whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

SEO

Searchmetrics

EU-Made 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 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 Data Analyst

Weighted verdict

Wants the numbers in the warehouse, not in a PDF. Cares about a documented API with published credit costs, bulk historical export, and whether three years of ranking history leaves with the customer or dies with the subscription.

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

Scored by The Data Analyst

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 of 4 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

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

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 Searchmetrics? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (4)

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

  1. 1 Vendor homepage www.searchmetrics.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Imprint www.searchmetrics.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Privacy policy www.searchmetrics.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Security / trust page www.conductor.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →