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.

An AI-assisted analysis of public evidence — not a hands-on test.

Every score, rationale and verdict on this page is AI-generated. Every claim cites the source it was read from. Nothing here is a human star review — and no score can be bought. How scores are made →

Method and versions

The In-House SEO Lead v1.0 · The Agency Owner v1.0 · The Technical SEO v1.0 · The Content Strategist v1.0 · The Data Analyst v1.0 · The Skeptic v1.0 · rubric v1 · evaluated 4 Oct 2026

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 Skeptic

Weighted verdict

Knows every vendor claims the largest index and the most accurate rankings, and that no buyer can check either. Reads instead for what can be held to: refresh frequency, stated limits, credit costs per endpoint, and what the invoice does when the team adds a seat.

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

Scored by The Skeptic

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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.

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

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 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 →