SEO
Searchmetrics
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Searchmetrics GmbH · www.searchmetrics.com
Compare with Moz Pro → 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
Searchmetrics GmbH, part of the Conductor group since 2023, is scored here as an enterprise AEO platform whose strongest documented surface is developer-facing: reporting, integrations & API leads the table at 3-4 on a documented "API documentation and playground" with prompt libraries, though no rate limits, dashboards, or Search Console integration are evidenced. The weakest evidence is rank tracking & index quality, sitting at 1 — the sole data claim is "10+ years of proprietary search data", with no update frequency, country/device granularity, or methodology — and data portability & exit at 0-1, with no export of any kind and no post-cancellation retention documented. The bench genuinely splits twice: crawling & technical audit spans 1-4, where the agency owner credits the 24/7 AI-bot monitoring and "prioritized fixes" while the content strategist reads the same claim as watching third-party bots rather than a site audit, with no page limits, rendering, or Core Web Vitals behind it; sovereignty spans 0-3 over how much a Berlin GmbH imprint is worth when legal entity jurisdiction, ownership, data residency, and subprocessor exposure are recorded unknown. No prices, tiers, or seat costs appear anywhere on the evidence.
Speaks for it
- Reporting, integrations & API is the top-scoring criterion at 3-4, earned by a documented 'API documentation and playground' with prompt libraries
- AI visibility tracking names its engines — ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, Claude, and traditional search
- Claims a unified data engine with 10+ years of proprietary search data carrying intent, content, and technical signals
- Documents 24/7 always-on monitoring of AI bot crawling with real-time alerts and prioritized fixes
- Offers a free AI visibility report covering ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews and more
Held against it
- Rank tracking & index quality sits at 1: no update frequency, country/device granularity, index size, or collection methodology is documented
- Data portability & exit scores 0-1, with no export of any kind and no retention after cancellation in the evidence
- Crawling & technical audit shows no evidence of page limits, JavaScript rendering, Core Web Vitals, or indexation/canonical diagnosis behind the monitoring claim
- Keyword research & content guidance documents no keyword volumes, difficulty, or SERP feature detail, and a German-language website is not German keyword data
- sovereignty spans 0-3: legal entity jurisdiction, ownership, data residency, and subprocessor exposure are recorded unknown, and the product surface is Conductor-branded
Best for
- You have developers who want to build against a documented API and AEO playground — the bench's highest scores, at 3-4
- Your priority is monitoring how AI bots crawl your site with real-time alerts, not a full technical site audit
- You want a free AI visibility report across ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Google AI Overviews before committing to anything
Avoid if
- You need documented export of rankings or crawl history, or retention after cancellation — the evidence shows none
- You need verifiable data documentation — update frequency, country/device granularity, index size, methodology — before trusting rankings
- You need German-market keyword depth; the only German fact on the evidence is that the website has a German version
- You require a subprocessor list or confirmed data residency before contracting; the evidence records those sovereignty attributes as unknown
The scores
Crawling & technical audit
panel disagrees
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Site crawling at real scale: what the crawler finds, how deeply it checks, whether Core Web Vitals and indexation problems are diagnosed rather than merely listed.
0 — No site crawler; the product is keyword data only.
3 — A crawler with a low page cap that reports broken links and missing tags, with no prioritisation and no rendering of JavaScript.
5 — Scheduled crawls at a stated page limit, JavaScript rendering, issue categories with severity, and Core Web Vitals pulled per template.
8 — Log-file or Search Console integration to compare what the crawler sees against what Google fetched, indexation and canonical diagnosis, structured-data validation, and issues prioritised by traffic impact rather than count.
10 — The audit is diagnostic rather than a list: crawl budget analysed, rendering differences surfaced, regressions detected between crawls with the deploy that caused them inferrable, and remediation guidance specific enough for a developer ticket.
The In-House SEO Lead
The only audit-adjacent claims are 'real time site health' and '24/7 monitoring of AI bot crawling with real-time alerts and prioritized fixes' — that monitors AI bots, it is not a site crawler. No page limits, no JavaScript rendering, no Core Web Vitals per template, no log-file or Search Console comparison, no indexation or canonical diagnosis anywhere; my developers would have nothing they could accept as a ticket. 1 2 3
The Agency Owner
Site health exists — '24/7 always-on monitoring tracks how AI bots crawl your site' with 'real-time alerts and prioritized fixes' — and prioritisation is more than a bare link-checker. But the evidence says nothing on crawl scale, page limits, JavaScript rendering or Core Web Vitals, and that silence tells me the technical crawler is no longer the pitch — the AI bot story is. 1 3
The Technical SEO
The only site-health evidence is '24/7 always-on monitoring tracks how AI bots crawl your site. Real-time alerts and prioritized fixes' — a GPTBot alert feed, not an audit. No page limits, no JavaScript rendering, no Core Web Vitals, no indexation/canonical diagnosis, no log-file or Search Console comparison anywhere in the evidence, which puts this below even a basic link-and-tag crawler. 1 3
The Content Strategist
The only mechanical claim is '24/7 always-on monitoring tracks how AI bots crawl your site' with alerts and 'prioritized fixes' — that is watching third-party bots, not a site audit. 'Real time site health' appears as positioning with not one finding type, page cap, render capability or Core Web Vitals word behind it, so it sits one point above the keyword-data-only floor. 1 2 3
The Data Analyst
All the evidence evidences is '24/7 always-on monitoring tracks how AI bots crawl your site. Real-time alerts and prioritized fixes' [E1/E3] — that is monitoring whether GPTBot can reach pages, not a technical audit of the site. No page caps, no JavaScript rendering, no Core Web Vitals, no indexation or canonical diagnosis anywhere in the registry, so this sits between rubric level 0 and 3 and closer to the bottom. 1 3
The Skeptic
Everything audit-shaped here is "24/7 always-on monitoring" of AI bots with "real-time alerts and prioritized fixes" — a bot-watch feed, not an audited crawl. No page limit, no JavaScript rendering, no Core Web Vitals, no indexation or canonical diagnosis appears anywhere; even the broken-links-and-missing-tags baseline of the 3-anchor is unevidenced, and the prioritisation claim is the only thing keeping it above 0. 1 3
Keyword research & content guidance
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Keyword discovery, intent classification, SERP feature analysis and on-page guidance — judged on the depth of the German-language data as much as the English.
0 — A keyword list with volumes from one source and no intent or difficulty signal.
3 — Volume and difficulty for major markets, with thin or stale German data and no SERP feature detail.
5 — Keyword research with volume, difficulty and intent across German and other EU markets, SERP feature presence, and basic on-page recommendations.
8 — Topic clustering, competitor gap analysis, SERP composition tracked over time, content briefs with entity coverage, and cannibalisation detection.
10 — Research and guidance close the loop: opportunity sized against realistic traffic, content scored against what currently ranks rather than against a keyword density heuristic, and recommendations that reference the specific pages in the customer's own site.
The In-House SEO Lead
A 'unified data engine' with intent, content and technical signals over 10+ years plus AI content creation is claimed, but there is no volume, no difficulty, no SERP feature detail and no clustering or brief capability evidenced. The only German fact is that the website itself has a German-language toggle — that says nothing about German keyword data, which for my large German domain is the whole purchase question. 1 2 3
The Agency Owner
The evidence claims '10+ years of proprietary search data' with 'intent signals' plus AI content generation, and the site is bilingual German/English — but there is not one fact on volumes, difficulty, SERP features or the depth of German keyword data. No keyword research workflow is evidenced at all, which lands it below the 'volume and difficulty' anchor. 1 2 3
The Technical SEO
AI content generation and 'intent signals, content signals, technical signals' inside the 10+ year data engine is all the evidence shows — no documented volume, difficulty, intent classification by market, or SERP feature analysis. The German fact is only that the website has a German version, which says nothing about the depth of German keyword data. 1 2 3
The Content Strategist
'Generate, optimize, and scale content that performs in search and LLMs' is a generation promise, not guidance — no volumes, difficulty, per-market intent, SERP feature detail, clustering or cannibalisation detection anywhere in the evidence. German is confirmed as a website language, never as data depth, and the '10+ years of intent signals' is a claim I cannot size a single opportunity against. 1 2 3
The Data Analyst
The data engine claims 'intent signals, content signals' and Creator claims AI content generation/optimization [E1/E3], which clears the intent bar of rubric level 5's first clause — but there is no evidence of keyword volumes, difficulty, SERP feature analysis, or any depth of German-language keyword data (a German website version is not German market data). Between rubric level 0 and 3, with intent claimed but the core research dataset unevidenced. 1 3
The Skeptic
"10+ years of proprietary search data" with "intent signals" is precisely the claim no buyer can check, and the evidence states no volumes, no difficulty, no SERP feature detail, and no German-market depth. The only German evidence is that the vendor's own website has a German toggle — that is not German keyword data. 1 2 3
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
'10+ years of proprietary search data' is the entirety of what the vendor documents about their own data — no update frequency, no country/device/city granularity, no backlink index size or refresh, no methodology, and the AI-visibility tracking across ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, Claude and traditional search is described with zero collection detail. I could not defend these rankings against Search Console on this evidence. 1 3
The Agency Owner
The only proprietary-data claim is '10+ years of proprietary search data. Intent signals, content signals, and technical signals in a unified engine' — no update frequency, no country/device granularity, no backlink index size or freshness, no methodology. I score proprietary data on what the vendor documents, and this is a slogan, not documentation. 1 3
The Technical SEO
The sole data claim is '10+ years of proprietary search data': no update frequency, no country/device granularity, no backlink index size or refresh cadence, no methodology — exactly what rubric level 0 describes. One point only for the historical depth claim, since the vendor documents nothing verifiable about its own index. 1 3
The Content Strategist
The vendor's entire documented data story is one sentence: '10+ years of proprietary search data' with intent, content and technical signals. No update frequency, no country or device granularity, no backlink index size or refresh, no methodology — rubric level 0 is close to a literal match, with the decade claim worth a single point above it. 3
The Data Analyst
'10+ years of proprietary search data' [E1/E3] and an engine list for visibility tracking is all the vendor documents — no update frequency, no country/device granularity, no backlink index size or refresh cadence, no methodology. rubric level 0 is the match, nudged to 1 only because the data's existence and engine coverage are at least stated. 1 3
The Skeptic
No update frequency, no country/device granularity, no index size, no refresh cadence, no collection methodology — the evidence offers "10+ years of proprietary search data", which is age, not freshness. One point only because the tracked engines are at least named; everything else the anchors ask for is silent. 1 3
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
An 'API documentation and playground' with prompt libraries and developer tools for agentic AEO workflows is documented, which is genuinely something to build against, though its limits are unstated and it is positioned for LLM workflows rather than data retrieval. No dashboards, scheduled or white-label reports, and no Search Console or named analytics integration appear — only the vague claim of connecting visibility 'to traffic, conversions, and revenue'. 2 3
The Agency Owner
There is a real developer surface — 'API documentation and playground' with prompt libraries — which clears the 'no API worth building against' bar. But nothing on stated API limits, dashboards, Search Console integration, white-label reporting or multi-client management: I cannot tell from this sheet whether I can hand a client a report with my logo on it, and that is the whole question for me. 2 3
The Technical SEO
An API with documentation and a playground exists, which is more than a CSV button, but there are no stated API limits, no dashboards, no scheduled reports, and no Search Console or analytics integration facts anywhere in the captured pages. Building a workflow against it would be faith-based. 2 3
The Content Strategist
The developer playground with 'API documentation and playground' is a real documented API, which clears the nothing-to-build-against bar. But no stated limits, no dashboards, no scheduled reports and no Search Console or analytics integration evidenced — halfway between rubric level 3 and 5. 3 1
The Data Analyst
A claimed 'API documentation and playground' with 'prompt libraries, real use cases' [E3/E2] is real and buildable-sounding, but no API rate limits are stated, no credit costs per endpoint are published, and there is zero evidence of dashboards, scheduled reports, Search Console/analytics integration, or warehouse export. That lands between rubric level 3 and 5: documented API without limits, reporting stack entirely unevidenced. 2 3
The Skeptic
"API documentation and playground" is stated, which is more than a brochure CSV button, but no rate limits, credit costs per endpoint, integrations, dashboards, or white-label reporting are evidenced anywhere. A documented API whose cost per call is unstated is a building block, not something a team budgets against. 2 3
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 evidence is silent on export of any kind: no bulk export, no historical export of rankings or crawls, no retention after cancellation, and the only API on offer is the AEO developer playground, not an evidenced data-retrieval channel. On this evidence the multi-year history a subscription accumulates ends with the subscription. 3
The Agency Owner
No export fact anywhere: no bulk export, no historical retention after cancellation, nothing on formats or credit metering. The only thread is the developer playground/API, and nothing says it exposes ranking or crawl history — a multi-year subscription here accumulates history I have no evidence of taking with me. 3
The Technical SEO
The evidence mentions no export of any kind — not CSV, not API bulk, nothing. The 10 years of history live in their unified engine and, as evidenced, leave with the subscription. rubric level 0. 1 3
The Content Strategist
The evidence is silent on export of any kind — no CSV, no bulk historical export, no post-cancellation retention. Even the documented API is framed around 'agentic AEO workflows', not mirroring your history out, and by the anchors' own rule silence on exit is the floor. 3
The Data Analyst
The vendor markets '10+ years of proprietary search data' yet the evidence is completely silent on bulk export, historical export, API mirroring, or any retention grace period after cancellation. By the anchors, total absence of exit evidence is rubric level 0: three years of history apparently dies with the subscription as far as anything published shows. 1 3
The Skeptic
Nothing in the evidence evidences export of anything: no bulk export, no historical rankings or crawl results, no retention after cancellation. The sole machine path is an API pitched for "agentic AEO workflows", with zero evidence it retrieves history — the multi-year subscription here leaves nothing documented behind when it ends. 2 3
European sovereignty
panel opinion
panel disagrees
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 imprint confirms a German-language operation, but legal entity jurisdiction, ownership, data residency and subprocessor exposure are all recorded as unknown, and hosting and subprocessors are stated nowhere in the captured pages. For a Berlin GmbH that is thin — the subprocessor list being absent is the anchor-3 floor, and I cannot even confirm EU hosting as standard, so I sit just under it. 2 3
The Agency Owner
Every sovereignty attribute is unknown — entity, ownership, residency, subprocessors — and the product surface is fully Conductor-branded after the 2023 group merger. The German-language site and the Berlin GmbH name are all that's European on paper; hosting and the subprocessor list are unstated, which is anchor-zero territory with a German accent. 2 3
The Technical SEO
Searchmetrics GmbH in Berlin is an EU contracting entity, but hosting, data residency, ownership and every subprocessor are recorded as unknown, and no subprocessor list appears even on the captured privacy policy page — the absent subprocessor list is precisely rubric level 3. The Conductor-group ownership since 2023 is flagged but unresolved, so I can't credit more. 2 3
The Content Strategist
Every attribute the pipeline checks — legal entity jurisdiction, ownership, data residency, subprocessor exposure — came back unknown, and the Conductor-group note explicitly does not pass the ownership test. The imprint and privacy policy captures evidenced no hosting statement and no subprocessor list, which is rubric level 0 verbatim. 2 3
The Data Analyst
The vendor is named 'Searchmetrics GmbH, Berlin, Germany', which is the only European signal — yet the sovereignty pipeline found legal entity jurisdiction, ownership, data residency, and subprocessor exposure all unknown (0 of 10), and the Conductor-group ownership since 2023 is jurisdiction-undocumented. A captured privacy policy yielded no DPA, subprocessor list, or hosting facts, so I sit just above the floor rather than at it. 2 3
The Skeptic
A Berlin GmbH with a German-language imprint suggests an EU contracting entity, but every substantive product claim on the evidence is Conductor-branded — the group that acquired them in 2023 — and hosting, subprocessors, DPA, and certification are all absent. The pipeline returned "unknown" on jurisdiction, ownership, residency and subprocessor exposure; that silence is the score. 2 3
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 tier price, keyword limit, crawl credit, seat cost or VAT treatment appears anywhere in the evidence; the only priced item is a free AI visibility report. With '#1 enterprise AEO platform' positioning and nothing else public, every tier is a sales conversation and the annual invoice is unknowable. 2 3
The Agency Owner
Not one price, tier, keyword limit, crawl credit or per-seat cost appears anywhere in the evidence — the only free thing is a lead-gen AI visibility report. 'Built for enterprise teams' with zero public pricing means every licence I rebill starts with a sales call, and I read that as a margin problem. 3
The Technical SEO
No price, tier, keyword limit, crawl credit or seat cost appears anywhere in the captured pages; the only public offer is a free AI visibility report. Enterprise AEO positioning with everything else behind a sales conversation — the annual invoice is unknowable. rubric level 0. 1 3
The Content Strategist
Not one price, keyword limit, crawl credit or seat cost appears anywhere in the confirmed facts. With 'Built for enterprise teams' positioning and no public tiers, every invoice is a sales conversation — the 0 anchor exactly. 1
The Data Analyst
Not a single price, tier, keyword limit, crawl credit, seat cost, or API unit cost appears anywhere in the captured pages. Combined with '#1 enterprise AEO platform' enterprise positioning, that is rubric level 0 verbatim: every tier is a sales conversation and the annual invoice is unknowable from public pages. 1
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 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 | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited 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 15 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.
- 7 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 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
- 2 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
- 1 legal 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 (4)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.searchmetrics.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Imprint www.searchmetrics.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.searchmetrics.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Security / trust page www.conductor.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →