whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

SEO

Seobility

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 Seobility GmbH · www.seobility.net

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 Technical SEO

Weighted verdict

Lives in crawl data and log files. Wants JavaScript rendering, crawl budget analysed, indexation diagnosed rather than listed, and regressions caught between crawls. Treats an issue list sorted by count rather than by traffic impact as busywork.

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

Scored by The Technical SEO

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 Technical SEO

Scheduled crawls at published page limits from 1,000 to 100,000 pages, JavaScript crawling on the paid plans, 300+ factors per page, issue categories tagged by severity with fix instructions per URL — that is a real audit, not a broken-link checker. What would make it diagnostic rather than a list is absent from the captured pages: no Core Web Vitals per template, no log-file or Search Console comparison against what Google actually fetched, no structured-data validation, no crawl-budget analysis, and no regression detection between crawls; prioritisation is by severity tag, never by traffic impact. 5 2

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 Technical SEO

Volume, competition and CPC with search-intent and long-tail filters, autocomplete, question and related-terms categories, and the strongest piece — competitor gap and intersection analysis with per-page top-10 metrics for traffic, domain rating and backlink count. I found no public information on topic clustering, SERP composition tracked over time, content briefs with entity coverage, or cannibalisation detection; the WDF*IDF tool is the only on-page content guidance shown, and nothing in the captures documents the depth of the German-language data itself. 7 2

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 Technical SEO

Daily desktop and mobile rankings to position 100 with city-level local and Local Pack tracking, position changes per keyword and landing page, and a weekly-updated backlink overview — cadence and granularity are stated plainly. But the vendor documents no index size, no collection methodology, no lost-and-found link detection, and nothing about how long historical rankings are retained; AI Overview visibility is a feature, not accountability for their own data. 8 9 2

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 Technical SEO

PDF and CSV export including white-label reports with the agency's own logo, weekly email reports, member accounts and up to 15 projects give an agency the basics to hand a client. The API is ranking-monitoring data only, gated behind an email request for Agency-plan users, explicitly excludes backlink data and offers very limited on-page data, with no stated rate limits or per-endpoint costs; I found no public information on Search Console or analytics integration, customisable dashboards, or any data-warehouse export. 2 10 9

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 Technical SEO

CSV and PDF export exist, and an Agency-plan ranking-monitoring API offers one programmatic path to the rankings — but the captured pages say nothing about bulk historical export of rankings, keywords or crawl results, and nothing about retention after cancellation. The API's stated exclusions — no backlink data, very limited on-page data — narrow that path further. 7 2 10

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 Technical SEO

A German contracting entity with a published imprint, and a privacy policy naming Cloudflare and Mixpanel — both US — with a Data Privacy Framework claim and deletion within hours to days for Cloudflare. The deciding gap: the captured pages give no statement on where the account and crawl data are hosted, so EU hosting as standard is unconfirmed, and the Mixpanel web analytics handling appears without an equivalent safeguard explained. 3 4

Report an error

Pricing transparency

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 Technical SEO

Every tier is priced publicly with the limits that drive the invoice — keyword counts from 10 to 1,500, crawl depth from 1,000 to 100,000 pages, projects, competitor monitoring and daily tool queries — plus VAT treatment stated as zzgl. UST, monthly terms cancellable to the month's end, a 20% annual saving, and add-on prices of 7,90 € per 100 additional keywords and 9,90 € per additional project with announced increases. What keeps the invoice from being fully computable: no public price for the member accounts the plans mention, and API access is a contact-us conversation rather than published credits or limits. 2 7 10

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 Seobility? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (12)

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

  1. 1 Vendor homepage www.seobility.net Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Pricing www.seobility.net Checked 5 Oct 2026 +3 earlier captures: 16 Sep 2026, 11 Sep 2026, 2 Sep 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Imprint www.seobility.net Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Privacy policy www.seobility.net Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Crawling & technical audit — found from sitemap www.seobility.net Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Keyword research & content guidance — found from sitemap www.seobility.net Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Keyword research & content guidance — found from sitemap www.seobility.net Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Rank tracking & index quality — found from sitemap www.seobility.net Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Rank tracking & index quality — found from sitemap www.seobility.net Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Reporting, integrations & API — found from sitemap www.seobility.net Checked 5 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Crawling & technical audit — found from sitemap help.seobility.net Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  12. 12 Reporting, integrations & API — found from sitemap help.seobility.net Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →