SEO
Senuto
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Senuto Sp. z o.o. · www.senuto.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.
Senuto at a glance
- Vendor
- Senuto Sp. z o.o.
- 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 Senuto 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Senuto, an SEO and content marketing platform from Senuto Sp. 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
Senuto, an SEO and content marketing platform from Senuto Sp. z o.o., a Polish company, covers visibility, keyword, SERP, rank-tracking and content modules. It is strongest in reporting and API, which scored 6-7 on the strength of 124 documented endpoints, a remote MCP server with 26 tools, a native Make app, and Looker Studio, Google Sheets, Slack, Google Analytics and Search Console connections. It is weakest as a technical audit tool, scoring 0-1: the documented crawls examine Google results pages, not the customer's own site, and we found no public information on Core Web Vitals, JavaScript rendering or log-file analysis. The judges split on keyword and content, 4 to 7: scores cluster at 6-7 on depth across close to 185 million keywords, but the in-house lead scored 4, citing no public difficulty or intent signals and a product that ships in Polish, English and Romanian, leaving German-market depth unevidenced. Sovereignty sits at 3-4: a Polish contracting entity, with no public information on hosting location or subprocessors. Only the Business and Enterprise plan names are public; the 14-day trial requires no credit card.
Speaks for it
- Reporting and API scored 6-7 on 124 documented endpoints with bearer authentication, shared pagination and filtering, asynchronous tasks and a limits endpoint.
- Keyword research draws on a database of close to 185 million keywords with search volume, seasonality and CPC claimed for any language and country.
- Rank tracking runs daily with country, region and city granularity, including Google Maps and Direct Answer Box monitoring.
- A remote MCP server with 26 tools, a native Make app, and Looker Studio, Google Sheets, Slack, Google Analytics and Search Console connections support automated reporting.
- Completed API task reports stay queryable on later days without consuming limits, and identical synchronous queries fall within a 24-hour grace window.
Held against it
- Technical audit scored 0-1, with no public information on a site crawler, Core Web Vitals, JavaScript rendering or log-file analysis.
- We found no public information on a backlink index of any kind — no size, refresh cadence or lost-and-found link detection.
- We found no public information on a keyword difficulty metric or intent classification, or on German-market depth beyond a generic claim of coverage for any language and country.
- Sovereignty scored 3-4: beyond the Polish contracting entity we found no public information on hosting location, subprocessors, certification or data-processing terms.
- The claim that the keyword database is updated daily appears in a customer testimonial rather than a methodology page.
Best for
- You want a programmable SEO data source for your own pipelines and dashboards, where reporting and API scored 6-7.
- Your content planning leans on keyword clustering, cannibalisation reporting and question-phrase research rather than a difficulty score.
- You monitor rankings across many markets and need city-level granularity alongside Google Maps and answer-box tracking.
- You want to evaluate before committing — the 14-day trial includes 6 modules and 3 SEO articles generated by AI, with no credit card required.
Avoid if
- You need technical site auditing — a crawler for your own site, Core Web Vitals, JavaScript rendering or log-file analysis — where scores sit at 0-1.
- Your work depends on backlink analysis or device-level rank tracking, for which we found no public information — a question to put to the vendor.
- Your procurement must verify hosting location, subprocessors or data-processing terms before purchase, and we found no public information on any of them.
