SEO
SE Ranking
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by SE Ranking Ltd · seranking.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
No written verdict for this product
The panel scored SE Ranking, but the summary our synthesizer wrote did not survive our own contradiction check — twice. Rather than print a paragraph we cannot stand behind, we print none. Every score, rationale and source below is unaffected; read them and draw the conclusion yourself.
The scores
Crawling & technical audit
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Site crawling at real scale: what the crawler finds, how deeply it checks, whether Core Web Vitals and indexation problems are diagnosed rather than merely listed.
0 — No site crawler; the product is keyword data only.
3 — A crawler with a low page cap that reports broken links and missing tags, with no prioritisation and no rendering of JavaScript.
5 — Scheduled crawls at a stated page limit, JavaScript rendering, issue categories with severity, and Core Web Vitals pulled per template.
8 — Log-file or Search Console integration to compare what the crawler sees against what Google fetched, indexation and canonical diagnosis, structured-data validation, and issues prioritised by traffic impact rather than count.
10 — The audit is diagnostic rather than a list: crawl budget analysed, rendering differences surfaced, regressions detected between crawls with the deploy that caused them inferrable, and remediation guidance specific enough for a developer ticket.
The In-House SEO Lead
A Website Audit tool is named among the core tools, but the captured page says nothing about page limits, JavaScript rendering, Core Web Vitals, or how issues are prioritised — nothing here becomes a developer ticket. We found no public information on crawl scheduling, indexation and canonical diagnosis, or comparison against what Google actually fetched. 1
The Agency Owner
A Website Audit tool is named among the core tools, and that is all I have: I found no public information on page limits, crawl scheduling, JavaScript rendering, Core Web Vitals, or any indexation and canonical diagnosis. For forty client sites I cannot tell whether the crawler survives scale at all, so this sits just above the floor for naming a crawler. 1
The Technical SEO
Website Audit is named in the core toolset, so a crawler exists, but the captured page documents nothing about it: no page limits, no JavaScript rendering, no schedule, no Core Web Vitals, no log-file or Search Console comparison, and no word on whether issues are prioritised by traffic impact. We found no public information on crawl depth, rendering, or indexation diagnosis. 1
The Content Strategist
The core tools list names a Website Audit tool, but the captured pages document nothing about what it examines. We found no public information on crawl page limits, JavaScript rendering, Core Web Vitals reporting, structured-data validation, or how issues are prioritised — and I cannot commission remediation content around an audit I cannot size. 1
The Data Analyst
A Website Audit and On-Page SEO Checker are named among the core tools, but the captured pages give nothing on page limits, crawl scheduling, JavaScript rendering, Core Web Vitals or issue prioritisation — so the crawler looks closer to a link-and-tag checker than a diagnostic one. We found no public information on log-file or Search Console comparison against what Google actually fetched. 1
The Skeptic
A tool named Website Audit appears in the core tools list, and that is the entire evidence. We found no public information on crawl limits, JavaScript rendering, scheduling, Core Web Vitals, or how issues are prioritised — a name on a menu is not an audit a buyer can size. 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
Unlimited keyword and competitor research with a stated 5.5-billion keyword database, 188 country databases, a keyword grouper and an on-page checker reads as real scale, but I found no public information on intent classification, SERP feature detail, or the depth and freshness of the German data specifically — a country count is not a depth statement. No topic clustering, content briefs or cannibalisation detection are evidenced either. 1
The Agency Owner
The keyword database is sized at 5.5 billion entries across 188 country databases, with a Keyword Grouper, Website Competitor Analysis Tool and an On-Page SEO Checker all listed. But the captured page says nothing about intent classification, SERP feature detail, or the depth of German-language data, so the research layer is evidenced while the guidance layer is only named. 1
The Technical SEO
A real toolset — Keyword Tool, Keyword Grouper, On-Page SEO Checker, competitor analysis — over a stated 5.5B keyword database spanning 188 country databases, so breadth is documented. But the pages show no intent classification, no difficulty signal, no SERP feature composition over time, and no content briefs or clustering; Content Marketing is a separate add-on and German-language depth specifically is undocumented. 1
The Content Strategist
Unlimited keyword and competitor research, a Keyword Grouper, an On-Page SEO Checker and an AI Overviews Tracker are named, backed by a claimed 5.5B keyword database across 188 country databases. But we found no public information on intent classification, SERP feature composition tracked over time, topic clustering, content briefs, or cannibalisation detection — and nothing specific about the depth of German-language data. 1
The Data Analyst
The keyword infrastructure is broad on paper — 5.5B keywords, 188 country databases, a Keyword Grouper, competitor analysis and a content marketing add-on — but a database size is not research depth. We found no public information on intent classification, difficulty signals, SERP feature composition over time, content briefs, or the depth of the German-language data specifically. 1
The Skeptic
Keyword Tool, Keyword Grouper and competitor research are named, with a claimed 5.5B-keyword database across 188 country databases, but we found no public information on intent classification, difficulty signals, SERP feature detail, or the depth of any German-language data. Database size is a marketing figure; the evidence shows nothing on how research depth is delivered to the user. 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 across engines, project lifetime historical data on the Growth plan, and stated database sizes (5.5B keywords, 2.2B domain profiles) are something to work with, but there is no stated update frequency, no device or city-level granularity, no documented methodology, and a "100% accurate keyword rankings" claim gives me nothing to defend when numbers disagree with Search Console. 1
The Agency Owner
The vendor publishes index sizes — 2.2 billion domain profiles and a 5.5 billion keyword database — and claims 100% accurate keyword rankings across engines, but I found no public information on rank update frequency, country or device granularity, backlink refresh cadence, or methodology. A 100% accurate banner is a marketing claim, not documentation, and documentation is what this question asks for. 1
The Technical SEO
"100% accurate keyword rankings" is a banner, not a methodology — no update frequency, no location or device granularity, and no explanation of how rankings or backlinks are collected. Index scale is published (2.2B domain profiles, 5.5B keywords) and the Growth plan lists project lifetime historical data, which is more data accountability than most vendors state. 1
The Content Strategist
The vendor publishes index sizes — 5.5B keywords, 2.2B domain profiles, 188 country databases — and claims "100% accurate keyword rankings", but the capture states no ranking update frequency, no device or language granularity, and no refresh cadence for the backlink data. "Project lifetime historical data" on the Growth tier is the only retention signal, and we found no public information on methodology behind the accuracy claim. 1
The Data Analyst
Index sizes are published (2.2B domain profiles, 5.5B keywords) and tracking spans multiple engines including AI Overviews, but the "100% accurate keyword rankings" claim is a slogan rather than a documented methodology. We found no public information on ranking update frequency, device or city-level granularity, backlink refresh cadence or index freshness; project-lifetime historical data is described only inside the Growth plan. 1
The Skeptic
The vendor publishes a '100% ACCURATE KEYWORD RANKINGS' claim and index sizes of 2.2B domain profiles, yet we found no public information on ranking update frequency, device or location granularity, backlink refresh cadence, or collection methodology. An accuracy claim with no stated method is exactly what a buyer cannot check; only the published index size and project lifetime historical data on the Growth tier lift this off the floor. 1
Reporting, integrations & API
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Getting the data out and in front of someone: dashboards, white-label reporting for agencies, Search Console and analytics integration, and an API a team can build on.
0 — On-screen views only; export is a manual CSV and there is no API.
3 — Scheduled PDF reports and CSV export, one analytics integration, no API worth building against.
5 — Customisable dashboards, scheduled reports, Search Console and analytics integration, and a documented API with stated limits.
8 — White-label reporting with client access, data-warehouse or BigQuery export, multi-site and multi-client management, and an API with credit costs published per endpoint.
10 — The tool is a data source rather than a destination: full historical export in open formats, a versioned API with a deprecation policy, integrations the vendor maintains, and reporting an agency can hand a client unedited.
The In-House SEO Lead
The strongest area on the captured page: an API covering rankings, keywords, backlinks and AI visibility, connectors to Data Studio, Whatagraph and Agency Analytics, GA, Matomo and Search Console integration, white-label reporting with client seats, multi-client workflows, and automation via Make, n8n and Zapier. It falls short of the top because API costs appear as a single tier figure (300k credits) rather than published per endpoint, and we found no public information on data-warehouse or BigQuery export. 1
The Agency Owner
This is where the product speaks my language: an Agency Pack with white-label reporting and client seats, multi-client workflows in the Growth plan, connectors to Data Studio, Whatagraph and Agency Analytics, automation via Make, n8n and Zapier, and an API covering rankings, keywords, backlinks and AI visibility with 300k credits included in Growth. It stays below the top band because credit costs are not published per API endpoint and I found no public information on data-warehouse or BigQuery export. 1
The Technical SEO
An API serving rankings, keywords, backlinks and AI visibility, an MCP connector, Data Studio / Whatagraph / Agency Analytics connectors, white-label reporting with client seats in the Agency Pack, and multi-client workflows on Growth. It stops short of the top tier because API cost is quoted as a monthly bundle (300k credits on Growth, API add-on from €125.00 /mo) rather than per endpoint, and no data-warehouse export is documented. 1
The Content Strategist
This is the strongest area: an API covering rankings, keywords, backlinks and AI visibility, MCP access into AI assistants, Search Console, Google Analytics, Matomo and Data Studio connections, white-label reporting with client seats in the Agency Pack, and multi-client workflows on the Growth tier. It stops short of the top band because per-endpoint API credit costs are not published and we found no public information on data-warehouse or BigQuery export. 1
The Data Analyst
This is the strongest area: an API covering rankings, keywords, backlinks and AI visibility, 300k credits included with Growth, white-label reporting, Data Studio connectors, automation platforms and multi-client workflows. But credit costs are not published per endpoint, rate limits are not stated on the captured pages, and we found no public information on a data-warehouse or BigQuery export path. 1
The Skeptic
The integration surface is genuinely broad — an API for rankings, keywords, backlinks and AI visibility, 300k credits bundled with Growth, Data Studio and agency connectors, automation via Make.com, n8n and Zapier, and white-label reporting in the Agency Pack — but we found no public information on credit costs per endpoint, rate limits, or warehouse export. A credit allowance without unit prices means a team cannot budget what building on the API will cost. 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
API access to rankings, keywords, backlinks and AI visibility, plus project lifetime historical data on the Growth plan, is a start, but that access is itself priced as an add-on from €125.00/mo or metered in credits. We found no public information on complete historical export in open formats or on any retention period after cancellation — for the multi-year history I would actually be paying to accumulate, that is a gap. 1
The Agency Owner
The Growth plan advertises project lifetime historical data and the API exposes rankings, keywords and backlinks for programmatic export, which covers the bulk-export basics. But I found no public information on export formats, credit metering on large pulls, or any retention period after cancellation — the archive's fate at exit is the question that matters to a multi-year subscriber, and it goes unanswered. 1
The Technical SEO
The API covers the core datasets and the Growth plan includes project lifetime historical data, so bulk historical export looks achievable. We found no public information on how long the archive remains retrievable after cancellation, or any stated grace period — the detail that decides whether years of rank history survive the subscription. 1
The Content Strategist
The API covers rankings, keywords, backlinks and AI visibility, and the Growth tier lists "project lifetime historical data", which supports exporting rank and keyword history on an ongoing basis. We found no public information on exporting audit or crawl results, on open export formats, or on any retention period after cancellation — the exit question is simply not addressed in what we captured. 1
The Data Analyst
API access plus project-lifetime historical data on the Growth plan are the right ingredients, but the API is credit-metered (from €125.00/mo as an add-on) and we found no public information on bulk historical export in open formats, post-cancellation retention, or any grace period. Whether three years of ranking history leaves with the customer is exactly the question the captured pages do not answer. 1
The Skeptic
An API covering rankings, keywords, backlinks and AI visibility gives a path out, and the Growth tier promises project lifetime historical data while subscribed. We found no public information on bulk export of crawl results, any retention period after cancellation, or a grace period — the fate of the accumulated archive on exit is unstated. 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
No sovereignty attributes are on record: the captured page names only SER Acquisition Inc. as rights holder, and we found no public information on hosting location, the contracting entity's domicile, subprocessors, certification, or a data-processing agreement. For a tool whose core features include Google Search Console and analytics connections, that silence is a serious concern. 1
The Agency Owner
No sovereignty attributes are on record: the copyright sits with SER Acquisition Inc., and I found no public information on hosting location, contracting jurisdiction, or a subprocessor list. An SEO tool mostly holds my clients' strategy rather than their customers' identities, so I weigh this lower — but nothing captured evidences a single European safeguard. 1
The Technical SEO
No sovereignty attributes on record. The captured pages name a contracting entity, SER Acquisition Inc., and nothing else in the chain; we found no public information on hosting location, subprocessors, certification, or a data-processing agreement covering the crawl and analytics data the tool ingests. 1
The Content Strategist
The sovereignty attributes came back empty: hosting location, subprocessor list, certification and DPA coverage are all undocumented in the capture, and the contracting entity is given only as SER Acquisition Inc. with no stated jurisdiction. The tool advertises Search Console, Google Analytics and Matomo connections, so silence on where that ingested data lives and on what legal basis matters more than it would for a keyword database. 1
The Data Analyst
The copyright names SER Acquisition Inc. as the legal entity, but no jurisdiction is stated and the sovereignty record is empty. We found no public information on hosting location, subprocessors, certification, or a data-processing agreement covering the crawl and analytics data the tool ingests. 1
The Skeptic
The only contracting entity on record is SER Acquisition Inc. with no stated jurisdiction, and we found no public information on hosting location, subprocessors, a DPA, or certification. For a tool that ingests Search Console and analytics data, those are open questions a European buyer has no published answer to. 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
Core from €87.20/mo and Growth from €188.00/mo are public, add-ons are individually priced (Agency Pack from €59.00/mo, AI Search from €63.20/mo, API from €125.00/mo), a 14-day trial requires no credit card, and Growth states 300k API credits. But the from-prices leave keyword limits, crawl limits, per-seat and client-seat costs, VAT treatment and minimum term unstated, so the real annual invoice is not computable from public pages alone. 1
The Agency Owner
Every tier carries a public from-price — Core from €87.20 /mo, Growth from €188.00 /mo, Agency Pack from €59.00 /mo, API from €125.00 /mo, AI Search from €63.20 /mo — with a 14-day trial and no credit card, which beats a sales call. But keyword limits, crawl limits, how many client seats the Agency Pack actually includes, VAT treatment and minimum term are all unstated, so I still cannot compute the annual invoice for forty sites and a growing team from public pages. 1
The Technical SEO
Tier and add-on prices are public — Core from €87.20 /mo, Growth from €188.00 /mo, Agency Pack from €59.00 /mo, AI Search from €63.20 /mo, API from €125.00 /mo — with 300k API credits stated on Growth. But headline prices without keyword limits, crawl limits, per-seat costs, VAT treatment or minimum term leave the real annual invoice a guess; the 14-day trial with no credit card required is the only mitigation. 1
The Content Strategist
Headline tiers are public — CORE from €87.20/mo, GROWTH from €188.00/mo — and unusually the add-ons carry prices (Agency Pack from €59.00/mo, AI Search from €63.20/mo, API from €125.00/mo), with the Growth tier bundling 300k API credits. But we found no public information on keyword limits per tier, crawl limits, per-seat costs, minimum term or VAT treatment, so a real annual invoice still cannot be computed from the public pages. 1
The Data Analyst
Core and Growth headline prices are public (From €87.20/mo and From €188.00/mo) alongside priced add-ons — API From €125.00/mo, Agency Pack From €59.00/mo, AI Search From €63.20/mo — and a stated 300k credits with Growth, which beats a sales-only quote. But the "From" prices come with no keyword limits, crawl volumes, per-seat costs, overage rates, VAT treatment or minimum term, so the real annual invoice is still not computable from public pages. 1
The Skeptic
Four component prices are public — Core 'From €87.20 /mo', Growth 'From €188.00 /mo', API 'From €125.00 /mo', Agency Pack 'From €59.00 /mo' — but every figure is a floor, not an invoice. We found no public information on keyword limits, crawl limits, per-seat costs, overage rates, minimum term, or VAT treatment, so the real annual cost is not computable from these pages. 1
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 22 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- 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 (seranking.com, seranking.com/website-audit.html, seranking.com/website-crawler.html, seranking.com/de/keyword-recherche.html, seranking.com/content-editor.html, seranking.com/position-tracking.html and 5 more). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 37 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 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
- 3 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
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
- The panel’s written verdict is withheld: our own re-read found claims in it that the evidence does not carry, and a second synthesis did not fix them. The scores and the material below are unaffected. Know more? Tell us
Sources (11)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page seranking.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Crawling & technical audit — found from sitemap seranking.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Crawling & technical audit — found from sitemap seranking.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Keyword research & content guidance — found from sitemap seranking.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Keyword research & content guidance — found from sitemap seranking.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Rank tracking & index quality — found from sitemap seranking.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Rank tracking & index quality — found from sitemap seranking.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Reporting, integrations & API — found from sitemap seranking.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Reporting, integrations & API — found from sitemap seranking.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Data portability & exit — found from sitemap seranking.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Data portability & exit — found from sitemap seranking.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →