SEO
SISTRIX
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by SISTRIX GmbH · www.sistrix.de
Compare with Semrush → 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
SISTRIX, an SEO toolbox from SISTRIX GmbH in Bonn, Germany, is strongest on pricing transparency: four public tiers at 119 €, 239 €, 419 € and 799 € per month excluding VAT, monthly cancellation, and priced add-ons — extra users at 24,90 €, 10.000 further weekly credits at 75,00 €, crawl overages from 0,14 € to 0,21 € per 1.000 pages — let a buyer compute a real annual invoice, though API credit costs are described only as typically based on the number of data points retrieved. Capability criteria cluster at 6-7: weekly crawls up to 4 million URLs a month, Core Web Vitals with permanently stored Lighthouse runs, an openly documented keyword-update cadence across over 200 country and language combinations with eleven-year history on upper tiers, and a buildable JSON/XML API. Weakest is sovereignty, flat at 3: the sole residency statement is homepage marketing copy saying data is kept in Europe, with no subprocessor list, DPA or confirmed contracting jurisdiction found. Data portability is dented by credit-metered exports and a three-month history cap on Start. The judges did not meaningfully split on any criterion.
Speaks for it
- All four tiers priced publicly at 119 €, 239 €, 419 € and 799 € per month excluding VAT, with monthly cancellation and upgrade proration described.
- Keyword-update cadence documented openly — important keywords daily, notable volume weekly, everything at least monthly — across more than 200 country and language combinations, with eleven-year history on the top tiers.
- Scheduled crawls up to 4 million URLs per month with JavaScript rendering built on the same technology as the official Googlebot, plus daily Lighthouse measurements stored permanently and downloadable as JSON.
- A documented API returning JSON or XML, with a sandbox, a fair-use policy, a free key and examples in PHP, Python, NodeJS and cURL.
- A free 14-day test that expires automatically, with no cancellation required.
Held against it
- Sovereignty scores sit at 3, resting on a homepage marketing-copy claim that data is kept in Europe, with no subprocessor list, DPA or confirmed contracting jurisdiction found on the public pages.
- Every export and API query draws on weekly credits (1.000 to 100.000 by tier, resetting each Monday), and judges found no published retention period after cancellation.
- Judges found no public information on log-file analysis, indexation or canonical diagnosis, traffic-weighted issue prioritisation, cannibalisation detection or entity-level content briefs.
- Link metrics such as Domain-Pop and link counts are exposed without a published backlink index size, refresh cadence or lost-and-found link detection.
- Data history is capped at three months on the Start tier, and the Google Data Studio connector is still marked as in development.
Best for
- You work in German or European search markets, where the judges credit the tool's keyword depth as its core strength.
- You need to compute a real annual invoice before buying — tier prices, add-on prices and monthly cancellation are public.
- Your team builds its own reporting pipelines and wants a documented API with a sandbox, JSON and XML responses, and connectors for Google Sheets and Excel.
- You audit large sites on a weekly schedule and want Core Web Vitals from both lab and field data with permanently stored Lighthouse runs.
Avoid if
- Your procurement requires a DPA, a subprocessor list and a confirmed contracting jurisdiction — the public pages carry only a marketing-copy residency claim for Europe.
- You depend on heavy exports or API volume — every query consumes weekly credits that reset each Monday, with 10.000 further credits a week billed at 75,00 € monthly.
- You need multi-year history on an entry budget — the Start tier retains three months, with five years arriving only from the Plus tier.
