whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

SEO

SISTRIX

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 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 Agency Owner

Weighted verdict

Runs forty client sites and rebills the licence. Wants multi-client management, white-label reports a client can receive unedited, and per-seat costs that do not punish a growing team. Reads "contact us" on a pricing page as a margin problem.

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

Scored by The Agency Owner

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 ⚠ unverified — 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 SISTRIX? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (11)

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

  1. 1 Vendor homepage www.sistrix.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Pricing www.sistrix.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 11 Sep 2026, 2 Sep 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Crawling & technical audit — found from sitemap www.sistrix.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Crawling & technical audit — found from sitemap www.sistrix.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Keyword research & content guidance — found from sitemap www.sistrix.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Keyword research & content guidance — found from sitemap www.sistrix.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Rank tracking & index quality — found from sitemap www.sistrix.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Rank tracking & index quality — found from sitemap www.sistrix.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Reporting, integrations & API — found from sitemap www.sistrix.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Reporting, integrations & API — found from sitemap www.sistrix.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Data portability & exit — found from sitemap www.sistrix.de Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →