Serpstat

The In-House SEO Lead

The captured pages show a site audit with a summary, an all-issues view, a custom overview and a per-page audit, and Core Web Vitals are named as a focus alongside crawling performance. We found no public information on crawl limits, scheduling, JavaScript rendering, issue prioritisation or any comparison of what the crawler sees against what Google fetched, so I cannot tell whether findings would translate into a developer ticket. 3 6 1

Report an error

The Agency Owner

A site audit exists with an audit summary, an issue list, a custom overview and page-level audit, and Core Web Vitals are named as an outcome, but I found no public information on crawl page limits, scheduling, JavaScript rendering or how issues are prioritised. For forty client sites I cannot even tell from these pages how deep the crawler goes or whether anything is scheduled. 1 3 6

Report an error

The Technical SEO

Site Audit exists as a proper module with an audit summary, an all-issues view and a per-page audit, and Core Web Vitals are named in the positioning. But we found no public information on crawl page limits, JavaScript rendering, crawl scheduling, or any Search Console and log-file comparison against what Google actually fetched — issues are presented as sections of a list, with no evidence of prioritisation by traffic impact. 1 3 6

Report an error

The Content Strategist

A site audit exists with an Audit Summary, an All-issues view, custom overview and a page-level audit, and Core Web Vitals is named in its stated purpose — but that is where the evidence stops. We found no public information on crawl page limits, scheduled crawls, JavaScript rendering, severity prioritisation, or anything comparing what the crawler sees against what Google fetched. 1 3 6

Report an error

The Data Analyst

A crawler exists — Audit Summary, an issue list, and per-page audit, with Core Web Vitals named as a target — but we found no public information on crawl scheduling, page limits, JavaScript rendering, or issue prioritisation by severity or traffic impact. That reads as issue listing rather than diagnosis. 3 6 1

Report an error

The Skeptic

A site audit is confirmed with an Audit Summary, an All issues list, a custom overview and per-page audit, and core web vitals named among the targets. We found no public information on the crawl page limit, scheduling, JavaScript rendering, severity prioritisation or traffic-impact ranking, so the evidence shows an issue list rather than a diagnosis. 3 6

Report an error

The In-House SEO Lead

Clustering is genuinely deep — soft and hard cluster modes with configurable connection strength from weak to strong, homogeneity scoring, a Metatop of the competitor pages appearing in the SERP, automatic assignment of my own pages to clusters, and per-page content recommendations through Text Analysis. We found no public information on intent classification, SERP feature detail, cannibalisation detection, or how deep the German-language database goes, which is what my monthly content planning would hang on. 5 1 6

Report an error

The Agency Owner

Clustering is genuinely deep — soft and hard modes, a connection-strength score, a metatop of competitor pages in the SERP, and text analysis run against the customer's own auto-assigned page. I found no public information on German-language data depth, intent classification or cannibalisation detection, which holds it below the top band. 1 5 6

Report an error

The Technical SEO

Clustering is genuinely deep — soft and hard linkage, a per-keyword connection strength score, cluster homogeneity, metatop competitor pages, automatic assignment of clusters to the most relevant page of your own site, and text analysis with recommendations for that assigned page. We found no public information on intent classification, SERP feature data in research, cannibalisation detection, or the depth of the German-language data, which keeps this below the top band. 1 5 6

Report an error

The Content Strategist

Clustering is the strongest-documented capability in the whole sheet: soft and hard modes with URL-strength thresholds, Connection Strength and Homogeneity scores, a Metatop of the competitor pages that actually rank for the cluster, auto-assignment of the customer's own most relevant page, and Text Analysis recommendations launched against that assigned page — briefs tied to what ranks, which is what I commission against. Held below the top because we found no public information on cannibalisation detection, SERP feature composition, entity coverage in briefs, or the depth of German-language data. 1 5 6

Report an error

The Data Analyst

Clustering is documented in real depth — soft and hard modes with stated URL thresholds, connection strength and homogeneity scores, a metatop of competitor pages, automatic page assignment, and Text Analysis recommendations for the assigned page — alongside competitor keyword opportunities and a SERP History module. We found no public information on intent classification, cannibalisation detection, or the depth of the German-language data, which is what the top band asks for. 5 1 7 6

Report an error

The Skeptic

Keyword clustering is documented in genuine depth — soft and hard modes with stated URL thresholds, connection strength and homogeneity scores, metatop competitor pages, automatic page assignment, and content recommendations through the text analysis link — with difficulty, volume, trends and batch tooling alongside. We found no public information on intent classification, SERP feature composition, or the depth of the German-language data, which holds it short of the top band. 1 5 6

Report an error

The In-House SEO Lead

Daily rank tracking with country, language and device selection plus region and city granularity, positions history and SERP history modules, and index sizes are published plainly — 529 billion backlinks, 1.5 billion domains, 2.21 billion Google SERPs, 5.6 billion keyword suggestions. We found no public information on how the data is collected, the index refresh cadence, or how discrepancies against Search Console are explained, which is exactly what I need before I can defend these numbers to my stakeholders. 1 6 7 5

Report an error

The Agency Owner

Daily tracking with location, language and device selection, URL-level positions and separate positions and SERP history modules are documented, and index sizes are published (529B backlinks, 1.50B domains, 2.21B Google SERPs). I found no public information on the backlink index refresh cadence, SERP feature attribution or data methodology, so the vendor's own accountability for its data is not evidenced. 1 6 7

Report an error

The Technical SEO

Daily tracking with search engine, country, optional region and city selection plus device types and URL-level positions is granular, and index sizes are stated plainly — 529 billion backlinks, 1.5 billion domains, 2.21 billion Google SERPs. But the vendor publishes the size of their data and not its freshness: we found no public information on backlink refresh cadence, SERP feature attribution, lost-and-found link detection, methodology, or how long Positions History is retained. 1 5 7

Report an error

The Content Strategist

Daily rank monitoring with country, language and device selection is documented alongside Positions History, SERP History and URL-level tracking, and the index sizes are published — 529B backlinks, 1.5B domains, 2.21B Google SERPs — which is more self-disclosure than most vendors manage. But we found no public information on backlink refresh cadence, crawl methodology, SERP feature attribution, lost-and-found link detection, or how long historical data is retained. 1 6 7

Report an error

The Data Analyst

Daily rank tracking with country, region and city selection plus language and device granularity is documented, and index size is published — 529B backlinks, 1.50B domains, 5.6B keyword suggestions. What I cannot verify is freshness and accountability: we found no public information on backlink refresh cadence, data collection methodology, lost-and-found link detection, or how long historical rankings are retained. 1 6 7 5

Report an error

The Skeptic

Daily rank tracking with country, language, device and region-or-city selection is documented, with positions history, SERP history and URL-level tracking, and index sizes are published (529 billion backlinks, 1.5 billion domains, 2.21 billion Google SERPs). We found no public information on the backlink refresh cadence, the ranking methodology, or how long history is retained, so freshness and durability rest on large numbers no buyer can check. 1 6 7

Report an error

The In-House SEO Lead

There is a documented API with published monthly request caps per plan, per-row credit costs and a 60,000-row limit, plus Google Sheets, Looker Studio, R and MCP integrations, and white-label reporting that reaches a branded client domain on the Agency plan. We found no public information on Search Console or analytics integration, data-warehouse or BigQuery export, or scheduled reports — the pieces my monthly reporting actually runs on. 11 8 9 6

Report an error

The Agency Owner

This is the part I care about most and it holds up: branded PDF and Custom Reports from the Individual plan, a full white-label interface on my own subdomain with client access on the Agency plan, and a documented API whose credit costs are published per row and per call. I found no public information on Search Console or analytics integration, data-warehouse export, or multi-client management, which keeps it short of the top band. 8 9 11

Report an error

The Technical SEO

The API is real and priced: a documented JSON-RPC reference with one credit per returned row, five credits per summary call, 60,000 rows per request, and monthly call quotas published per plan — individual has no API access, team 200,000 and agency 2,000,000. White label climbs from a logo in PDFs on the individual plan to a full custom-domain platform clients log into on the agency plan, with maintained Google Sheets, Looker Studio, R, Python and MCP integrations. We found no public information on Search Console or analytics integration, warehouse or BigQuery export, or an API deprecation policy. 6 8 9 11

Report an error

The Content Strategist

White label scales sensibly from a logo in PDF reports on the lowest plan up to a CNAME-backed custom domain clients log into on the Agency plan, and the API publishes its metering — one credit per row, five credits per summary call, 60,000 rows per request, 200,000 monthly calls on Team and 2,000,000 on Agency — with vendor-maintained Google Sheets, Looker Studio, R and MCP integrations. Below the top anchors because we found no public information on data-warehouse export or an API versioning and deprecation policy. 6 8 9 11

Report an error

The Data Analyst

This is the strong suit: a documented API over JSON-RPC 2.0 with per-plan request limits (200,000/month on Team, 2,000,000/month on Agency, none on Individual) and credit costs published per call — one credit per returned row, five for the Summary report — plus Google Sheets, Looker Studio, Python and R routes and white-label client access on the Agency plan's custom domain. We found no public information on Search Console or analytics integration, scheduled reports, or data-warehouse export, which is the difference between a data source and a well-documented destination. 11 8 9 6

Report an error

The Skeptic

The credit costs are on the page, which is rare: one credit per returned API row, five credits for the summary call, a 60,000-row cap per request, and monthly API request caps stated per plan, with white label tiered clearly from logo-in-PDFs on Individual to a full custom domain on Agency. We found no public information on API versioning or a deprecation policy, and there is no sandbox — one token per account — but a team can build against this knowing what each call costs. 8 9 11

Report an error

The In-House SEO Lead

A dedicated API endpoint exports domain positions as CSV, larger volumes have a stated data-export route beyond the 60,000-row request cap, and XLSX/CSV export exists, so bulk access to rankings and audit results looks real. We found no public information on exporting full ranking history, any retention period after cancellation, or how credit metering prices a large historical pull. 10 11 5

Report an error

The Agency Owner

Exports exist — XLSX and CSV, a positions export endpoint, and API data export for volumes beyond the 60,000-row request cap — but exports run through plan-limited API calls and per-row credits. I found no public information on retention after cancellation or any grace period during which the ranking and crawl history remains retrievable. 5 10 11

Report an error

The Technical SEO

Rankings, backlinks, domain metrics and site audit results are all reachable through the API, there is a positions CSV export endpoint, XLSX and CSV export in the interface, and a dedicated export route for volumes above the 60,000-row request cap. But pulling bulk history through the API is metered at a credit per row, and we found no public information on how long historical data remains retrievable after cancellation. 5 10 11

Report an error

The Content Strategist

Bulk export exists in XLSX and CSV, there is a dedicated API method for exporting a domain's positions for its keywords, and a data-export path is offered for volumes above the 60,000-row request cap — that clears the bulk-export bar for rankings and keywords. But export is credit-metered, API access begins only at the Team plan, and we found no public information on bulk export of crawl history or on any retention period after cancellation. 5 10 11

Report an error

The Data Analyst

Export paths exist — an API method for exporting domain positions, results capped at 60,000 rows per request with data export for larger volumes, and clustering output in XLSX or CSV — but every API row costs a credit, so pulling years of history out is metered. We found no public information on retention after cancellation or any grace period, so whether the archive leaves with the customer or ends with the subscription is not evidenced. 11 10 5

Report an error

The Skeptic

Export is real rather than decorative: XLSX and CSV from the interface, an API method to export a domain's positions as CSV, a data-export path for volumes above 60,000 rows, and API access that covers site audit results. We found no public information on a retention period after cancellation or whether historical export is metered by credits, and the monthly API request caps mean a multi-year archive takes deliberate planning to pull. 5 10 11

Report an error

The In-House SEO Lead

We found no public information on where account and crawl data are hosted, the contracting entity's jurisdiction, subprocessors, certifications, or a data processing agreement — neither on the vendor's own pages nor in the API documentation. For a tool that mostly holds our site strategy rather than customer identities I can live with asking, but nothing here can be pre-cleared for procurement. 1 11

Report an error

The Agency Owner

No sovereignty attributes are on record: I found no public information on where accounts and crawl data are hosted, the contracting entity's jurisdiction, subprocessors, or a data-processing agreement covering what the tool ingests. With nothing published on any of it, I cannot score this above the floor for the criterion. 1 11

Report an error

The Technical SEO

We found no public information on where accounts and crawl data are hosted, the jurisdiction of the contracting entity, or the subprocessor list — the only named third party anywhere is Intercom running the knowledge base. With hosting unstated and the data chain unevidenced, there is effectively nothing here to assess. 1 3 6

Report an error

The Content Strategist

No sovereignty attributes are on record for this vendor. We found no public information on hosting location, the contracting entity's domicile, or any subprocessor list; hosting unstated and subprocessors unnamed sits at the bottom of the anchors, and nothing in the captured pages lifts it. 1

Report an error

The Data Analyst

No sovereignty attributes are on record: we found no public information on hosting location, the contracting entity's jurisdiction, a subprocessor list, or a data processing agreement, and the knowledge base is stated to run on Intercom. A tool holding the customer's own strategy rather than their customers' identities makes this less critical than elsewhere, but nothing here is evidenced. 1 3

Report an error

The Skeptic

We found no public information on where account and crawl data are hosted, where the contracting entity sits, which subprocessors touch customer data, or any data processing agreement; the only named third party in the captured pages is Intercom, which runs the knowledge base. Nothing on record evidences an EU safeguard, and the weight here is limited because an SEO tool mostly holds the customer's own strategy rather than their customers' identities. 3

Report an error

The In-House SEO Lead

Credit mechanics are documented — 5 credits per clustered keyword, one credit per returned API row, 5 credits for the summary report, monthly request caps by plan, and which features unlock at which tier — but we found no public price figures for any tier, per-seat costs or overage rates. Without a stated plan price, the annual invoice cannot be computed from the captured pages. 5 11 1

Report an error

The Agency Owner

I can read how many credits a clustering keyword consumes (5 credits per keyword), that credits are shared with Text Analysis and the batch tools, and how many API calls the Team and Agency plans allow — but I found no public information on plan prices, per-seat costs, VAT treatment, minimum term or overage rates. The annual invoice for a growing team is unknowable from public pages, and that is a margin problem before I ever sign. 1 5 11

Report an error

The Technical SEO

Credit mechanics are documented down to the credit — five credits per clustered keyword, a shared pool across text and batch analysis, free of charge for changing strength or cluster type — and API quotas and credit costs are published per plan. But we found no public information on any plan price in currency, additional seat costs, crawl limits, minimum term or VAT treatment, so a buyer cannot compute the annual invoice from these pages. 1 5 11

Report an error

The Content Strategist

Plan mechanics are public and genuinely useful — clustering charges each keyword at 5 credits with free setting-only changes, API access is available from the Team plan with Individual excluded, white label starts on the Individual plan, and a 7-day trial is stated. But we found no public information on any currency price for any tier, additional seat costs, or VAT treatment, so a real annual invoice cannot be computed from the captured pages. 1 5 11

Report an error

The Data Analyst

Unit mechanics are public — clustering is quoted as "Each keyword costs 5 credits", an API row costs one credit, the Summary report five, and monthly API volumes per plan are stated — but we found no public information on any tier's price, keyword or crawl limits, extra seats, overage rates, minimum term, or VAT treatment. Without a single currency figure in the captured pages, the annual invoice is not computable from public information. 5 11 1 8

Report an error

The Skeptic

No price in currency appears in the captured pages — no tier cost, no seat cost, no VAT treatment — so an annual invoice cannot be computed from public information alone. The credit mechanics are documented well (each keyword costs 5 credits, each API row costs one credit, monthly API request caps stated per plan), but credits are not money, and we found no public information on what a credit costs or the rank-tracking and crawl limits each plan carries. 5 11

Report an error