- You need published tier prices, keyword limits or API credit costs to budget — only the Business and Enterprise names are public.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Crawling & technical audit | 0 of 5 |
| Keyword research & content guidance | 3.5 of 5 |
| Rank tracking & index quality | 3 of 5 |
| Reporting, integrations & API | 3.5 of 5 |
| Data portability & exit | 2.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 2 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
The documented modules are visibility analysis, keyword explorer, SERP analysis, rank tracking and content planning and writing; I found no public information on a site crawler, Core Web Vitals, indexation diagnosis or log-file analysis. The crawl-named export endpoints return top-100 SERP results and lists of SERP URLs, which examines the results page rather than my site. As an audit story this gives me nothing I could turn into a developer ticket. 1 7 4
The Agency Owner
The only crawl machinery on record is SERP-side — top-100 and ranking-URL crawl exports inside SERP Analysis — not an audit of the client's own site. We found no public information on broken-link or tag checking, Core Web Vitals, JavaScript rendering, or log-file and Search Console comparison. A module list built around visibility, keywords and content reads as keyword data plus content tooling rather than technical auditing. 1 4 7
The Technical SEO
The only crawl machinery documented is on the search-results side — TOP100 SERP crawls, URL crawl tasks and an HTML snapshot of the SERP — and we found no public information on a crawler for the customer's own site, JavaScript rendering, Core Web Vitals, structured-data validation or log-file analysis. The single Search Console tie-in shown is one visibility-versus-traffic chart, which is reporting rather than indexation diagnosis, so there is essentially nothing here to score against a technical audit. 1 4 5 7
The Content Strategist
The six documented modules are keyword, visibility, ranking, SERP and content tooling, and the crawl-named export endpoints are crawls of Google result pages rather than of the customer's site — this is keyword data only. We found no public information on a site crawler, Core Web Vitals, indexation or JavaScript rendering diagnosis. 1 4 7
The Data Analyst
The documented modules are keyword, ranking and SERP analytics, and I found no public information on a site crawler, Core Web Vitals diagnosis, JavaScript rendering, log-file analysis or indexation checks on any captured page. The only crawl endpoints documented are exports of top-100 SERP crawl results and URL crawl results inside SERP analysis — crawls of search results, not of the customer's own site. As far as the evidence goes, this is keyword data only. 1 7
The Skeptic
The published module list runs Visibility Analysis, Keyword Explorer, SERP Analysis, Rank Tracker, Content Planner and Content Writer, and the crawl endpoints in the documentation are crawls of Google results rather than of a customer's site. We found no public information on a site crawler, JavaScript rendering, Core Web Vitals or log-file analysis; by the captured pages this is keyword data only. 1 7
Keyword research & content guidance
panel disagrees
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
Volume, seasonality and CPC are documented for any language and country, related keywords feed topic clusters, NLP filters sort by part of speech, and the API returns twelve-month trends, spelling variants and snippet types per phrase — genuine research depth. I found no public information on a difficulty metric or intent classification, and the vendor's site and support run only in Polish, English and Romanian, so the quality of German-language data is not evidenced. Content Planner and Writer give basic guidance rather than briefs scored against what currently ranks. 1 2 3
The Agency Owner
Keyword research is genuinely deep — a database of close to 185 million keywords with volume, seasonality, CPC, related phrases, NLP part-of-speech filters, question phrases and snippet types, plus a cannibalisation report and Content Planner and Writer on top. But we found no public information on a difficulty metric, and the product's own languages are Polish, English and Romanian — nothing evidences the German-market depth I bill clients on. Entity-covered briefs and SERP composition tracked over time are likewise unevidenced. 1 2 3 5
The Technical SEO
Keyword Explorer searches close to 185 million keywords with volume, CPC, twelve-month trends, seasonality, spelling variations, snippet types, question phrases and part-of-speech NLP filters, and a cannibalisation report plus Content Planner and AI Overviews analysis with sources take this well past a plain volume list. We found no public information on a keyword difficulty score, intent classification, or German-market depth beyond a generic 'any language and country' claim, which is what holds this below the top. 2 3 4 5
The Content Strategist
There is real brief-building material here: related-keyword suggestions for topic clusters, a dedicated cannibalisation report, SERP snippet statistics and history, question-word phrases and NLP filtering over a database of close to 185 million keywords with volume, seasonality and CPC. It stays below the top band because we found no public information on keyword difficulty or intent labels, on content briefs with entity coverage, on opportunity sized against realistic traffic, or on the depth of German-language data specifically — the product ships in Polish, English and Romanian. 2 3 4 5
The Data Analyst
Search volume, CPC and seasonality claimed for any language and country, with topic clustering suggestions, a competitor position matrix, cannibalisation reporting, snippet statistics with history, and keyword propositions returning twelve-month trends and spelling variations — the working machinery of serious research. I found no public information on a keyword difficulty or intent signal, on entity-level brief detail, or on German-language depth beyond the generic any-language claim, which is what keeps this below the top band. 2 3 4 5
The Skeptic
A database of close to 185 million keywords with volume, CPC min/max, seasonality and twelve-month trends, question phrases, part-of-speech sorting, topic-cluster suggestions, a cannibalisation report and a competition matrix, documented down to response fields — genuine depth. We found no public information on content briefs with entity coverage or opportunity sized against realistic traffic, and the site speaks Polish, English and Romanian, with the depth of the German-language data never addressed on the captured pages. 2 3 4 5
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
Daily checks with country, region and city selection, Google Maps and Direct Answer Box monitoring, snippet statistics with history, and positions reported day by day are all documented, and a keyword database of close to 185 million keywords with daily updates is published. I found no public information on device-level tracking, on any backlink index, or on ranking methodology beyond daily updates, and discrepancies against Search Console are not addressed. City-level granularity and SERP-feature attribution lift this above the middle of the scale, but the backlink side of the proprietary-data story is not documented in the captured pages. 2 4 5
The Agency Owner
Daily position checks with country, region and city selection, Google Maps and Direct Answer Box monitoring, rich-results tracking and a day-by-day positions history are documented — real granularity, city-level included. But we found no public information about a backlink index at all, nor about device-level granularity, collection methodology, or index freshness beyond a customer testimonial saying the database is updated daily. Rankings alone get you to the middle; the proprietary-data story is half-told. 2 5
The Technical SEO
Daily position checks with country, region and city granularity, Google Maps and Direct Answer Box monitoring, rich-result tracking and a day-by-day positions history are all documented, with the keyword database stated at close to 185 million. The daily-update claim for that database comes from a customer testimonial rather than a methodology page, and we found no public information on device-level granularity, collection methodology, or any backlink index — size, refresh cadence or lost-and-found link detection. 2 4 5
The Content Strategist
The ranking half earns credit: daily position checks with country, region and city selection, Maps and answer-box monitoring, rich-result tracking and day-by-day position history over a database the vendor describes as updated daily. We found no public information on a backlink index — no size, refresh cadence or lost-and-found link detection — nor on collection methodology or how long history is retained, which holds this below the top band. 2 4 5
The Data Analyst
Daily position checks with country, region and city granularity, Google Maps and Direct Answer Box tracking, rich-result monitoring, and day-by-day position history reachable through a documented API with date ranges and non-expiring completed tasks. A keyword database of close to 185 million is stated and a daily update is claimed, though that refresh claim appears in a customer testimonial rather than a methodology page, and I found no public information on device selection, on backlink data of any kind, or on how rankings are collected. 2 4 5 7
The Skeptic
Daily rank checks with country, region and city selection, Maps and Direct Answer Box tracking, snippet statistics with history, AI Overviews data and a positions history reported day by day — the ranking half is documented to a standard I can hold. The backlink half is on no captured page, the daily-refresh statement sits in a customer testimonial rather than a methodology page, and we found no public information on device granularity or on how long history is retained for the life of an account. 2 4 5
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
This is the strongest area: 124 documented endpoints with bearer-token authentication, shared filtering and pagination, a limits endpoint returning counters, three retrieval modes including asynchronous tasks and file exports, a remote MCP server with 26 tools, a native Make app, plus Looker Studio, Google Sheets, Slack and Google Analytics/Search Console integration. I found no public information on white-label reporting with client access or data-warehouse export, and credit consumption is visible as runtime counters rather than costs published per endpoint. My developers could build on this tomorrow; an agency handing reports to clients unedited has nothing documented to rely on. 5 6 7
The Agency Owner
This is the stack I could build a rebill on: Google Analytics and Search Console in one view, Looker Studio and Google Sheets automation, Slack alerts, a documented REST API with 124 endpoints, bearer auth, pagination, filtering and a live limits counter, a native Make app and a hosted MCP server with 26 tools. What holds it back is that we found no public information on white-label branding or client access, BigQuery or warehouse export, or per-endpoint API credit costs — the limits endpoint shows my counters at runtime, not a published price list. Multi-client life is implied by per-project data and account-wide averages but never stated as an agency feature. 2 4 5 6 7
The Technical SEO
Unusually strong: 124 documented endpoints, shared filtering and pagination with a stated 418 error envelope, a limits endpoint, three retrieval modes, Make, n8n, Zapier, Slack, Looker Studio and Google Sheets, Google Analytics and Search Console, and a remote MCP server with 26 tools and OAuth login. The old Integromat API path still working signals care with backward compatibility. We found no public information on white-label client access, data-warehouse export or per-endpoint credit costs, which is what separates this from the top. 5 6 7
The Content Strategist
This behaves like a data source rather than a destination: 124 documented endpoints, a remote MCP server with 26 tools, a native Make app, Google Analytics and Search Console, Looker Studio and Sheets, Slack alerts, and a limits endpoint that reports current counters alongside filtering, pagination and error conventions. We found no public information on white-label client reporting, data-warehouse export, or credit costs published per endpoint, which is what the top band asks for. 2 5 6 7
The Data Analyst
This is a real API: 124 documented endpoints with pagination, filtering, a shared error envelope, asynchronous tasks, three distinct retrieval modes, a limits-counter endpoint, a documented 24-hour grace window, and completed-task re-reads that consume no limit — plus a remote MCP server, a native Make application, and Search Console and analytics integration. What the pages do not show is credit cost per endpoint, white-label client reporting, or a data-warehouse destination beyond Looker Studio and Google Sheets. 2 5 6 7
The Skeptic
124 documented endpoints with bearer auth, pagination, filtering, a shared error envelope, a limits-counter endpoint, asynchronous tasks and CSV file exports, plus a native Make app, a remote MCP server with 26 tools, and Slack, Looker Studio, Google Sheets, Analytics and Search Console connections — an API a team can build on. We found no public information on white-label client access or warehouse export, and the only credit statements are a no-cost re-query of finished tasks and a limits counter, not costs per endpoint. 5 6 7
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
CSV export endpoints exist for keyword statistics and SERP analysis data, exports run to CSV, PDF or Looker Studio, and finished API tasks can be re-queried on later days without consuming limit. Pagination tops out around 100 rows per request, so mirroring multi-year history is slow but possible. I found no public information on bulk export of complete ranking history or on any retention period after cancellation. 5 7
The Agency Owner
Bulk CSV export endpoints exist for SERP top-100 crawls, ranking-URL crawls and keyword statistics, wide historical reports are pullable through the API, and finished task results stay queryable without consuming limits. But the exports are per-task and per-report — we found no public information on a full-account archive, open formats beyond CSV, or any retention period after cancellation. Exit here is workable, not designed-for. 5 7
The Technical SEO
File-export endpoints cover keyword statistics and SERP/URL crawl task results, asynchronous tasks handle large pulls, and completed task results stay queryable at no limit cost, so bulk data does leave the tool through the API. We found no public information on a complete historical rankings export, formats beyond CSV and PDF, or any retention period after cancellation — the day-by-day history is documented as visible in reports, but its bulk exit is not. 4 5 7
The Content Strategist
Bulk export is genuinely reachable through the API: export endpoints for keyword statistics and crawl results, project positions retrievable by date range, and completed task reports that can be queried the next day without consuming limits. We found no public information on a complete full-account export or on any retention period after cancellation, so exit is workable rather than designed for. 4 5 7
The Data Analyst
File exports of SERP crawl results, URL crawl results and keyword statistics via the API, and ranking history queryable day by day with date ranges, so bulk export of data including history through the interface or API is broadly evidenced. I found no public information on retention after cancellation or any stated exit grace period, and fresh queries do consume limit credits, which is why I stop at the middle band rather than above it. 4 5 7
The Skeptic
API file exports cover keyword statistics, TOP100 crawl results and URLs crawl results in CSV, PDF or Looker Studio, and finished tasks keep their reports queryable without consuming limits — more than a current-view dump. The ranking history a multi-year subscription accumulates is documented as a report rather than as a bulk export, and we found no public information on post-cancellation retention or a grace period. 5 7
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 contracting entity is a Polish limited company, so the contract and vendor sit inside the EU. We found no public information on hosting location, named infrastructure, subprocessors, or the legal basis for the Google Analytics and Search Console data the tool ingests. For a tool that holds my search strategy rather than my customers' personal data that is tolerable, but the chain is undocumented. 1 5
The Agency Owner
The contracting entity is Polish — Senuto Sp. z o.o. — and the product and support run in Polish, English and Romanian, which puts the basics in the EU. Beyond that, we found no public information on hosting location, named infrastructure, subprocessors, certification, or a data processing agreement covering the crawl and analytics data the tool ingests. An EU entity with an undocumented chain earns mid-table. 1 5 6
The Technical SEO
The contracting entity is Senuto Sp. z o.o., a Polish company, and the product ships in Polish, English and Romanian, so the legal relationship sits inside the EU. Beyond that we found no public information on hosting location, infrastructure provider, subprocessors or data-processing terms, so the residency of crawl and analytics data cannot be assessed from the captured pages. 1 5
The Content Strategist
No sovereignty attributes are on record; the Polish legal form in the vendor name and the Polish, English and Romanian product and support are the only European signals. We found no public information on hosting location, infrastructure, subprocessors, or data-processing terms, which leaves the subprocessor chain unexamined rather than verified. 1 5
The Data Analyst
The contracting entity is a Polish limited company, so the contract side is European, but the sovereignty record shows nothing beyond that: hosting location, subprocessors, certification and data-processing terms for the crawl and analytics data the tool ingests are all unevidenced. With no published subprocessor list and no hosting statement, I can only score against the lower bands regardless of the Polish entity. 1
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is Senuto Sp. z o.o., a Polish company, with Polish-language documentation and a Polish status page — an EU vendor. 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
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
Only two plan names, Business and Enterprise, and a 14-day trial without credit card are public; we found no price figures, keyword limits, crawl or API credit costs, additional-seat prices or VAT treatment in the captured pages. I cannot compute even a rough annual invoice for my keyword count and team size from what is published. 1 5 2
The Agency Owner
The captured pages name Business and Enterprise plans and a 14-day trial with no credit card, and that is the whole public pricing story — we found no public information on any price figure, keyword limits, crawl credits, API units, extra seats or VAT treatment. For a buyer running forty sites, the annual invoice is unknowable from these pages. That is a margin problem before it is a sales problem. 1 2 5
The Technical SEO
The captured pages name Business and Enterprise tiers and a 14-day trial requiring no credit card with three AI articles included, but no price figure appears anywhere. We found no public information on monthly or annual cost, keyword or project limits, API credit costs or extra seats, so a buyer cannot begin to compute the invoice from what is published. 1 2 5
The Content Strategist
Only plan names — Business and Enterprise — and a 14-day trial with no credit card are public; there are no tier prices anywhere on the captured pages. We found no public information on keyword limits, crawl credits, API unit costs, per-seat pricing, minimum term or VAT treatment, so a real annual invoice cannot be computed at all and every tier is a sales conversation. 1 2 5
The Data Analyst
The pages name Business and Enterprise tiers and a 14-day trial with no credit card required, but I found no public information on any price figure, keyword limit, crawl credit, per-seat cost, API credit cost or VAT treatment. From what is public, every paid number is a sales conversation — the annual invoice is not computable. 1 5
The Skeptic
The captured pages name Business and Enterprise tiers and a 14-day trial with no credit card, and that is the whole of the pricing evidence. No figure for any tier, no keyword or crawl limits, no per-seat or API credit costs and no VAT treatment are published, so the annual invoice is not computable from anything public. 1 2 5
Questions about Senuto
Is Senuto European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Senuto is based.
Where does Senuto store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Senuto have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Senuto?
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: Senuto 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 (senuto.com, senuto.com/en/keyword-explorer, docs.senuto.com/modules/serp_analysis/serp-keyword-getKeywordsPropositions, docs.senuto.com/modules/rank_tracker, senuto.com/en/rank-tracker, docs.senuto.com/api-mcp-nocode and 1 more). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 4 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
Sources (7)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.senuto.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Keyword research & content guidance — found from sitemap www.senuto.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Keyword research & content guidance — found from sitemap docs.senuto.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Rank tracking & index quality — found from sitemap docs.senuto.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Rank tracking & index quality — found from sitemap www.senuto.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Reporting, integrations & API — found from sitemap docs.senuto.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Reporting, integrations & API — found from sitemap docs.senuto.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →