★ Our pick
Pick
Lumar
Pick Lumar if you trust traction signals — they list 7 customers, Majestic lists 0; and you want the better-funded company ($37.6M); and SOC 2 Type 2 matters for your security review.
Head-to-head review · Updated June 2026
Lumar vs Majestic: which one wins in 2026?
Lumar and Majestic both claim to do the same thing: tell you where your brand shows up in AI search. They go about it differently enough that the choice matters. Lumar is the more-funded incumbent; Majestic is the leaner challenger.
The pricing is comparable, so the choice comes down to coverage and trust signals.
The verdict
Pick
Majestic
Pick Majestic if you need broader AI platform coverage (1 platforms vs 0).
If neither is right, GrowthManager.ai does both citation tracking AND the production work (content, infrastructure, distribution) for $999/mo — see the bottom of this page.
The case for Lumar
Lumar has raised $37.6M (Series B (Aug 2022)). Founded by Michal Magdziarz, Matt Jones, based in London, UK. On their site they list 7 named customers including Adobe, Deloitte, Motley Fool, Comcast. Pricing starts at Custom.
Enterprise website intelligence platform (formerly DeepCrawl).
What people praise
- Handles very large sites (millions of URLs) where desktop crawlers like Screaming Frog hit resource limits
- Renders JavaScript pages to capture client-side content, critical for modern stacks
- Protect app runs SEO QA in CI/CD pipelines to catch noindex or blocked resource regressions before launch
- Visual dashboards are clearer than Excel exports from competing crawlers and prioritize fixes by impact
Where it falls short
- Pricing is entirely custom, no public tiers, and reviewers consistently call it expensive vs competitors
- Steep learning curve, the UI is described as overwhelming and very technical for non-SEO users
- No competitor data inside the product, you cannot benchmark against rival domains
- Crawls can be slow on very large sites because of the depth of analysis
The case for Majestic
Founded by Alex Chudnovsky, based in Birmingham, UK. They cover 1 AI platforms. Pricing starts at $50/mo.
Backlink index and link intelligence platform with Trust Flow and Citation Flow.
What people praise
- One of the largest historical backlink indexes on the market, dating to 2008
- Proprietary Trust Flow and Citation Flow metrics are widely cited by SEO professionals
- Fresh Index is updated daily, useful for tracking newly acquired or lost links
- Clique Hunter finds sites linking to multiple competitors at once, surfaces link gap opportunities
Where it falls short
- Interface feels dated compared to Ahrefs and Semrush, often described as slow to load
- Single-purpose tool, no keyword research, rank tracking, on-page SEO, technical audits, or AI content guidance
- Lite tier locks Historic Index behind Pro, limits backlink history research
- API tier at $399.99 is steep for teams that just want bulk data exports
Pricing, tier by tier
Tier 1
Lumar
Custom (modular)
Custom
- Lumar Analyze, Monitor, Protect and Impact apps available individually
- Technical SEO, GEO/AEO, site speed, accessibility and custom analytics metrics
- Pricing scales with URL volume crawled (estimated $2,667/mo for 5M URLs)
- Professional services and enterprise support
Majestic
Lite
$49.99/mo
- Fresh Index access
- Site Explorer (limited)
- 5 million Analysis Units
- Trust Flow and Citation Flow metrics
Tier 2
Lumar
—
—
Majestic
Pro
$99.99/mo
- Historic Index access
- Full Site Explorer
- 20 million Analysis Units
- Clique Hunter
Tier 3
Lumar
—
—
Majestic
API
$399.99/mo
- Everything in Pro
- Full API access for custom dashboards
- OpenApps integrations
- Largest data extracts
Feature parity
What each one ships that the other doesn't. We conservatively only include features each tool explicitly markets; absence here doesn't mean a feature is impossible, just that it isn't in their marquee list.
Only on Lumar
- Analyze. Crawls websites at scale with 250+ built-in reports plus custom data extraction
- Monitor. Continuous tracking across multiple domains with customizable dashboards and threshold alerts
- Protect. Automated SEO QA tests wired into CI/CD pipelines, catches regressions pre-launch
- Impact. Stakeholder reporting with industry benchmarking and commercial impact prioritization
- GEO/AEO metrics. Tracks how AI search engines surface and cite your site
- WCAG 2.2 accessibility audits. Levels A, AA and AAA compliance checking integrated into the crawl
Only on Majestic
- Fresh Index. Daily-updated backlink index used for tracking recent link activity
- Historic Index. Long-tail historical backlink database with data back to 2008
- Trust Flow. Proprietary metric scoring the trustworthiness of links based on connection to seed trusted sites
- Citation Flow. Proprietary metric measuring the quantity-based influence of a URL or domain
- Site Explorer. Backlink profile view with referring domains, anchor text, and link context
- Clique Hunter. Identifies domains that link to multiple competitors but not to you
When each one wins
When Lumar wins
- You're enterprise and need to call a reference. Lumar lists 7 named customers; Majestic lists 0.
- You want the better-funded incumbent. Lumar has raised $37.6M, giving it more runway and shipping velocity.
- Procurement requires SOC 2 Type 2. Lumar has it; Majestic doesn't yet.
When Majestic wins
- Budget is the constraint. Majestic starts at $50/mo vs Lumar's $∞/mo, so on a per-seat basis it's the cheaper way in.
- Platform coverage matters. Majestic monitors 1 AI platforms; Lumar covers 0.
- One of the largest historical backlink indexes on the market, dating to 2008
When neither wins (pick GrowthManager)
- You don't have an in-house content team and you don't want to hire one.
- You want one $999/mo invoice instead of stacking Lumar plus an agency.
- You need the team that measures to also act on the data, in the same week.
- You're a B2B SaaS, services firm, or e-commerce brand at $20K+ MRR.
Reasons to pick one over the other
Reasons to pick Lumar over Majestic
- Better-funded incumbent. Lumar has raised $37.6M, giving it more runway and shipping velocity than Majestic.
- More named customers. Lumar lists 7 customers vs Majestic's 0, including Adobe, Deloitte, Motley Fool.
- SOC 2 Type 2. Lumar carries SOC 2 Type 2; Majestic does not yet, which can hold up procurement.
- More verified reviews. Lumar has 101 G2 reviews vs Majestic's none on file, so the average rating carries more weight.
- Faster product velocity. Lumar has shipped 5 public launches in the last year vs Majestic's 0.
- Built for the LLM era. Lumar was founded in 2010, built around AI search from day one; Majestic dates back to 2004 and is retrofitting.
- Wider integration ecosystem. Lumar integrates with 10 tools; Majestic ships 4.
- What users praise most. Handles very large sites (millions of URLs) where desktop crawlers like Screaming Frog hit resource limits
Reasons to pick Majestic over Lumar
- Lower entry price. Majestic publishes a clear entry tier at $50/mo; Lumar gates pricing.
- More plan flexibility. Majestic offers 3 pricing tiers vs Lumar's 1, so there's a better chance one fits your team size.
- Broader AI platform coverage. Majestic tracks visibility across 1 AI engines vs Lumar's 0.
- More mature platform. Majestic (founded 2004) has had more time to harden the product than Lumar (2010).
- What users praise most. One of the largest historical backlink indexes on the market, dating to 2008
Switching from one to the other
From Lumar to Majestic
Export your saved queries and prompt panels from Lumar (most tools support CSV export). Most Majestic setups can import the same query list in a single CSV upload. Expect 1-2 days of parallel running so you can validate Majestic's data againstLumar's; one to two weeks of full reconciliation before you cancel Lumar. The risk is annotation history: notes and tags don't survive most migrations, so screenshot anything you want to keep.
From Majestic to Lumar
Same flow in reverse. Export from Majestic, import to Lumar. The historical visibility data is the big loss; most platforms don't backfill from a competitor's data, so you start your trendline over.
From either to GrowthManager.ai
We handle the migration ourselves; you give us your query list (or we infer it from your existing dashboard) and we re-build the tracking on our infrastructure in week one. You also start getting content shipped from week one, so the switch produces results before the trendline restarts. The conversation that kicks this off is a 20-minute call.
Side by side, every number we could verify
| Lumar | Majestic | |
|---|---|---|
| Starts at (USD/mo) | Custom | $50/mo |
| Founded | 2010 | 2004 |
| Headquarters | London, UK | Birmingham, UK |
| Funding raised | $37.6M | — |
| AI platforms tracked | — | 1 |
| G2 rating | 4.6 / 5 (101 reviews) | — |
| Named customers | 7 | — |
| SOC 2 Type 2 | ✓ Yes | — |
| GDPR | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| HIPAA | — | — |
What real users say
Below: the recurring themes from G2, Capterra, SourceForge, Reddit, and case-study reviewers — distilled into the strengths and limitations that came up most often.
Lumar — what users praise
- Handles very large sites (millions of URLs) where desktop crawlers like Screaming Frog hit resource limits
- Renders JavaScript pages to capture client-side content, critical for modern stacks
- Protect app runs SEO QA in CI/CD pipelines to catch noindex or blocked resource regressions before launch
- Visual dashboards are clearer than Excel exports from competing crawlers and prioritize fixes by impact
- Official Looker Studio and BigQuery connectors let you blend crawl data with revenue or product data
Lumar — what users complain about
- Pricing is entirely custom, no public tiers, and reviewers consistently call it expensive vs competitors
- Steep learning curve, the UI is described as overwhelming and very technical for non-SEO users
- No competitor data inside the product, you cannot benchmark against rival domains
- Crawls can be slow on very large sites because of the depth of analysis
- Limited live chat support, most help is async or via account manager
Majestic — what users praise
- One of the largest historical backlink indexes on the market, dating to 2008
- Proprietary Trust Flow and Citation Flow metrics are widely cited by SEO professionals
- Fresh Index is updated daily, useful for tracking newly acquired or lost links
- Clique Hunter finds sites linking to multiple competitors at once, surfaces link gap opportunities
- Bulk Backlink Checker handles large URL lists for agency-scale audits
Majestic — what users complain about
- Interface feels dated compared to Ahrefs and Semrush, often described as slow to load
- Single-purpose tool, no keyword research, rank tracking, on-page SEO, technical audits, or AI content guidance
- Lite tier locks Historic Index behind Pro, limits backlink history research
- API tier at $399.99 is steep for teams that just want bulk data exports
- No native Looker Studio connector, integration requires third-party tools
A third option
Both Lumar and Majesticare tracking tools. They tell you what's wrong with your AI visibility. Neither one fixes it. That's our pitch for GrowthManager.ai — we do citation tracking too (parity with these two), and we also ship the content, configure the infrastructure, and run the distribution. $999/mo, managed end-to-end. If you're leaning toward picking one of these two and then hiring an agency to act on the data, it's worth a 20-minute conversation first.
Other comparisons in this space
Same shape, different pairs. Pick a comparison that shares a tool with this one.
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Lumar or Majestic?
Honestly: neither one fully solves the problem. Lumar and Majestic are tracking tools — they tell you where your brand shows up in AI answers but don't change the answer. If you only need one of these two, pick Lumar for the cheaper monthly price; pick the other if its specific integrations matter to your team. Our actual editorial pick is GrowthManager.ai, which does the tracking and ships the content, infrastructure, and distribution as a single $999/mo managed program. Disclosure: we publish this comparison and make GrowthManager.
How much do Lumar and Majestic cost?
Lumar starts at Custom. Majestic starts at $50/mo. Both have higher-tier plans for larger workspaces. GrowthManager.ai is a flat $999/mo for the full managed service (tracking + content + infrastructure + distribution) — usually cheaper than buying one of these two and hiring an agency on top.
Which AI platforms do Lumar and Majestic cover?
Lumar covers an undisclosed number of AI platforms. Majestic covers 1. Most tools in this space monitor ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Perplexity at minimum; the differences come down to less-common platforms (Copilot, Grok, Meta AI). GrowthManager.ai monitors the same four primary platforms and acts on the data.
Do Lumar and Majestic actually improve your AI visibility, or just measure it?
Both Lumar and Majestic are measurement tools. They show you where your brand appears (or doesn't) in AI answers, plus suggestions for what to improve. Neither one writes the content, configures the schema, or builds the backlinks that actually move the needle. To do that you need an in-house content team or an agency. GrowthManager.ai is the agency — and we include the tracking, so you don't pay twice.
What's the GrowthManager.ai alternative to Lumar and Majestic?
GrowthManager.ai is a managed AI visibility program. We give you the same citation tracking these two offer (parity on the measurement layer), plus 100 researched and published articles per month, schema and llms.txt configuration, ongoing backlink acquisition, and Reddit/Quora seeding. One $999/mo invoice, one dedicated account manager, twelve clients per team member maximum so we can actually deliver. If you were going to buy one of these tools and then hire someone to use it, we're cheaper and faster.
Further reading
External research that informs the editorial framework on this page. We cite these openly because the framework is meant to be auditable.
- Microsoft Bing Webmaster Guidelines (2025)· Microsoft
How Microsoft's crawlers parse content for Copilot, which now powers a large share of AI answers behind the scenes.
- Generative Engine Optimization research· Kevin Indig
Long-running practitioner research on what gets cited in AI-generated answers; the most-quoted source in the GEO category.
- Zero-Click Search forecasts· Gartner
Industry forecasts on how a growing share of buyer queries end without a click to the brand site, making AI-answer presence the new pole position.
- Audience intelligence analyses· SparkToro
Public datasets on how audiences actually discover brands across search, social, and now AI surfaces.
- Trust Barometer (2024)· Edelman
The annual study on how buyers weigh source authority, used to weight our trust criterion against third-party review volume.
Disclosure + methodology
GrowthManager.ai makes a competing product in the AI visibility space, so this comparison is not neutral. Every pricing number was pulled from each competitor's public pricing page or triangulated from third-party reviews when the page is JavaScript-gated. Pros, cons, and user-review themes are distilled from real G2, Capterra, SourceForge, Reddit, and case-study reviews with the quotes preserved verbatim. We update this comparison whenever the underlying data changes.