SEO
WooRank
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by WooRank · www.woorank.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
WooRank at a glance
- Vendor
- WooRank
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates WooRank 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. WooRank is an SEO suite the bench scores highest on client reporting: reporting and API runs from 4 to 6, on white-label PDF reports with unlimited branded templates in six languages, chosen data points, multi-site analysis, bulk reporting across thousands of URLs, and an API for pushing data into dashboards and CRM enrichment. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
WooRank is an SEO suite the bench scores highest on client reporting: reporting and API runs from 4 to 6, on white-label PDF reports with unlimited branded templates in six languages, chosen data points, multi-site analysis, bulk reporting across thousands of URLs, and an API for pushing data into dashboards and CRM enrichment. Data portability is the steadiest mark at 5 to 5 — CSV export of historical keyword data, downloadable crawl results and an outbound API. Sovereignty is the weak point, scored 0 to 1 with no sovereignty attributes on record: we found no public information on hosting location, the contracting entity or subprocessors. Keyword and content and rank and index data each spread from 2 to 4 — the pages document keyword research with tagging and profitability prioritisation, city-level tracking and competitor comparison, while the lower scores cite undocumented data depth: no search volume or intent figures, no ranking update frequency, no backlink index. Technical audit sits at 4 to 5 on daily scheduled crawls. Beyond a free trial, we found no public prices.
Speaks for it
- White-label PDF reporting is documented in depth, with unlimited branded templates, six report languages, chosen data points, multi-site analysis and bulk reports for thousands of URLs
- Scheduled automated crawls run daily across thousands of pages, with issue grouping, filtering, prioritisation and contextual explanations
- Historical keyword data exports as CSV, crawl results are downloadable and an API pushes data into external dashboards and reporting tools — data portability scored 5 to 5
- City-level local tracking, historical competitor comparison and featured-snippet keyword identification are documented, including on German-language product pages
Held against it
- No sovereignty attributes are on record, and we found no public information on hosting location, the contracting entity or a single named subprocessor
- We found no public information on a backlink index, ranking update frequency or the methodology behind the vendor's own data
- We found no public information on JavaScript rendering, Core Web Vitals, structured-data validation or a stated crawl page limit
- We found no public information on search volume, difficulty or intent data, topic clustering or content briefs
- We found no public information on API rate limits or per-endpoint credit costs, and the agency API is described as 'tailored to fit your needs and budget'
Best for
- You run an agency and need white-label, branded PDF reports for many client sites across six report languages
- Your team builds its own dashboards and wants crawl and keyword data pushed out through an API and CSV export
- You monitor local visibility and need rank tracking at city level, compared over time against competitors
- You serve German-speaking clients and value the dedicated German-language product pages
Avoid if
- Your procurement must verify hosting location, the contracting entity or subprocessors before signing — sovereignty scored 0 to 1 and nothing is on record
- You must hold the vendor's own ranking data to account — update frequency and any backlink index are undocumented, and rank and index data scored 2 to 4
- You need published prices and per-seat costs to budget a team — beyond a free trial we found no public prices, and the agency offer is 'tailored to fit your needs and budget'
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Crawling & technical audit | 2 of 5 |
| Keyword research & content guidance | 2 of 5 |
| Rank tracking & index quality | 2 of 5 |
| Reporting, integrations & API | 3 of 5 |
| Data portability & exit | 2.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0.5 of 5 |
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
The site crawl page documents scheduled, daily crawls across thousands of pages with grouping, filtering, prioritised recommendations and contextual explanations of technical issues — more than a link-checker. But we found no public information on JavaScript rendering, Core Web Vitals per template, a stated page limit, or any log-file and Search Console comparison tying findings to what Google actually fetched. 2
The Agency Owner
Scheduled automated crawls running daily, issue grouping and filtering, prioritisation of where to start, and contextual explanations of crawl findings are all documented, which takes this past a bare broken-links checker. But we found no public information on a stated page limit, JavaScript rendering, Core Web Vitals, or any Search Console or log-file comparison, so the audit reads as a prioritised list rather than a diagnosis — and 'thousands of pages' is not a number I could underwrite for a large client site. 1 2
The Technical SEO
Scheduled, automated crawls that run daily across thousands of pages, with issues prioritised so you know where to start, grouping and filtering, and contextual helpers explaining the technical findings — that clears the crawling basics. What we found no public information on is everything that turns a crawl into a diagnosis: JavaScript rendering, Core Web Vitals, a stated page limit per tier, log-file or Search Console comparison, structured-data validation, and regression detection between crawls. 2
The Content Strategist
Scheduled, daily-refreshing crawls with grouped, prioritised issues and contextual explanations are documented, but we found no public information on JavaScript rendering, Core Web Vitals, log-file or Search Console comparison, or structured-data validation, and the thousands-of-pages phrasing is no substitute for a stated page limit. 2
The Data Analyst
Scheduled automated crawls that run daily across thousands of pages, with issue prioritisation, grouping and filtering, contextual explanations and downloadable crawl results are documented. We found no public information on JavaScript rendering, Core Web Vitals per template, or log-file and Search Console comparison to check what Google actually fetched. 1 2
The Skeptic
Scheduled, automated and even daily crawls with issue prioritisation and contextual helpers are stated, which is more than a broken-link list. But no page cap is given, and we found no public information on JavaScript rendering, Core Web Vitals, structured-data validation, or any log-file or Search Console comparison — so what is described reads as a prioritised list of issues rather than a diagnosis. 2 1
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
Keyword research, featured-snippet keyword identification, tagging and profitability-based prioritisation are documented, and a dedicated German-language product page signals my market is not an afterthought. We found no public information on volume, difficulty or intent data, SERP composition over time, or content briefs and cannibalisation detection, so the data depth behind the German interface cannot be assessed. 3 4
The Agency Owner
Keyword discovery, competitor comparison, tagging, profitability-based prioritisation and featured-snippet keyword identification are documented in both the English and German product pages, with city-level tracking stated on the German side. But we found no public information on search volume, difficulty or intent data for any market, and nothing on topic clustering, content briefs or on-page guidance — the discovery layer is evidenced, the data depth behind it is not. 3 4
The Technical SEO
Keyword research is documented with featured-snippet identification, tag-based campaign organisation, profitability-based prioritisation and competitor comparison, and it is marketed in German as well as English. We found no public information on volumes, difficulty, intent classification, topic clustering, content briefs or cannibalisation detection, so the depth of the German-language keyword data behind the German page cannot be judged from these captures. 3 4
The Content Strategist
Keyword research, tagging, featured-snippet identification and profitability prioritisation are described on both the English and German pages, but we found no public information on volume, difficulty or intent signals, or on topic clustering, competitor keyword gaps and cannibalisation detection — the parts a content programme is actually built on. 1 3 4
The Data Analyst
Keyword research with featured-snippet targeting, tagging, profitability prioritisation and competitor comparison is documented on both the English and German product pages. We found no public information on search volume, difficulty or intent data, topic clustering, content briefs or cannibalisation detection, so depth beyond discovery and tracking is unevidenced. 1 3 4
The Skeptic
Keyword research, tag organisation, profitability-based prioritisation and featured-snippet keyword identification are stated, including on the German-language pages. But the captured pages give no volume, difficulty or intent figures and no on-page content guidance, and we found no public information on the depth of the German keyword database itself. 3 4
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
Rank tracking with competitor comparison, historical rankings and city-level local tracking is documented, which is genuine location granularity. We found no public information on ranking update frequency, on any backlink index, or on data methodology — for rankings I must be able to defend against Search Console, nothing here addresses that. 3 4
The Agency Owner
Rank tracking against competitors, historical rankings, featured-results tracking and city-level local tracking are documented, and historical keyword data exports as CSV, which is genuinely useful for long-term client reporting. However, we found no public information on update frequency, device or country selection, any backlink index, or data methodology — and this criterion is scored on exactly that documentation. 3 4
The Technical SEO
Rank tracking is documented with city-level local granularity and historical comparison against competitors, and historical keyword data exports as CSV. We found no public information on ranking update frequency, device breakdowns, any backlink index at all, or how the proprietary data is collected — the vendor's own data is undocumented where accountability would have to come from. 3 4
The Content Strategist
City-level local tracking and historical rankings with competitor comparison are documented in the German pages, but we found no public information on ranking update frequency, device or country selection, or any backlink index, its size, freshness or methodology. 3 4
The Data Analyst
Rankings are tracked over time with competitor comparison, city-level local tracking and featured-result identification, and historical keyword data exports as CSV. We found no public information on update frequency, country and device granularity, or any backlink index and its size or refresh, so the vendor cannot be held to account for their own data from these pages. 3 4
The Skeptic
City-level tracking, featured-result attribution and historical rankings compared against competitors are stated. But no ranking update frequency appears anywhere, and we found no public information on a backlink index — its size, refresh cadence or existence — which is most of what I would want documented before trusting a vendor's own data. 3 4
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
White-label PDF reporting is well evidenced with unlimited branded templates, customisable data points, six report languages, plus multi-site analysis, agency tooling and an API marketed for pushing data into dashboards and CRM enrichment. We found no public information on API rate limits or credit costs, Search Console and analytics integration, or data-warehouse export, which keeps this below the top band. 1 5 6
The Agency Owner
The strongest area for my model: white-label PDF reports with unlimited branded templates in six languages, chosen data points, multi-site analysis, bulk reporting across thousands of URLs, an API that pushes data into external dashboards and reporting tools, and CRM enrichment for prospecting. But API costs are not published per endpoint — 'tailored to fit your needs and budget' reads as a sales conversation with extra steps — and we found no public information on Search Console or analytics integration, scheduled automated report delivery, or client access. 1 5 6
The Technical SEO
White-label PDF reporting with unlimited custom templates, six report languages, multi-site analysis, bulk reporting for thousands of URLs, and an API marketed for pushing data into dashboards, reporting tools and CRM enrichment. We found no public information on Search Console or analytics integration, scheduled report delivery, or documented API limits and per-endpoint credit costs. 5 6 1
The Content Strategist
White-label PDFs with unlimited branded templates, custom data points across six report languages, multi-site management and an API for pushing data into dashboards are all documented; we found no public information on API limits or per-endpoint credit costs, Search Console or analytics integration, or data-warehouse export. 1 5 6
The Data Analyst
White-label PDF reporting with unlimited branded templates in six languages, multi-site and multi-client management, and a marketed API with dashboard and CRM integration plus bulk reporting for thousands of URLs are documented. We found no public information on API rate limits, credit costs per endpoint, data-warehouse or BigQuery export, or Search Console and analytics integration, which keeps this from being a data source a team can build on with confidence. 1 5 6
The Skeptic
White-label PDF reports with unlimited custom templates in six languages, selectable data points, multi-site analysis and an API for pushing data into external tools and dashboards are all stated. But we found no public information on API rate limits, credit costs per endpoint, or Search Console and analytics integration, and the agency API is described as tailored to your needs and budget — a conversation, not a published rate. 5 6 1
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
Historical keyword data exports as CSV, crawl results are downloadable, and an API exists for pushing data out — that meets bulk export including history. We found no public information on complete historical ranking export, API access sufficient to mirror the account, or any retention period after cancellation, which is what a multi-year subscriber needs at exit. 2 3 4
The Agency Owner
Historical keyword data exports as CSV, crawl results are downloadable, and the API supports pushing data into external tools, which covers rankings, keywords and crawl output on the way out the door. We found no public information on a complete account export in open formats, bulk crawl history, or any retention period after cancellation, so exit is workable for keyword history but not designed for. 2 3 4 6
The Technical SEO
Historical keyword data exports as CSV and site crawl results are downloadable, so the multi-year accumulation is at least partly the customer's. We found no public information on bulk export of crawl history in open formats, on any metering attached to exports, or on data retention after cancellation. 3 4 2
The Content Strategist
CSV export of historical keyword data, downloadable crawl results and an outbound API give real export paths including keyword history, but we found no public information on full crawl-history export, credit metering, or any retention period after cancellation. 2 3 4 6
The Data Analyst
Historical keyword data exports as CSV, crawl results are downloadable, and the API can push WooRank data into external reporting tools. We found no public information on complete account export in open formats, credit metering on exports, or any retention period after cancellation, so whether multi-year ranking history survives the subscription is not documented. 2 3 4 6
The Skeptic
Historical keyword data exportable in CSV format and downloadable site crawl results are stated, with data points and formats selectable — bulk export including history, via interface or API. We found no public information on a complete account export, on retention after cancellation, or on any grace period during which the archive remains retrievable. 3 4 2
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
We found no public information on where accounts and crawl data are hosted, who the contracting entity is, or which subprocessors are involved — the captured material is silent on all of it. For a German-market operation that is an open risk I cannot assess from these pages. 1
The Agency Owner
We found no public information on hosting location, the contracting entity, or any subprocessor list — the captured vendor pages are silent on all of it. Nothing in the evidence lets me tell a German client where their crawl and keyword strategy actually sits, so I am scoring near the bottom on the strength of that silence. 1
The Technical SEO
No sovereignty attributes are on record for this vendor. We found no public information on hosting location, the contracting entity, subprocessors, certification, or a data processing agreement covering the crawl and keyword data — a buyer cannot tell from these pages where their data lives or who processes it. 1
The Content Strategist
We found no public information on where accounts and crawl data are hosted, on the contracting entity, on subprocessors, certification or data-processing terms, so nothing here can be assessed against a European-hosted standard. 1
The Data Analyst
No sovereignty attributes are on record: we found no public information on hosting location, contracting entity, subprocessors, certification, or a data processing agreement covering the crawl and analytics data the tool ingests. 1
The Skeptic
Nothing is on record: we found no public information on hosting location, the contracting entity, or a single named subprocessor. A buyer cannot tell from these pages where crawl or account data would sit, so there is nothing here to hold the vendor to. 1
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
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
The captured pages mention a free trial and "API calls and agency tools tailored to fit your needs and budget", but we found no public information on tier prices, keyword limits, crawl credits, extra seats or VAT treatment. A buyer cannot begin to compute an annual invoice from what is published here. 1 2
The Agency Owner
None of the captured pages shows a price — no tier prices, no keyword or crawl limits, no per-seat or client costs — and the agency API offering is described as 'tailored to fit your needs and budget'. A free trial is offered, but we found no public information from which a real annual invoice for a given keyword count and team size could be computed, and unstated seat costs are exactly what punishes a growing team. 1 2 6
The Technical SEO
The captured pages offer a free trial; we found no public prices on them — no tier figures, keyword or crawl limits, per-seat costs, or VAT treatment. The agency API is described as 'tailored to fit your needs and budget', and we found no public information that would let a buyer compute an annual invoice. 1 6
The Content Strategist
A free trial is the only pricing-related information captured; we found no public information on tier prices, keyword or crawl limits, API costs, per-seat charges, minimum term or VAT treatment, and the agency offer is framed as tailored to fit your needs and budget, which reads as a sales conversation. 1 2 6
The Data Analyst
Only a free trial is documented, alongside API calls and agency tools described as tailored to fit your needs and budget. We found no public prices, keyword or crawl limits, API credit costs, per-seat pricing or VAT treatment, so a real annual invoice cannot be computed from these pages. 1 2 6
The Skeptic
The captured pages show a free trial and API and agency packages described as tailored to fit your needs and budget, and beyond that we found no public information on tier prices, keyword or crawl limits, per-seat costs, minimum terms or VAT treatment. The annual invoice is not computable from public pages. 1 6
Questions about WooRank
Is WooRank European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where WooRank is based.
Where does WooRank store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does WooRank have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to WooRank?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates SE Ranking (3/5), Semrush (3/5) and SISTRIX (3/5) highest among the other 32 SEO products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is SISTRIX (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: WooRank alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- 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 could not confirm any pricing information on the vendor’s own pages as captured, so this page shows none rather than a statement we cannot stand behind. Know more? Tell us
- We found no public information on compliance on the pages we read (woorank.com, woorank.com/en/marketing-tools/site-crawl, woorank.com/en/marketing-tools/keyword-tool, woorank.com/de/marketinginstrumente/keyword-tool, woorank.com/en/sales-tools/white-label-reports, woorank.com/en/api). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 18 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
- 1 support 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
Sources (6)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.woorank.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Crawling & technical audit — found from sitemap www.woorank.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Keyword research & content guidance — found from sitemap www.woorank.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Keyword research & content guidance — found from sitemap www.woorank.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Reporting, integrations & API — found from sitemap www.woorank.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Reporting, integrations & API — found from sitemap www.woorank.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →