whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

SEO

XOVI

EU-Made Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

by XOVI GmbH · www.xovi.de

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 Content Strategist

Weighted verdict

Decides what gets written and can only commission so much. Wants topic clusters, honest opportunity sizing, cannibalisation caught before it happens, and briefs scored against what actually ranks rather than against keyword density.

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

Scored by The Content Strategist

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 Content Strategist

Stated page caps per tier reaching 500,000 pages, a JavaScript crawler in every paid plan, and an Advisor that returns prioritised to-dos rather than a bare error list put this solidly in the middle band. Speed data comes from Google PageSpeed and YSLOW with concrete prioritised recommendations. We found no public information on log-file or Search Console comparison, indexation or canonical diagnosis, structured-data validation, or prioritisation of issues by traffic impact, so the audit reads as thorough listing with prioritised tasks rather than a diagnostic. 2 5 9

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 Content Strategist

The German-first depth is real — volume, CPC and competitor density, competitor keywords, user questions scored for relevance, and a planner to group what you find — and the SERP analysis explicitly tells you what content has to look like to compete in the top ten. Text optimisation benchmarks your draft against the current top ten rather than a keyword density heuristic, and ranking value sizes an opportunity by what that traffic would cost to buy in ads. We found no public information on topic clustering, SERP composition tracked over time, or explicit cannibalisation detection, which is what keeps it out of the top band. 2 1 5 6 7

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 Content Strategist

Daily or weekly ranking queries across 197 countries with organic, local, mobile and universal breakdowns, plus a stated weekly crawl of eight core markets, is more frequency and reach documentation than most tools publish. But the vendor's accountability for their own index is thin: we found no public information on backlink index size or refresh cadence, no statement on how long historical rankings are retained, and nothing on how discrepancies against Search Console are handled. The granularity earns a mid score; the undocumented data provenance holds it there. 5 6 9 11

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 Content Strategist

White-label reports with client branding, unlimited reports on weekly or monthly schedules, and Search Console, Google Analytics and Matomo as data sources make the agency handover story genuinely complete, and multi-client project and account limits are stated per tier. The API is documented with JSON and XML output, pagination and error codes, running on a credit system — but we found no published credit costs per endpoint. We found no public information on data-warehouse or BigQuery export. 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 Content Strategist

Crawl findings export as URL lists per issue and the API can pull keyword and domain data in open formats with pagination, so the data is not trapped behind a screen. But we found no public information on bulk export of historical rankings, and no stated retention period after cancellation — with the API itself sitting behind a paid add-on. For a multi-year subscription, the ranking history a customer accumulates is not shown to be retrievable on exit. 2 5 10 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 Content Strategist

The contracting and operating entity for the product is German (WebPros Germany GmbH, Cologne, register court Cologne), a subprocessor list is published, and transfers to US and Indian group companies are documented with framework certification and standard contractual clauses. What we cannot see is where account and crawl data are actually hosted, and ownership is not confirmed on the vendor's own captured pages. Solid legal scaffolding with the infrastructure question unanswered. 3 4

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 Content Strategist

Tier prices, crawl caps per tier, VAT treatment and an unusually granular crawl add-on ladder are all public, so most of the invoice is computable before a sales call. But additional seats are described only as bookable at any time at a cost, with no per-seat price, API credits are metered without published credit costs, and we found no public information on minimum contract term or base keyword limits per tier. The last fifth of the annual invoice still requires asking a human. 2 5 6 9

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

1 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 ⚠ unverified — uncited Report an error
Data residency Not determined — uncited Report an error
Subprocessors Not determined ⚠ unverified — 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 XOVI? 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.xovi.de Checked 16 Sep 2026 +1 earlier capture: 11 Sep 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Pricing www.xovi.de Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Imprint www.xovi.de Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Privacy policy www.xovi.de Checked 16 Sep 2026 +1 earlier capture: 2 Sep 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Crawling & technical audit — found from sitemap www.xovi.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Keyword research & content guidance — found from sitemap www.xovi.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Keyword research & content guidance — found from sitemap www.xovi.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Rank tracking & index quality — found from sitemap www.xovi.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Reporting, integrations & API — found from sitemap www.xovi.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Data portability & exit — found from sitemap developers.xovi.net Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Data portability & exit — found from sitemap developers.xovi.net Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →