focus SAS) · www.oncrawl.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
OnCrawl at a glance
- Vendor
- OnCrawl (Data On Focus SAS)
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates OnCrawl 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. OnCrawl, from Data On Focus SAS, is a technical SEO platform built around crawling and log analysis: JavaScript-rendered crawls, Core Web Vitals as lab data, log analysis of Googlebot, Bingbot and AI bots at a claimed +500M lines daily, impact reports weighted by organic visits and bot crawl frequency, and a log-based Fresh Rank metric tying first Googlebot crawl to first SEO visit. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
OnCrawl, from Data On Focus SAS, is a technical SEO platform built around crawling and log analysis: JavaScript-rendered crawls, Core Web Vitals as lab data, log analysis of Googlebot, Bingbot and AI bots at a claimed +500M lines daily, impact reports weighted by organic visits and bot crawl frequency, and a log-based Fresh Rank metric tying first Googlebot crawl to first SEO visit. Technical audit scores cluster at 8 and data portability at 7-8; reporting and API scores of 6-7 reflect a documented API that publishes its own calls on every chart and pushes datasets to the customer's S3 or Google Cloud Storage bucket in JSON, CSV or Parquet. The weakest areas are keyword and content, rank and index data and sovereignty: query data is an honestly labelled, daily Google Search Console import with a 16-month recovery, and we found no public information on a keyword database, a backlink index, hosting location, subprocessors or a data processing agreement. No criterion spans more than one point, and no captured page states a price.
Speaks for it
- Technical audit scores cluster at 8, on JavaScript-rendered crawling, Core Web Vitals as lab data per page group, and log analysis cross-referenced with crawl and analytics data.
- Issues are weighted by organic visits and bot crawl frequency rather than raw issue counts.
- Fresh Rank computes the average days between first Googlebot crawl and first SEO visit from the customer's own log files.
- The API is documented with token and OAuth authentication, code examples and every chart exposing its own API call, plus a Looker Studio connector with an included template.
- Data portability scores cluster at 7-8, with page, link, raw HTML, cluster, keyword and structured-data datasets exportable to the customer's own S3 or Google Cloud Storage bucket in JSON, CSV or Parquet.
Held against it
- Keyword and content scores sit at 2-3; query data comes from Google Search Console, and we found no public information on keyword volumes, difficulty, intent or SERP feature data.
- Rank and index data scores sit at 3-4; we found no public information on a backlink index, city-level tracking or a ranking collection of the vendor's own.
- Sovereignty scores sit at 2-3; we found no public information on hosting location, subprocessors, certifications or a data processing agreement beyond the vendor's French company form.
- Exports are documented as requiring an active subscription and an API token, and we found no public information on retention or a grace period after cancellation.
- We found no public information on stated API rate limits, per-endpoint credit costs or white-label client reporting.
Best for
- You run technical audits on large or complex sites and want crawl, log and Core Web Vitals data cross-analysed and weighted by organic traffic impact.
- Your team builds its own reporting pipelines and wants a documented API with OAuth, programmatic crawl scheduling and open-format exports to your own cloud bucket.
- You monitor how Googlebot, Bingbot and AI bots crawl your site and want log-based signals such as Fresh Rank.
- You already own keyword research elsewhere and want a technical complement rather than an all-in-one suite.
Avoid if
- You need native keyword research with volumes, difficulty and intent in the same tool; the bench scored keyword and content at 2-3.
- You need rank tracking or backlink data from the vendor's own index, since ranking figures here are Google Search Console imports.
- Your procurement requires documented hosting, subprocessor or data-processing-agreement terms before you hand over raw server logs and Search Console data.
- You need post-cancellation archive access; exports are documented as requiring an active subscription.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Crawling & technical audit | 4 of 5 |
| Keyword research & content guidance | 1.5 of 5 |
| Rank tracking & index quality | 2 of 5 |
| Reporting, integrations & API | 3.5 of 5 |
| Data portability & exit | 3.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1.5 of 5 |
Crawling & technical audit
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Site crawling at real scale: what the crawler finds, how deeply it checks, whether Core Web Vitals and indexation problems are diagnosed rather than merely listed.
0 — No site crawler; the product is keyword data only.
3 — A crawler with a low page cap that reports broken links and missing tags, with no prioritisation and no rendering of JavaScript.
5 — Scheduled crawls at a stated page limit, JavaScript rendering, issue categories with severity, and Core Web Vitals pulled per template.
8 — Log-file or Search Console integration to compare what the crawler sees against what Google fetched, indexation and canonical diagnosis, structured-data validation, and issues prioritised by traffic impact rather than count.
10 — The audit is diagnostic rather than a list: crawl budget analysed, rendering differences surfaced, regressions detected between crawls with the deploy that caused them inferrable, and remediation guidance specific enough for a developer ticket.
The In-House SEO Lead
Log-file analysis at a claimed half a billion lines a day, cross-referenced with crawl data, is exactly the diagnostic core I want, and Core Web Vitals arrive as lab data aggregated per page group and prioritised by organic visits and bot crawl frequency — that converts straight into a developer ticket, with JavaScript rendering and per-URL Lighthouse audits documented. I stay below the top band because the captured pages say nothing about canonical or indexation diagnosis, structured-data validation beyond exporting the dataset, or regressions traced between crawls to the deploy that caused them, and no crawl page limit is stated. 1 2 5 9
The Agency Owner
Real log analysis of Googlebot, Bingbot and AI bots cross-referenced with crawl and analytics data, Core Web Vitals per page group with an SEO impact view weighing issues by organic visits and bot crawl frequency — that is diagnostic work I can bill clients for. The log-based Fresh Rank, timing the gap between first crawl and first SEO visit, is a genuine index-quality signal. We found no public information on canonical diagnosis, structured-data validation framed as such, regression comparison between crawls, or remediation guidance written for a developer ticket. 1 2 6
The Technical SEO
This is my kind of tool: a crawler with JavaScript rendering, Core Web Vitals collected as lab data per URL and per page group with Lighthouse on demand, then cross-analysed against log files and analytics so issues are weighted by organic visits and bot crawl frequency rather than counted. Log monitoring with Fresh Rank — days between first Googlebot crawl and first organic visit — is genuine crawl-budget analysis, and orphan-page and internal-linking diagnosis sits alongside it. What keeps it from the top of the scale: we found no public information on canonical or indexation diagnosis as a feature, structured data appears only as an export dataset rather than validated, and no regression detection between crawls with deploy attribution. 1 2 5 6 9
The Content Strategist
Crawl, log and Core Web Vitals data are cross-analysed rather than listed: lab-data vitals broken down per page group, impact reports weighted by organic visits and bot crawl frequency, and a Fresh Rank metric tying first Googlebot crawl to first SEO visit make the audit genuinely diagnostic. We found no public information on regression detection between crawls with deploy attribution, or remediation guidance specific enough for a developer ticket, which is what the very top of the range describes. 1 2 6
The Data Analyst
The crawler is the product's core, with JavaScript rendering at a stated multi-hundred-million-URL scale, Core Web Vitals collected as lab data and broken down per page group against organic visits and bot crawl frequency, and log-file analysis of Googlebot, Bingbot and AI bots cross-referenced with crawl data — that is diagnosis weighted by traffic impact, not a link list. What holds it below the very top: we found no public information on structured-data validation, indexation or canonical diagnosis, or on regression detection between crawls with the deploying change attributable. 1 2 9
The Skeptic
This is where the vendor spends its evidence: JavaScript rendering with Core Web Vitals collected as lab data down to individual URLs, cross-referenced against log files and analytics, and impact reports cut by organic visits and bot crawl frequency rather than raw issue counts — Fresh Rank even ties first Googlebot crawl to first SEO visit from the customer's own logs. What I cannot hold: no stated page limits or crawl caps in the captured pages, and I found no public information on between-crawl regression detection, structured-data validation beyond an export dataset, or remediation guidance a developer could file as a ticket. 1 2 6
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
For someone who has to defend German keyword choices monthly, I found no public information on keyword volumes, difficulty, intent classification, SERP features or any German-language research database — query performance is Search Console data re-presented, not a discovery index. The own-site content side is genuinely useful (n-grams, near-duplicate signatures, similarity ratios, boilerplate exclusion with a rendered preview), but topic clustering and gap analysis appear only as methodology in an article, not as evidenced product features. 4 5 7 10
The Agency Owner
Keyword intelligence here is Search Console queries grouped by rule, keyword and cluster datasets in the export engine, and a content analysis flagging near-duplicate signatures and similarity ratios — useful, but not a research product. We found no public information on keyword volumes, difficulty or intent, SERP feature data, content briefs, or any German-language data, and the topical-modelling material names third-party tools like Audiense and SparkToro rather than native capability. For a client content pitch I would buy this capability elsewhere. 4 5 7 10
The Technical SEO
Keyword research as a data product barely appears: the only query data is a Search Console import reporting clicks, impressions, position and CTR, while the audience-first and topical-modelling material is methodology prose pointing at third-party tools such as Audiense and SparkToro rather than a keyword database. What is real is crawl-side content analysis — near-duplicate signatures, similarity ratios, n-grams and boilerplate exclusion with a JavaScript-rendered preview. We found no public information on keyword volume, difficulty, intent or SERP-feature data, or on the depth of the German-language data. 4 5 7
The Content Strategist
Keyword intelligence turns out to be a methodology article pointing at third-party audience tools, and all query data comes from Google Search Console; we found no public information on volumes, difficulty, intent classification or SERP feature analysis, and nothing on German-language data depth. Content analysis is real but stops at duplicate, similarity and n-gram metrics — no documented topic clustering workflow, competitor gap analysis, content briefs or cannibalisation detection. 4 5 7
The Data Analyst
What is documented here is query performance imported from Google Search Console, with device and country breakdowns and query grouping, plus a content side offering near-duplicate and similarity metrics with boilerplate exclusion — real, but it is not keyword research. We found no public information on a proprietary keyword database with volumes, difficulty or intent, on SERP feature analysis, or on German-market data depth; the audience-intelligence article names third-party technologies rather than OnCrawl's own tooling. 4 5 7
The Skeptic
Keyword research as this category means it is barely present: the ranking dashboards are repackaged Search Console queries, and the keyword "intelligence" in the audience-first article is something you bring from elsewhere while the named audience technologies are third parties. The real content work here is near-duplicate and similarity analysis with boilerplate exclusion, which is genuine but narrow; I found no public information on volume, difficulty, intent, SERP feature data, or German-language keyword depth. 4 5 7
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
There is no proprietary ranking index here: ranking performance imports Search Console data daily, recovers sixteen months on first import and breaks it down by country and device, and it openly marks which totals are sampled versus unsampled — defensible precisely because it is Search Console, though I have no independent SERP collection to fall back on. We found no public information on any backlink index, its size or refresh, and the only data-scale claims concern their crawling and log processing. 1 6 7
The Agency Owner
Ranking performance is a Search Console re-presentation rather than the vendor's own index: daily imports after a sixteen-month initial recovery, country and device breakdowns, and a view showing sampled versus unsampled totals. The proprietary signal is log-based — bot behaviour at claimed scale plus Fresh Rank — but we found no public information on a backlink index, city-level rankings, SERP feature attribution, or full historical ranking export. I could not sell this to a client as rank tracking. 1 6 7
The Technical SEO
There is no proprietary ranking index here: rankings come from a Search Console import, documented honestly with daily updates, a 16-month backfill, country and device splits and even a sampled-versus-unsampled view — but it is Google's data relayed, not their own collection, and it must be activated per project. Fresh Rank derived from log files is a genuinely proprietary index-quality signal, and bot-log processing at claimed scale backs it. We found no public information on a backlink index, its size, refresh cadence or any collection methodology of their own. 1 6 7
The Content Strategist
Rankings are honestly attributed to Google Search Console, refreshed by daily import with country and device breakdowns, and the disclosed sampled-versus-unsampled view is a rare piece of accountability for discrepancies against Search Console. But we found no public information on any backlink index or its size and freshness, no city-level tracking, and no statement on how long historical ranking data is retained, which keeps this in the middle of the range. 1 6 7
The Data Analyst
Every ranking figure the vendor documents is imported from Google Search Console — honestly labelled, with a stated daily refresh, a 16-month recovery on setup, and country and device granularity — but we found no public information on proprietary SERP collection of their own, a backlink index of any size or refresh cadence, or city-level tracking. The Fresh Rank indicator at least publishes its method, computing the lag between first Googlebot crawl and first organic visit from log files. 6 7
The Skeptic
To their credit, the vendor stakes no index claims I would have to take on faith: the ranking data is Search Console data imported daily with a 16-month backfill, country and device breakdowns, and an unusually honest sampled-versus-unsampled display. The log processing claim of +500M lines daily is unverifiable from outside, and I found no public information on a backlink index, local or city-level tracking, or any ranking methodology of the vendor's own. 1 6 7
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 documented at a dedicated developer site with reference material, guides, code examples, two authentication methods and token scopes granular enough to create crawl profiles and schedule crawls programmatically, and every chart publishes its own underlying API call — a team can build on this. Looker Studio comes as a vendor-maintained connector with a template covering all fetched pages plus custom scraping fields, and big exports land in S3 or Google Cloud Storage as JSON, CSV or Parquet. What holds it back: no white-label or client-access reporting, no per-endpoint API credit costs, and no stated API rate limits in the captured pages. 1 8 9 10
The Agency Owner
The API is one a team can build on: token and OAuth, reference documentation with guides and code examples, every Data Explorer metric reachable, crawl profiles creatable and crawls schedulable by code, and API calls exposed on each chart. Exports run to Looker Studio with an included template and to your own Google or Amazon buckets in JSON, CSV or Parquet — warehouse-grade. But we found no public information on white-label reporting, client access, per-endpoint credit costs, or stated API limits, which is exactly the layer an agency rebills on. 7 8 9 10
The Technical SEO
This one you can build on: a documented developer portal with token and OAuth authentication, granular scopes, every Data Explorer metric — crawl, log and cross-analysis data — reachable through an Elasticsearch-overlay query language, and charts that publish their own API calls so any visualisation can be lifted into code. Crawl profiles can be created and scheduled programmatically, there is a Looker Studio connector with templates, and bulk export lands in Google Cloud Storage or S3 in JSON, CSV or Parquet. We found no public information on rate limits or credit costs per endpoint, on white-label client reporting, and the Looker Studio connector is gated behind a plan feature. 8 9 10
The Content Strategist
The developer portal with token and OAuth methods, OQL as an Elasticsearch overlay, code examples, and API calls exposed on every chart is something a team can genuinely build on, and cloud-bucket export plus a Looker Studio connector with templates gets data out properly. We found no public information on API rate limits or per-endpoint costs, scheduled white-label reports, or client-access management for agencies. 8 9 10
The Data Analyst
This is close to the shape I want: a documented API on a developer subdomain with reference documentation, guides, code samples, token and OAuth authentication with granular permissions, every chart publishing the API call that produced it in their OQL query language, and crawl profiles creatable, modifiable and schedulable programmatically. Crawl and link data land in a Looker Studio connector or your own GCS or S3 bucket. It stops short of the top because we found no public information on credit or rate-limit costs per endpoint, on white-label client reporting, or on an API versioning and deprecation policy. 8 9 10
The Skeptic
The API is the best-documented thing in the capture: token and OAuth methods, granular permissions, reference docs with code examples, every chart exposing its own API call and response format, and crawl scheduling driven programmatically — plus warehouse-style export to S3 or Google Cloud Storage in json, csv or parquet and a Looker Studio connector with templates and a published field list. Held back because the captured pages state no rate limits or per-endpoint credit costs, the Looker Studio connector is gated by plan behind a separate key with quota warnings, and I found no public information on white-label or multi-client reporting. 1 7 8 9 10
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
Bulk export covers page, link, raw HTML, cluster, keyword and structured-data datasets in JSON, CSV or Parquet, pushed to my own S3 or Google Cloud Storage bucket with status tracking and failure reasons reported — open formats, and no credit metering on exports is mentioned anywhere. The exit window is what worries me: exports require an active subscription and an account-level token, archived crawls must be unarchived first, and I found no public information on any retention or grace period after cancellation. 1 8 10 11
The Agency Owner
The Big Data Export pushes page, link, raw HTML, cluster, keyword and structured-data datasets to your own S3 or Google Cloud Storage bucket in JSON, CSV or Parquet, driven from an API endpoint with status tracking and failure emails — open formats onto infrastructure I own is what exit should look like. Every metric is also reachable through the API while subscribed, so continuous mirroring is plausible. We found no public information on retention after cancellation or any grace period, and export requires an active subscription, which is the hole in the story. 9 10 11
The Technical SEO
The exit plumbing exists and it is serious: an export API that pushes page, link, raw HTML, cluster, keyword and structured-data datasets to the customer's own S3 or Google Cloud Storage bucket in open formats, with status reporting and error emails — no credit metering on exports appears anywhere. The catch is in the prerequisites: an active subscription and non-archived crawls. We found no public information on retention or a grace period after cancellation, so as far as the captured pages show, history retrieval ends when the subscription does. 1 10 11
The Content Strategist
Bulk export is unusually complete — page, link, raw HTML, keyword and structured-data datasets in open formats, pushed to the customer's own S3 or Google Cloud Storage bucket and driven through the API. But exports require an active subscription and a completed, unarchived crawl, and we found no public information on any retention or grace period after cancellation, so exit is proven in format and unproven in timing. 9 10 11
The Data Analyst
Bulk export is engineered for, not bolted on: page, link, raw HTML, cluster, keyword and structured-data datasets exported in JSON, CSV or Parquet to the customer's own S3 or GCS bucket, with API endpoints that report status and failure reasons, and we found no public information on credit metering that would price exports out of reach. What keeps it from the top: we found no public information on exporting the Search Console query history itself, on a retention period after cancellation, or on a grace period during which the archive remains retrievable — exports are documented as requiring an active subscription. 1 10 11
The Skeptic
Exit is treated as a feature: page, link, raw HTML, cluster, keyword and structured-data datasets exportable in open formats to the customer's own S3 or GCS bucket, with export status tracked and failure reasons emailed — and the API exposes the same data the interface shows. But export requires an active subscription and an API token, and I found no public information on retention or a grace period after cancellation, so the archive looks retrievable only while the invoice is being paid. 1 9 10 11
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 captured pages give me nothing on hosting location, named infrastructure, subprocessors or a data-processing agreement — for a tool that ingests our server log files and Search Console analytics, that is a gap I would have to close contractually before signing. The only signal is the French company form in the vendor's legal name; beyond that, we found no public information on where account and crawl data live or on the legal basis for the analytics handling. 1
The Agency Owner
The vendor presents itself as Data On Focus SAS, which reads as a French contracting entity, and exports land in the customer's own Google or Amazon buckets. Beyond that we found no public information on hosting location, named infrastructure, subprocessors, a DPA, or certifications covering the crawl and Search Console data the tool ingests. For forty client accounts I would have to ask before signing. 1 10
The Technical SEO
The sovereignty record came back empty: the captured pages say nothing about where accounts or crawl data are hosted, name no subprocessors, and offer no DPA or certification detail — only the vendor's French legal form, Data On Focus SAS, hints at a European contracting entity. The exports land in customer-chosen Google or AWS buckets, which is a data-location decision the customer makes rather than a documented European chain. 1 10
The Content Strategist
The contracting entity is named as Data On Focus SAS, which reads as European, but that is the entire picture: we found no public information on hosting location, named infrastructure, subprocessors, certifications, or the legal basis for the crawl, log and Search Console data the tool ingests. 1 4
The Data Analyst
The contracting entity is named as a French société par actions simplifiée, which points to an EU entity, but that is where the record ends: we found no public information on hosting location or named infrastructure, subprocessors, certification, or a data processing agreement covering the crawl, log and Search Console data the platform ingests. A vendor page and help center that describe analytics integrations in detail stay silent on where that data resides. 1
The Skeptic
The sovereignty record is empty: I found no public information on hosting location, subprocessors, certification, or a data processing agreement — and for a product that wants your raw server logs and analytics credentials, that silence is itself the finding. The contracting entity's French corporate form is the only European signal in the capture. 1 10
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The category where the headline price is least often the invoice. Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost including keyword limits, crawl credits, API units, extra users and client seats — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A monthly headline exists, but keyword limits, crawl credits or the cost of an additional user are unstated — the invoice is unknowable.
5 — Tier prices public with the main limits given, but at least one commonly needed piece (extra seats, API credits, historical data) is unpriced or metered opaquely.
8 — Every tier priced publicly with keyword, crawl and API limits, overage rates, per-seat costs, minimum term and VAT treatment stated.
10 — Complete price computability: annual invoice derivable for a given keyword count, crawl volume, API usage and team size, with overage and every credit cost published.
The In-House SEO Lead
No price figure of any kind appears in the captured material — not a tier, not a crawl limit, not a seat or API cost — so an annual invoice cannot even be estimated from public pages. Feature gating clearly exists, since the Looker Studio connector requires a plan containing that feature, which tells me plan bundles exist, but we found no public information on their contents or prices. 1 8
The Agency Owner
We found no public information on price, tiers, keyword or crawl limits, API credit costs, extra seats, minimum term or VAT treatment; the only pricing signals are that the Looker Studio connector depends on a plan containing that feature and that export requires an active subscription. A buyer cannot compute any annual invoice from the public pages. Contact-us pricing on an agency licence is a margin problem I price in. 1 8 10
The Technical SEO
We found no public information on pricing in the captured pages: no tier prices, no crawl or keyword limits, no seat costs, no VAT treatment. The only pricing-adjacent fact is that Looker Studio access depends on a plan feature whose price is never stated, so a buyer cannot begin to compute an annual invoice from what is public here. 1 8
The Content Strategist
We found no public pricing at all — no tier figures, keyword or crawl limits, seat or client costs, minimum terms or VAT treatment on any captured page. The only cost signals anywhere are that Looker Studio access is gated by plan feature and that data export requires an active subscription, so the real annual invoice is unknowable from public pages. 1 8 10
The Data Analyst
No captured page states a price, a tier, a crawl or page quota, a per-seat cost, VAT treatment or a minimum term; even the Looker Studio connector is gated on an unnamed plan feature with no figure attached. A buyer cannot compute any part of an invoice from public information, so this sits at the lowest published level. 1 8
The Skeptic
I found no public prices at all: no tiers, no keyword or crawl limits, no seat or credit costs, no VAT treatment on any captured page. The only pricing-adjacent signal is that features like the Looker Studio connector are gated by plan, which tells a buyer the real invoice depends on a sales conversation. 1 8
Questions about OnCrawl
Is OnCrawl European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where OnCrawl is based.
Where does OnCrawl store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does OnCrawl have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to OnCrawl?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates SE Ranking (3/5), Semrush (3/5) and SISTRIX (3/5) highest among the other 32 SEO products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is SISTRIX (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: OnCrawl alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- We found no public information on compliance on the pages we read (oncrawl.com, help.oncrawl.com/en/articles/5373099-auditing-core-web-vitals, oncrawl.com/platform/crawler, oncrawl.com/data-driven-seo/integrate-keyword-intelligence, help.oncrawl.com/en/articles/10513044-optimize-content-analysis-with-the-exclude-content-feature, help.oncrawl.com/en/articles/404279-fresh-rank and 5 more). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 8 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
- 2 integrations 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 pricing 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 support 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
- 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 (11)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.oncrawl.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Crawling & technical audit — found from sitemap help.oncrawl.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Crawling & technical audit — found from sitemap www.oncrawl.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Keyword research & content guidance — found from sitemap www.oncrawl.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Keyword research & content guidance — found from sitemap help.oncrawl.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Rank tracking & index quality — found from sitemap help.oncrawl.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Rank tracking & index quality — found from sitemap help.oncrawl.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Reporting, integrations & API — found from sitemap help.oncrawl.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Reporting, integrations & API — found from sitemap help.oncrawl.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Data portability & exit — found from sitemap help.oncrawl.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Data portability & exit — found from sitemap help.oncrawl.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →