whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

SEO

OnCrawl

Provenance unknown Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

by OnCrawl (Data On Focus SAS) · www.oncrawl.com

Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

Link to this page

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

Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds. The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.

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

OnCrawl alternatives, European ones first →

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

The Agency Owner

Weighted verdict

Runs forty client sites and rebills the licence. Wants multi-client management, white-label reports a client can receive unedited, and per-seat costs that do not punish a growing team. Reads "contact us" on a pricing page as a margin problem.

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

Scored by The Agency Owner

Panel median The Agency Owner This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.
Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion Panel median The Agency Owner
Crawling & technical audit 4 of 5 4 of 5
Keyword research & content guidance 1.5 of 5 1.5 of 5
Rank tracking & index quality 2 of 5 2 of 5
Reporting, integrations & API 3.5 of 5 3 of 5
Data portability & exit 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
European sovereignty 1.5 of 5 1.5 of 5

Crawling & technical audit

How this is scored

Site crawling at real scale: what the crawler finds, how deeply it checks, whether Core Web Vitals and indexation problems are diagnosed rather than merely listed.

0 — No site crawler; the product is keyword data only.

3 — A crawler with a low page cap that reports broken links and missing tags, with no prioritisation and no rendering of JavaScript.

5 — Scheduled crawls at a stated page limit, JavaScript rendering, issue categories with severity, and Core Web Vitals pulled per template.

8 — Log-file or Search Console integration to compare what the crawler sees against what Google fetched, indexation and canonical diagnosis, structured-data validation, and issues prioritised by traffic impact rather than count.

10 — The audit is diagnostic rather than a list: crawl budget analysed, rendering differences surfaced, regressions detected between crawls with the deploy that caused them inferrable, and remediation guidance specific enough for a developer ticket.

Report an error

The 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

Report an error

Keyword research & content guidance

How this is scored

Keyword discovery, intent classification, SERP feature analysis and on-page guidance — judged on the depth of the German-language data as much as the English.

0 — A keyword list with volumes from one source and no intent or difficulty signal.

3 — Volume and difficulty for major markets, with thin or stale German data and no SERP feature detail.

5 — Keyword research with volume, difficulty and intent across German and other EU markets, SERP feature presence, and basic on-page recommendations.

8 — Topic clustering, competitor gap analysis, SERP composition tracked over time, content briefs with entity coverage, and cannibalisation detection.

10 — Research and guidance close the loop: opportunity sized against realistic traffic, content scored against what currently ranks rather than against a keyword density heuristic, and recommendations that reference the specific pages in the customer's own site.

Report an error

The 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

Report an error

Rank tracking & index quality

How this is scored

The proprietary data: ranking accuracy and frequency, backlink index size and freshness. Scored on what the vendor documents about their own data, because nothing here can be verified from outside.

0 — Rankings and backlinks with no stated update frequency, no country or device granularity, and no documentation of how either is collected.

3 — Weekly rankings for one country and device, a backlink index with no stated refresh cadence or size.

5 — Daily rankings with country, language and device selection, local results, and a backlink index with a documented crawl frequency.

8 — Rankings at stated frequency across many locations including city-level, SERP feature attribution, backlink index size and refresh published, lost-and-found link detection, and historical data retained for the life of the account.

10 — The vendor is accountable for their own data: methodology documented, index size and freshness published and updated, historical rankings retained and exportable in full, and discrepancies against Search Console explained rather than hidden.

Report an error

The 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

Report an error

Reporting, integrations & API

How this is scored

Getting the data out and in front of someone: dashboards, white-label reporting for agencies, Search Console and analytics integration, and an API a team can build on.

0 — On-screen views only; export is a manual CSV and there is no API.

3 — Scheduled PDF reports and CSV export, one analytics integration, no API worth building against.

5 — Customisable dashboards, scheduled reports, Search Console and analytics integration, and a documented API with stated limits.

8 — White-label reporting with client access, data-warehouse or BigQuery export, multi-site and multi-client management, and an API with credit costs published per endpoint.

10 — The tool is a data source rather than a destination: full historical export in open formats, a versioned API with a deprecation policy, integrations the vendor maintains, and reporting an agency can hand a client unedited.

Report an error

The 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

Report an error

Data portability & exit

How this is scored

Whether the ranking and crawl history — the only thing a multi-year subscription actually accumulates — remains the customer's when they leave.

0 — No bulk export; history is visible in the interface and nowhere else, and ends with the subscription.

3 — CSV export of current views only, with historical data capped or unavailable in bulk.

5 — Bulk export of rankings, keywords and crawl results including history, via interface or API.

8 — Complete historical export in open formats without credit metering that prices it out of reach, plus a documented retention period after cancellation.

10 — Exit is designed for: the full account exportable including every historical data point, API access sufficient to mirror the data continuously, and a stated grace period during which the archive remains retrievable.

Report an error

The 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

Report an error

European sovereignty

How this is scored

Where the account and crawl data live and who the contracting entity is. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; weighted lower here than in categories holding personal data, because an SEO tool mostly holds the customer's own strategy rather than their customers' identities.

0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors unnamed, and site or user data of unclear scope leaving the EU.

3 — EU hosting offered as an option while the contracting entity is non-EU, or the subprocessor list is absent.

5 — EU hosting as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain are non-EU without an explained safeguard.

8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessor list published, and any analytics or Search Console data handling described with its legal basis.

10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, entity, hosting and every subprocessor European, certification published, and a DPA that covers the crawl and analytics data the tool ingests.

Report an error

The 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

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

How this is scored

The category where the headline price is least often the invoice. Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost including keyword limits, crawl credits, API units, extra users and client seats — from public pages alone.

0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.

3 — A monthly headline exists, but keyword limits, crawl credits or the cost of an additional user are unstated — the invoice is unknowable.

5 — Tier prices public with the main limits given, but at least one commonly needed piece (extra seats, API credits, historical data) is unpriced or metered opaquely.

8 — Every tier priced publicly with keyword, crawl and API limits, overage rates, per-seat costs, minimum term and VAT treatment stated.

10 — Complete price computability: annual invoice derivable for a given keyword count, crawl volume, API usage and team size, with overage and every credit cost published.

Report an error

The 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

Report an error

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

What we left out

A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.

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

Sources (11)

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

  1. 1 Vendor page www.oncrawl.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Crawling & technical audit — found from sitemap help.oncrawl.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Crawling & technical audit — found from sitemap www.oncrawl.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Keyword research & content guidance — found from sitemap www.oncrawl.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Keyword research & content guidance — found from sitemap help.oncrawl.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Rank tracking & index quality — found from sitemap help.oncrawl.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Rank tracking & index quality — found from sitemap help.oncrawl.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Reporting, integrations & API — found from sitemap help.oncrawl.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Reporting, integrations & API — found from sitemap help.oncrawl.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Data portability & exit — found from sitemap help.oncrawl.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Data portability & exit — found from sitemap help.oncrawl.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →