Lumar vs Seolyzer in 2026: AI-visibility platform vs the real-time log analysis specialist
Both are demo-gated enterprise tools with no public pricing, but they solve different problems. Lumar adds AI brand visibility and WCAG accessibility to its crawl. Seolyzer fuses crawl data, real-time server logs, and Google Search Console into one cross-analysis view, and skips AI visibility entirely.
Lumar
Seolyzer- Seolyzer streams Googlebot activity from server logs in real time and fuses it with crawl data and Google Search Console in one cross-analysis view. Lumar does not publicly detail an equivalent log-analysis capability.
- Lumar tracks brand visibility across ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity. Seolyzer explicitly states it has no AI search visibility tracking of any kind.
- Both tools require a sales demo and publish no pricing, but Seolyzer's API is proven at scale: ManoMano uses it to extract millions of internal links for data science work.
- Lumar is the only one of the two with WCAG 2.2 accessibility compliance testing built into the crawl workflow.
- Seolyzer is GDPR compliant with data hosted in Europe, a detail it lists explicitly. Lumar does not publish data-residency information.
- Seolyzer has named enterprise clients on its site, Club Med and ManoMano, plus an endorsement from Aleyda Solis. Lumar does not publish named client case studies.
Lumar and Seolyzer both sell to the same kind of buyer, enterprise technical SEO teams, through the same kind of process: no published pricing, a required demo. That is roughly where the similarity ends. Lumar is built around consolidation, folding AI brand visibility tracking across ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity, WCAG 2.2 accessibility testing, and Core Web Vitals monitoring in alongside its crawl. Seolyzer is built around depth in one specific area: fusing crawl data, real-time server log streaming, and Google Search Console into a single cross-analysis view that shows what Googlebot actually did, not just what your site structure looks like. Seolyzer explicitly has no AI search visibility tracking. If your team is chasing crawl budget problems and indexing forensics, Seolyzer's log-first approach goes deeper than Lumar publicly details. If AI visibility and accessibility compliance need to live in the same report as your crawl data, Lumar is the more complete platform.
The tools at a glance
Lumar
Enterprise website optimization combining technical SEO, AI visibility, and accessibility
Lumar (formerly DeepCrawl) is built around consolidating five areas under one enterprise contract: AI brand visibility tracking for GEO and AEO, technical SEO crawling with AI-powered issue prioritization, Core Web Vitals monitoring, WCAG 2.2 accessibility testing, and custom analytics with AI-generated remediation code. The crawl engine covers the standard checklist, redirects, canonicals, hreflang, structured data, internal linking, with issues scored by likely impact rather than listed flat.
The AI visibility layer, tracking how a brand appears in ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity answers, is the module Seolyzer has no equivalent for. Combined with WCAG 2.2 accessibility testing, Lumar covers ground that a log-analysis specialist simply is not built to touch.
What Lumar does not publicly detail is the kind of deep, real-time log-analysis capability Seolyzer leads with. Its features list mentions custom analytics and AI-powered issue detection, but nothing describing real-time Googlebot streaming or a three-way crawl/log/GSC fusion view, so teams whose core problem is crawl budget forensics should confirm that depth directly during the demo rather than assume parity.
| Feature | Enterprise Contact for pricing |
|---|---|
| Technical SEO crawling | ✓ |
| AI brand visibility (GEO/AEO) tracking | ✓ |
| WCAG 2.2 accessibility testing | ✓ |
| Core Web Vitals monitoring | ✓ |
| API access | Yes, for data export |
| Self-serve signup | No, demo required |
Seolyzer
Technical SEO data platform combining site crawling, real-time log analysis, and Google Search Console in one interface
Seolyzer is a French technical SEO platform built around a specific idea: crawl data alone tells you what your site looks like, but it does not tell you what Googlebot actually did. Its cross-analysis mode fuses site crawling, real-time server log streaming, and Google Search Console into a single view, surfacing pages that are crawled but not indexed, or pages GSC shows impressions for that Googlebot rarely visits.
The log analysis module streams in real time rather than batching weekly, which matters for large sites mid-migration or recovering from a crawl budget problem, where a day of delay in seeing bot behavior is a day of guessing. The API is proven at real scale, ManoMano uses it to pull millions of internal links for their data science team, and page categorization lets large e-commerce sites analyze crawl budget by URL type rather than URL by URL.
The trade-off is focus and access. Seolyzer has no AI search visibility tracking, by its own account, and no public pricing, every plan routes through a demo. The log-analysis workflow also assumes real familiarity with server log formats and Googlebot behavior, so it rewards SEOs who already understand crawl forensics rather than teams looking for a simple audit tool.
| Feature | Starter Contact for pricing | Professional Contact for pricing | Enterprise Contact for pricing |
|---|---|---|---|
| SEO Crawler | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Log analysis | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Cross-analysis (data fusion) | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ |
| API access | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Scheduled / recurring crawls | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ |
| GDPR-compliant hosting | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Head-to-head feature comparison
| Feature | Lumar | Seolyzer |
|---|---|---|
| Full-site technical SEO crawl | Yes | Yes |
| AI brand visibility (GEO/AEO) tracking | Yes (ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity) | No |
| Real-time server log analysis | Not publicly detailed | Yes, streamed in real time |
| Crawl / log / GSC cross-analysis | Not publicly detailed | Yes, its core differentiator |
| WCAG 2.2 accessibility testing | Yes (WCAG 2.2) | No |
| Core Web Vitals / site speed monitoring | Yes | Not a core feature |
| Scheduled recurring crawls | Not publicly detailed | Professional tier and above |
| GDPR-compliant EU hosting | Not publicly detailed | Yes |
| API access | Yes, for data export | Professional tier and above |
| Self-serve signup (no sales call) | No (demo required) | No (demo required) |
| Named enterprise client case studies | Not publicly detailed | Yes (Club Med, ManoMano) |
| Starting price | Custom (sales-led) | Custom (sales-led) |
Considering AI Peekaboo alongside Lumar and Seolyzer?
Lumar bundles AI brand visibility tracking for ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity into an enterprise contract that starts with a demo and has no public price. Seolyzer states plainly that it has no AI search visibility tracking at all, its entire focus is crawl, log, and GSC data. Neither is a fast way to get dedicated AI answer-engine monitoring live. AI Peekaboo tracks five AI surfaces, including Google AI Overviews and AI Mode, with a read and write API on every plan from $50 a month and no sales call required, worth adding to the evaluation if AI visibility is the actual requirement rather than a secondary module.
Read the AI Peekaboo review →Which should you choose?
LumarSeolyzerLumarSeolyzerLumarSeolyzerSeolyzerThese two are closer in sales process than in product. Both require a demo and publish no price, so the decision is not about which is cheaper to try, it is about which problem you actually have. Lumar is the platform to pick when AI visibility and accessibility compliance need to sit in the same report as crawl data. Seolyzer is the platform to pick when the real question is what Googlebot is doing on your site right now, and a standard crawl plus a GSC export is not answering it. Teams chasing indexing bugs and crawl budget waste on large sites will get more out of Seolyzer's log-first approach than Lumar's broader but shallower public feature list suggests it offers.
Bottom line
Book the Lumar demo if AI brand visibility tracking and WCAG 2.2 accessibility testing need to be part of the same platform as your crawl. Book the Seolyzer demo if your actual problem is crawl budget or indexing behavior on a large, complex site, its real-time log streaming and crawl/log/GSC cross-analysis go deeper into that specific problem than Lumar's public materials describe. Do not expect either to solve the other's core use case: Seolyzer has no AI visibility tracking, and Lumar has not published log-analysis depth to match Seolyzer's real-time approach.
Frequently asked questions
Does Seolyzer track AI search visibility like Lumar does?
No, Seolyzer states directly that it has no AI search visibility tracking, LLM monitoring, or AI Overviews coverage. It focuses entirely on traditional crawl health: site crawling, real-time server log analysis, and Google Search Console integration, so a team that needs both AI visibility and log analysis will need two tools, or should evaluate whether Lumar's AI visibility module covers enough ground on its own.
What is the real difference between Lumar's crawl and Seolyzer's crawl?
Both crawl for standard technical SEO issues like broken links, redirects, and structured data, but Seolyzer adds real-time server log streaming and fuses it with crawl and Google Search Console data in a cross-analysis view, showing what Googlebot actually did rather than just what your site structure looks like. Lumar does not publicly detail an equivalent log-fusion capability, its differentiator instead is bundling AI brand visibility and WCAG accessibility testing alongside the crawl.
Do both tools require a sales demo before I can see pricing?
Yes, neither Lumar nor Seolyzer publishes pricing on their site, and both route every deal through a demo request. That makes cost comparison genuinely difficult upfront, so the more useful evaluation question is which specific capability, AI visibility and accessibility for Lumar, or real-time log analysis for Seolyzer, actually matches the problem you are trying to solve.
Is Seolyzer suitable for a team new to server log analysis?
Not ideally. Seolyzer's log-analysis workflow assumes real familiarity with server log formats and Googlebot behavior, and the interface is functional rather than heavily guided. Teams new to log analysis, or looking for a simpler audit tool, are likely to find the learning curve steeper than the payoff justifies until they have a specific crawl budget problem to solve.
Which tool is a better fit for a European agency with GDPR requirements?
Seolyzer lists GDPR compliance and European data hosting explicitly as a feature, which is a meaningful detail for EU agencies handling client data under strict privacy regulation. Lumar does not publish equivalent data-residency information on its public materials, so a European team with hard GDPR requirements should raise that specifically during the Lumar demo rather than assume it is covered.
Can Seolyzer's API handle large-scale data extraction?
Yes, and it has been proven at real scale: ManoMano uses Seolyzer's API to pull millions of internal links for their data science team's optimization work. That is a stronger public proof point than Lumar offers, whose API is described as available for data export without a named large-scale use case in its public materials.