★ Our pick
Pick
Lumar
Pick Lumar if 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 Sitebulb: which one wins in 2026?
Lumar and Sitebulb 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 has raised $37.6M, Sitebulb has raised Bootstrapped; Lumar is the more-funded incumbent; Sitebulb is the leaner challenger.
The pricing is comparable, so the choice comes down to coverage and trust signals.
The verdict
Pick
Sitebulb
Sitebulb is the right pick if your team prefers their approach and pricing fits.
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 Sitebulb
Sitebulb has raised Bootstrapped. Founded by Patrick Hathaway, Gareth Brown, based in Banbury, UK. On their site they list 6 named customers including Amazon, Mailchimp, Macy's, Yahoo. Pricing starts at $18/mo.
Desktop and cloud SEO auditing tool for agencies.
What people praise
- 300+ prioritized SEO hints with severity scoring and clear fix explanations, considered best-in-class for visual audits.
- JavaScript crawling is included at no extra cost on every tier, unlike Screaming Frog where JS rendering is a premium feature.
- Only crawler offering both desktop (up to 500K URLs) and cloud (up to 10M URLs) so teams can scale from solo to enterprise.
- Visual data presentation with charts and graphs is widely cited as the most intuitive in the technical SEO category.
Where it falls short
- Resource-intensive on large sites; a 100K-page JS-rendered crawl can take 8-12 hours and consume 8GB+ RAM.
- No keyword research, backlink analysis, rank tracking, or content optimization, so it must be paired with another tool.
- ~0.20% market share vs Screaming Frog's 15.41% means fewer community tutorials and forum answers.
- Desktop pricing is not visible on the public pricing page without selecting a currency, hurting buyer transparency.
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
Sitebulb
Desktop Lite
$18/mo
- 10,000 URLs per audit
- 1 user
- 100+ Hints
- JavaScript crawling
Tier 2
Lumar
—
—
Sitebulb
Desktop Pro
$42/mo
- 500,000 URLs per audit (expandable to 2 million)
- 1 base user with additional users from £7/month
- 300+ Hints
- Advanced configuration
Tier 3
Lumar
—
—
Sitebulb
Cloud Mini
From £95/mo
- 2 users
- 50,000 URLs per month
- Max 50,000 URLs per audit
- Unlimited projects
Tier 4
Lumar
—
—
Sitebulb
Cloud Small
$245/mo
- 5 users
- Desktop licenses included
- 1 million URLs per month
- Max 250,000 URLs per audit
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 Sitebulb
- Issue Detection. Identifies and prioritizes 300+ SEO issues automatically with severity scoring.
- JavaScript Rendering. Crawls JavaScript-heavy websites at no extra cost with full DOM rendering.
- Audit Comparisons. Compares audits over time to track technical SEO improvements.
- Scheduled Audits. Cloud version runs automated recurring crawls on a schedule.
- PDF Reporting. Customizable PDF reports for client delivery and stakeholder communication.
- Data Visualization. Visual charts and graphs that make crawl data scannable for non-technical readers.
When each one wins
When Lumar wins
- 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; Sitebulb doesn't yet.
- Handles very large sites (millions of URLs) where desktop crawlers like Screaming Frog hit resource limits
When Sitebulb wins
- Budget is the constraint. Sitebulb starts at $18/mo vs Lumar's $∞/mo, so on a per-seat basis it's the cheaper way in.
- 300+ prioritized SEO hints with severity scoring and clear fix explanations, considered best-in-class for visual audits.
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 Sitebulb
- Better-funded incumbent. Lumar has raised $37.6M, giving it more runway and shipping velocity than Sitebulb (Bootstrapped).
- SOC 2 Type 2. Lumar carries SOC 2 Type 2; Sitebulb does not yet, which can hold up procurement.
- More verified reviews. Lumar has 101 G2 reviews vs Sitebulb'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 Sitebulb's 0.
- More mature platform. Lumar (founded 2010) has had more time to harden the product than Sitebulb (2017).
- Wider integration ecosystem. Lumar integrates with 10 tools; Sitebulb ships 5.
- What users praise most. Handles very large sites (millions of URLs) where desktop crawlers like Screaming Frog hit resource limits
Reasons to pick Sitebulb over Lumar
- Lower entry price. Sitebulb publishes a clear entry tier at $18/mo; Lumar gates pricing.
- More plan flexibility. Sitebulb offers 4 pricing tiers vs Lumar's 1, so there's a better chance one fits your team size.
- Built for the LLM era. Sitebulb was founded in 2017, built around AI search from day one; Lumar dates back to 2010 and is retrofitting.
- What users praise most. 300+ prioritized SEO hints with severity scoring and clear fix explanations, considered best-in-class for visual audits.
Switching from one to the other
From Lumar to Sitebulb
Export your saved queries and prompt panels from Lumar (most tools support CSV export). Most Sitebulb setups can import the same query list in a single CSV upload. Expect 1-2 days of parallel running so you can validate Sitebulb'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 Sitebulb to Lumar
Same flow in reverse. Export from Sitebulb, 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 | Sitebulb | |
|---|---|---|
| Starts at (USD/mo) | Custom | $18/mo |
| Founded | 2010 | 2017 |
| Headquarters | London, UK | Banbury, UK |
| Funding raised | $37.6M | Bootstrapped |
| AI platforms tracked | — | — |
| G2 rating | 4.6 / 5 (101 reviews) | 4.5 / 5 |
| Named customers | 7 | 6 |
| 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
Sitebulb — what users praise
- 300+ prioritized SEO hints with severity scoring and clear fix explanations, considered best-in-class for visual audits.
- JavaScript crawling is included at no extra cost on every tier, unlike Screaming Frog where JS rendering is a premium feature.
- Only crawler offering both desktop (up to 500K URLs) and cloud (up to 10M URLs) so teams can scale from solo to enterprise.
- Visual data presentation with charts and graphs is widely cited as the most intuitive in the technical SEO category.
- Desktop Lite at $18/mo is one of the cheapest serious SEO crawlers available, attractive for freelancers.
Sitebulb — what users complain about
- Resource-intensive on large sites; a 100K-page JS-rendered crawl can take 8-12 hours and consume 8GB+ RAM.
- No keyword research, backlink analysis, rank tracking, or content optimization, so it must be paired with another tool.
- ~0.20% market share vs Screaming Frog's 15.41% means fewer community tutorials and forum answers.
- Desktop pricing is not visible on the public pricing page without selecting a currency, hurting buyer transparency.
- Cloud Mini starts at £95/mo but jumps to higher tiers quickly, with Enterprise reportedly £20K+/year.
A third option
Both Lumar and Sitebulbare 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 Sitebulb?
Honestly: neither one fully solves the problem. Lumar and Sitebulb 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 Sitebulb cost?
Lumar starts at Custom. Sitebulb starts at $18/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.
Do Lumar and Sitebulb actually improve your AI visibility, or just measure it?
Both Lumar and Sitebulb 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 Sitebulb?
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.