The scores
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
Crawls run weekly by default at stated quotas up to 4 million URLs per month, JavaScript rendering is described as based on the same technology as the official Googlebot, error categories from missing meta descriptions to broken links come with fix suggestions sorted by importance, and Core Web Vitals are available as both lab and field data with daily Lighthouse measurements kept permanently. We found no public information on log-file analysis, canonical or indexation diagnosis, or issue prioritisation weighted by traffic impact, and structured data appears only as a missing-tag check — so the audit is closer to a prioritised list than a diagnosis. 2 3 4
The Agency Owner
Scheduled weekly crawls at stated scale (30.000 up to 4.000.000 crawled URLs per month depending on tier), JavaScript rendering built on the same technology as the official Googlebot, and error categories sorted by importance including duplicate content and missing structured data — that holds up across forty client sites. Daily Lighthouse measurements stored permanently with raw JSON download, plus lab and field Core Web Vitals, make this more than a checklist. We found no public information on log-file analysis or on comparing the crawl against what Google actually fetched, which is where diagnosis should go next. 2 3 4
The Technical SEO
Scheduled weekly crawls at a stated scale of 30,000 to 4,000,000 URLs per month, JavaScript crawling described as using the same technology as the official Googlebot, error categories shown with per-crawl deltas, automated change detection, and Core Web Vitals from both daily permanently stored Lighthouse lab runs and field data. We found no public information on log-file analysis, crawl budget, indexation or canonical diagnosis, or issues prioritised by traffic impact rather than generic importance. 2 3 4
The Content Strategist
Scheduled crawling is documented at real scale (30,000 to 4,000,000 URLs a month by tier), JavaScript rendering described as built on the same technology as the official Googlebot, error categories sorted by importance with concrete fix suggestions, and Core Web Vitals handled properly with lab and field data, daily Lighthouse measurements stored permanently and downloadable as JSON. We found no public information on log-file analysis, crawl-budget analysis, canonical or indexation diagnosis, or issues ranked by traffic impact, so this reads as a strong scanner rather than a full diagnostic. 2 3 4
The Data Analyst
The crawler runs on a schedule with tiered monthly URL limits, JavaScript rendering described as based on the same technology as the official Googlebot, and issue categories — broken links, duplicate content, missing structured data — sorted by importance with change counts between crawls. Core Web Vitals are measured from both lab and field data, with daily Lighthouse measurements stored permanently and downloadable as raw JSON. We found no public information on log-file analysis, indexation or canonical diagnosis, or prioritisation by traffic impact, so the audit reads as a well-sorted list rather than a diagnosis of what Google actually fetched. 2 3 4
The Skeptic
Scheduled weekly crawls at stated page limits (30.000 to 4.000.000 URLs per month), JavaScript crawling, error categories with change deltas and concrete fix suggestions sorted by importance, and Core Web Vitals from both lab and field data with daily Lighthouse runs stored permanently and downloadable as JSON. I found no public information on log-file comparison against what Google fetched, indexation or canonical diagnosis, or issue weighting by traffic, so this is a strong crawl, not yet a diagnosis. 2 3 4
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
German data is the headline rather than an afterthought: the largest keyword database for the German and European market, automatic topic clustering as the basis for a content strategy, competitor keyword gap analysis from any competitor URL, and an intent model whose method — scoring SERP elements for "Intent: Do" and "Intent: Know" — is publicly documented. We found no public information on content briefs with entity coverage, cannibalisation detection, or SERP composition tracked over time, which is what separates the top tools in this criterion. 5 6
The Agency Owner
The German-language depth is the whole reason agencies here buy it: the vendor describes the largest keyword database for the German and European market, with search volume, click prices and competition intensity, a documented intent method derived from SERP structure, and automatic topic clustering. Competitor keyword analysis by URL and a content planner with monthly uses are also evidenced. We found no public information on content briefs with entity coverage, cannibalisation detection, or SERP composition tracked over time. 2 5 6
The Technical SEO
Volume, click prices and competition intensity, intent derived from SERP structure with a published points breakdown, automatic topic clustering and competitor keyword analysis by URL, with the German-language database marketed as the largest for the German and European market. We found no public information on SERP composition tracked over time, entity coverage in content briefs, or cannibalisation detection. 2 5 6
The Content Strategist
The vendor calls its keyword database the largest for the German and European market, clusters keywords into topics automatically for a structured content strategy, and derives intent from the actual SERP composition with the point allocation published, plus competitor keyword analysis by URL and per-tier SERP feature counts. We found no public information on cannibalisation detection or content briefs with entity coverage — the two things I would commission next — and no evidence that content is scored against what currently ranks. 2 5 6
The Data Analyst
Keyword data is positioned as the largest database for the German and European market, with volume, CPC and competition metrics, an intent classification whose SERP-based scoring method is published, automatic topic clustering, and URL-level competitor keyword analysis. SERP feature counts and tiered content-project and planner quotas exist alongside AI topic-research API endpoints. We found no public information on content briefs with entity coverage, cannibalisation detection, or content scored against what currently ranks. 2 5 6 10
The Skeptic
Search volume, click prices, competition intensity, a documented intent method read from SERP composition, automatic topic clustering and competitor keyword analysis cover the German and European market this tool is built on. I found no public information on cannibalisation detection, entity-level content briefs, or opportunity sizing against realistic traffic, so the guidance helps write but does not close the loop. 2 5 6 10
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
The update methodology is documented more openly than most: important keywords daily, the rest weekly, longtail at least monthly with the stated guarantee of never working with data older than a month, keywords automatically shifting to faster cycles when demand changes, and daily project keywords for specific cities across more than 200 country and language combinations. Public accountability stops at the backlink index and the defence of the numbers — we found no published index size or refresh cadence, no lost-and-found link detection, and no explanation of ranking discrepancies against Search Console. 2 3 7 8
The Agency Owner
The update cycle is documented openly — important keywords daily, notable-volume keywords weekly, everything at least monthly, with keywords moving between cycles as demand shifts — and project keywords can update daily across more than 200 country and language combinations including per-city queries, with a full eleven-year history on the upper tiers. Backlink metrics (links, Domain-Pop, Host-Pop, Net-Pop) are exposed through the connector and API. We found no public information on the size or refresh cadence of the backlink index, nor on lost-and-found link detection. 2 3 7 8 10
The Technical SEO
The update cadence is documented in detail — daily for the most important keywords, weekly for notable volume, at least monthly for everything, with automatic cycle shifts on demand change — plus city-level queries, over 200 country/language combinations, device selection and history retained up to eleven years on higher packages. The backlink side is undocumented: we found no public information on index size or refresh cadence, lost-and-found link detection, or how discrepancies against Search Console are handled. 2 3 7 8 10
The Content Strategist
The update methodology is documented unusually honestly: important keywords daily, notable-volume keywords weekly, everything at least monthly, with keywords moving to a faster cycle automatically when demand shifts, plus over 200 country and language combinations, city-level queries and desktop/mobile split, with eleven-year history on the top tiers and three months on the entry tier. The backlink half is the hole: we found no public information on backlink index size or refresh cadence, SERP feature attribution, or lost-and-found link detection. 2 3 7 8
The Data Analyst
The update methodology is documented on public FAQ pages — important keywords daily, notable-volume keywords weekly, long-tail at least monthly, with keywords moving between cycles as search demand shifts — and tracking covers over 200 country and language combinations, city-level queries, a desktop/mobile split, and a full 11-year history on the top two tiers. The link side is thin: we found no public information on backlink index size or refresh cadence, or lost-and-found link detection; the captured link metrics are counts of linking domains, hosts and networks. 2 3 7 8 10
The Skeptic
The refresh story is written down rather than implied: important keywords daily, notable volume weekly, everything at least monthly, over 200 country and language combinations, city-level queries, desktop or mobile, and eleven years of history at the upper tiers. The link index gets no such treatment — Domain-Pop and link counts are exposed but I found no public information on index size, refresh cadence or lost-and-found detection, and the "largest keyword database" is a homepage assertion a buyer cannot check. 2 3 6 7 8 10
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
The API is documented and buildable: JSON or XML over HTTP with GET and POST, a sandbox for request building, a fair-use policy, a free key, wrappers in PHP, Python, NodeJS and cURL, and credit costs "based on the number of data points retrieved" with functions without a listed price free. Connectors cover Google Sheets, Excel and a free Google Data Studio community connector the vendor itself describes as still in development; we found no public information on BigQuery or data-warehouse export, or on white-label reporting for clients. 9 10 11
The Agency Owner
The API is one a team can genuinely build on: documented endpoint groups for domains, keywords, links and projects, JSON or XML responses, a sandbox, a free key, and credit costs stated per function with unpriced functions free. Projects with role-based invites for team members and stakeholders give me real multi-client management, and dashboards, report quotas and the Search Console and Analytics connection all sit in the tier table. We found no public information on white-label branding for client-facing reports or on a data-warehouse export, which is what stands between this and a report I hand a client unedited. 2 3 9 10 11
The Technical SEO
A documented API with JSON or XML responses, a request sandbox, a fair-use policy and examples in four languages, with weekly credit allocations per package and a pack of 10,000 credits per week priced at 75 euros monthly, alongside per-tier dashboards and reports, Search Console and analytics connection, and connectors to Google Data Studio (noted as still in development), Google Sheets, Excel and an MCP server. We found no public information on white-label client reporting, data-warehouse or BigQuery export, or API versioning and deprecation policy. 2 9 10 11
The Content Strategist
The API is genuinely buildable: HTTP requests in JSON or XML, a sandbox, wrappers in four languages, a documented fair-use policy, and credit costs published as a per-data-point principle with weekly allocations per tier and a priced add-on pack, alongside Search Console and Analytics integration, per-tier dashboards and reports, team roles and a free Data Studio connector still marked in development. We found no public information on white-label client reporting, data-warehouse or BigQuery export, or a versioned API with a deprecation policy. 2 9 10 11
The Data Analyst
The API is documented at api.sistrix.com with key authentication, JSON and XML responses, a sandbox, a fair-use policy, and a credit model where the cost is typically based on the number of data points retrieved, metered through tiered weekly credits; client examples exist for PHP, Python, NodeJS and cURL, plus Excel, Google Sheets, a free Data Studio connector and an MCP server. The credit cost is stated as typical rather than published per endpoint, and we found no public information on data-warehouse or BigQuery export or white-label client reporting. 2 9 10 11
The Skeptic
A documented API on api.sistrix.com returning JSON or XML, with a sandbox, a fair-use section and PHP, Python, NodeJS and cURL examples, plus tiered dashboards and reports, Search Console and Analytics connection, and free Data Studio, Sheets and Excel connectors — a team can build on this. I found no public information on white-label client reporting or data-warehouse export, and per-endpoint API credit costs are only implied by the note that functions without a listed price are free; the Data Studio connector is also still marked as in development. 2 9 10 11
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
Export is genuinely multi-channel — CSV, Excel and Google Sheets, chart exports as PDF, CSV or PNG, raw Lighthouse JSON downloads, and an API returning JSON or XML — with weekly export credits per package and 10,000 further credits per week bookable monthly for 75 Euro. But history depth is package-dependent (three months on Start, the full eleven years only from Professional), exports and API queries draw on the same credit pool, and we found no public information on any retention period after cancellation. 2 4 11
The Agency Owner
Exports run through CSV, Excel and Google Sheets plus an API intended for automated export, stored Lighthouse JSON is downloadable raw, and the tier table states the data history (three months up to a full eleven years). Every export and API call draws on a weekly credit allowance that resets each Monday, and further credits are billed monthly at 75,00 € for 10.000 per week. We found no public information on any retention period after cancellation, so I cannot tell a client what happens to their history when we move them. 2 4 9 11
The Technical SEO
Table export via a download button as UTF-8 CSV, alternatives in Excel and Google Sheets, charts as PDF, CSV or PNG, raw stored Lighthouse JSON downloadable, and machine export via the API, with history retained up to the tier limit — only 3 months on the smallest package. Exports are metered by weekly credits, and we found no public information on a retention period after cancellation or on exporting every historical data point in one pass. 2 4 11
The Content Strategist
Rankings, keywords and crawl results export as CSV, Excel or Google Sheets from the interface and via API in JSON or XML, with the eleven-year history exportable on the top tiers and stored Lighthouse data downloadable as JSON. But every export draws on weekly credit allocations, history is capped at three months on the entry tier, and we found no public information on a retention period or grace period after cancellation — exit is workable while you pay, not designed for. 2 9 11
The Data Analyst
Exports run through CSV with a stated encoding and delimiter, Excel, Google Sheets and an API for machine-readable export, with the full 11-year history on the top tiers and stored Lighthouse data downloadable as JSON — but every export and API query consumes weekly credits, and an extra 10,000 credits per week is billed at 75,00 € monthly. We found no public information on a retention period or grace window after cancellation, so whether multi-year history remains retrievable once the subscription ends is not stated anywhere we could see. 2 4 11
The Skeptic
Exports run through CSV, Excel, Google Sheets, chart files and a free API key with JSON or XML, and stored Lighthouse history is downloadable as JSON. But every export and API query draws down a weekly credit allowance — 1.000 to 100.000 by tier, topped up at 75,00 € for 10.000 credits per week — history itself is capped at three months on the entry plan, and I found no public information on any retention period after cancellation. 2 4 9 11
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 captured pages name SISTRIX GmbH as the company and the homepage carries marketing copy that data stays in Europe, but we found no public information confirming the contracting entity's jurisdiction, the hosting infrastructure behind that claim, a subprocessor list, or a DPA covering the crawl and Search Console data the tool ingests. A bare "Europa" on a marketing page is not evidence I can take into a data-protection review. 1 3 9
The Agency Owner
The homepage marketing copy says data is kept in Europe but names no infrastructure provider, and no privacy-policy or DPA excerpt corroborates it; the contracting side appears on captured pages only as the company name SISTRIX GmbH. We found no public information on subprocessors or on the confirmed jurisdiction of the contracting entity. For a tool holding my clients' keyword strategy rather than their customers' identities that is tolerable, but it is short of the documented chain I could show a German client. 1 3 9
The Technical SEO
The contracting entity is named as SISTRIX GmbH on the vendor's own pages, but the only hosting statement we found is homepage marketing copy saying data is kept in "Europa", with no named infrastructure provider and no privacy policy or DPA excerpt corroborating it. We found no public information on subprocessors, on the legal basis for the Search Console and analytics data the tool connects, or on certification. 1 9 10
The Content Strategist
The only residency statement is homepage marketing copy saying data is kept in Europe, with no named infrastructure provider, no subprocessor list and no privacy policy or DPA excerpt captured to corroborate it. The company appears as SISTRIX GmbH on its own pages, but the captured pages give no confirmation of contracting jurisdiction or ownership. 1 9
The Data Analyst
The captured pages name SISTRIX GmbH as the contracting company and the homepage states data is kept in 'Europa', but that residency claim is marketing copy naming no infrastructure provider. We found no public information confirming the entity's jurisdiction on the vendor's own captured pages, no subprocessor list, and no published DPA or certification covering the crawl and analytics data the tool ingests. 1 9
The Skeptic
The only residency statement is homepage marketing copy saying data is kept in Europe, naming no infrastructure and with no privacy terms or data-processing agreement captured to corroborate it; the subprocessor list is absent. The entity is named SISTRIX GmbH, but I found no public information confirming the contracting jurisdiction or ownership, so the chain ends at a claim. 1 3
Pricing transparency
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
Every tier is public with VAT treatment stated — 119 €, 239 €, 419 € and 799 € per month, each "zzgl. MwSt." — plus monthly cancellation, and the metered items are priced: additional crawled pages from 0,14 € to 0,21 € per 1.000 Seiten, extra projects from 5,99 €, further user accounts at 24,90 €, and 75,00 € for 10,000 additional weekly credits. With crawl quotas, export and API credits and included users published per tier, I can compute a real annual invoice for a known crawl volume and team size; only the Enterprise programme is individually quoted. 2 9 11
The Agency Owner
Every tier is public with VAT treatment stated — 119 €, 239 €, 419 € and 799 € per month excluding VAT — monthly cancellable with proration explained on upgrades, and the add-ons I rebill are priced: further user accounts at a flat 24,90 € per month across tiers, additional crawled pages per 1.000 at 0,21 €, 0,16 € and 0,14 € by tier, additional projects, and 10.000 further weekly credits at 75,00 €, with the weekly export and API credit allowances in the same table. What keeps the annual invoice from being fully derivable: we found no public information on a per-keyword overage rate beyond the tier's SERP update quota, and the API credit cost is described only as typically based on the number of data points retrieved. 1 2 9 11
The Technical SEO
All four packages priced per month with VAT stated as excluded, monthly cancellation, extra users at 24,90 €, additional projects at 9,90 €, 8,49 € and 5,99 €, additional crawled pages at 0,21 €, 0,16 € and 0,14 € per 1,000, and crawl and weekly API credit limits stated per package. API costs are described only as typically based on the number of data points retrieved rather than a per-endpoint price list, and keyword limits appear as projects and SERP updates rather than a plain keyword count. 2 9 11
The Content Strategist
Every tier is priced publicly at 119 €, 239 €, 419 € and 799 € per month excluding VAT, with included users stated, additional users at 24,90 € per month, additional projects priced, extra crawled pages priced per 1,000, further credits for 75,00 €, monthly cancellation, proration rules and per-tier export and API credit allowances — a buyer can budget the real annual cost before the sales call. The one soft spot is API cost per endpoint, described only as typically based on the number of data points retrieved. 2 9 11
The Data Analyst
All four tiers are priced publicly with VAT treatment stated as plus VAT, monthly cancellation, included and additional user seats at 24,90 €, monthly crawl limits with per-1,000-page overages quoted at 0,21 €, 0,16 € and 0,14 € by tier, weekly export and API credits with a 10,000-credit top-up at 75,00 €, plus per-tier quotas for SERP updates, projects, content and reports. An annual invoice is largely computable from the public pages; the remaining opacity is that API credit costs are described only as typically based on the number of data points retrieved rather than priced per function, and add-on prices are shown from the Plus package upward. 2 11
The Skeptic
The invoice is computable: four tiers at 119 €, 239 €, 419 € and 799 € per month, each "zzgl. MwSt.", monthly cancellation, users per tier with more at 24,90 € monthly, crawl limits with per-1.000-page overages of 0,21 €, 0,16 € or 0,14 €, weekly export and API credits by tier, further 10.000 credits a week at 75,00 €, additional projects priced per tier, and upgrade proration described. What keeps it from fully computable is that I found no public price for tracked-keyword quantities as such, and per-endpoint API costs appear only as the note that functions without a listed price are free. 2 9 11
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 ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | 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 2 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity, Data residency. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- 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 (sistrix.de, sistrix.de/preise, sistrix.de/google/onpage, sistrix.de/tutorials/core-web-vitals-webseiten-performance-messen, sistrix.de/faq/wie-ermittelt-sistrix-den-intent-eines-keywords, sistrix.de/google/keyword-recherche and 5 more). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 48 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
- 30 pricing 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 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
- 3 legal 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 hosting 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
- 1 integrations 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
- 2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. 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 (11)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.sistrix.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing www.sistrix.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 11 Sep 2026, 2 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Crawling & technical audit — found from sitemap www.sistrix.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Crawling & technical audit — found from sitemap www.sistrix.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Keyword research & content guidance — found from sitemap www.sistrix.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Keyword research & content guidance — found from sitemap www.sistrix.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Rank tracking & index quality — found from sitemap www.sistrix.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Rank tracking & index quality — found from sitemap www.sistrix.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Reporting, integrations & API — found from sitemap www.sistrix.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Reporting, integrations & API — found from sitemap www.sistrix.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Data portability & exit — found from sitemap www.sistrix.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →