Seolyzer vs Treo in 2026: Googlebot crawl diagnostics vs Core Web Vitals monitoring
Seolyzer fuses crawl data, real-time server logs, and Google Search Console for enterprise crawl budget work. Treo tracks Core Web Vitals using real Chrome UX Report data with a free tier and competitive benchmarking.
Seolyzer
Treo- Seolyzer streams real-time server log data fused with crawl and GSC data. Treo has no log analysis; it is built entirely around Core Web Vitals field and lab data.
- Treo has a genuine free tier for single-site Core Web Vitals monitoring. Seolyzer has no free tier and requires a demo request for all pricing.
- Treo pulls real Chrome UX Report (CrUX) field data, not just synthetic Lighthouse scores, and pairs it with automated sitemap-based URL discovery. Seolyzer has no performance data source of any kind.
- Both tools offer competitive benchmarking, but of entirely different data: Treo benchmarks Core Web Vitals against competitor domains, while Seolyzer has no competitor comparison feature at all.
- API access is available on Seolyzer from its Professional tier and on Treo from its Vital tier at $75/month; neither exposes API access on their entry-level offering.
Seolyzer and Treo both sit under technical SEO, but they were built to answer different questions. Seolyzer combines a site crawler, real-time server log analysis, and Google Search Console data into a cross-analysis view that shows what Googlebot actually did on your site, which is the tool of choice when crawl budget or indexing gaps are the problem. Treo is narrower and cheaper: it pulls real Chrome UX Report field data and Lighthouse lab scores into one dashboard focused entirely on Core Web Vitals, with a free tier for single-site monitoring and paid plans that add competitive benchmarking. Seolyzer has no pricing on its site and no performance monitoring; Treo has a $0 starting price and no crawl or log analysis. They rarely compete for the same evaluation because the questions they answer do not overlap.
The tools at a glance
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 that merges three data sources most tools keep apart: a site crawler, real-time server log analysis, and Google Search Console. The cross-analysis mode lets you compare what your crawler found against what Googlebot actually visited and what GSC reports as impressions, surfacing gaps that explain why a technically clean page might still not be indexed.
The log streaming happens in real time rather than in a weekly batch, and the API gives programmatic access to crawl, link, and log data; ManoMano uses it to pull millions of internal links for data science work, which shows the scale the platform is designed for. Enterprise clients like Club Med confirm it is used for serious in-house and agency work, not casual audits.
There is nothing in Seolyzer for page speed or Core Web Vitals. It answers questions about crawl and indexing behavior, and pricing requires a demo call rather than being published anywhere on the site.
| Feature | Starter Contact for pricing | Professional Contact for pricing | Enterprise Contact for pricing |
|---|---|---|---|
| SEO Crawler | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Log analysis | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Cross-analysis (data fusion) | No | Yes | Yes |
| API access | No | Yes | Yes |
| Scheduled / recurring crawls | No | Yes | Yes |
Treo
Core Web Vitals monitoring using real-world Chrome UX Report data.
Treo is a site speed monitoring tool built specifically around Core Web Vitals. Instead of relying only on synthetic Lighthouse tests, it pulls field data from the Chrome UX Report, which reflects how real Chrome users experienced pages over the past 28 days. That distinction matters because a clean lab score can still hide a page that real users experience as slow.
URL discovery happens automatically through sitemap scanning, so there is no manual tagging or script installation to maintain. Competitive benchmarking lets you track Core Web Vitals against competitor domains side by side, and a multi-site dashboard scales across hundreds of domains, which makes it practical for agencies managing a portfolio rather than a single client.
The free tier covers one site with limited Lighthouse audits, which is enough to evaluate CrUX data quality before paying anything. The jump to Vital at $75/month is steep for what is fundamentally a monitoring layer over public Google data, and the feature set stays narrow: performance monitoring only, nothing broader.
| Feature | Free $0/month | Vital $75/month | Pro $185/month | Scale $375/month | Enterprise Contact for pricing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sites monitored | 1 | Up to 5 | Up to 15 | Up to 50 | Custom |
| CrUX field data | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Lighthouse audits | Limited | Hourly | Hourly | Hourly | Custom |
| Competitive benchmarking | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| API access | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Head-to-head feature comparison
| Feature | Seolyzer | Treo |
|---|---|---|
| Site crawler | Yes | No |
| Real-time server log analysis | Yes, real-time streaming | No |
| Cross-analysis (crawl + logs + GSC) | Yes (signature feature) | No |
| Core Web Vitals monitoring | No | Yes (signature feature) |
| Real-user (CrUX) field data | No | Yes |
| Competitive benchmarking | No | Yes (Vital and up) |
| Automated URL / sitemap discovery | No | Yes |
| API access | Yes (Professional and up) | Yes (Vital and up) |
| Free tier | No | Yes, 1 site |
| Starting price | Contact for pricing | $0/mo |
Which should you choose?
SeolyzerTreoTreoSeolyzerTreoThese tools do not really overlap. Seolyzer is a crawl and indexing diagnostic built for enterprise-scale log analysis; Treo is a focused Core Web Vitals monitor built around public CrUX data with a free entry point. A site with both a crawl budget problem and unresolved Core Web Vitals issues would reasonably run both at once rather than choosing between them. The decision is less "which is better" and more "which problem are you actually trying to solve right now."
Bottom line
Choose Seolyzer if the open question is what Googlebot is doing on your site and why pages are not indexing the way they should. Choose Treo if the open question is how your pages perform for real Chrome users and how that stacks up against competitors, and you want to start for free before committing to a paid tier. Neither tool substitutes for the other; they answer different halves of a technical SEO programme.
Frequently asked questions
Can Treo replace Seolyzer for crawl budget diagnosis?
No. Treo has no crawler and no server log analysis, so it cannot show you which URLs Googlebot actually visited or where crawl budget is being wasted. It monitors Core Web Vitals using CrUX and Lighthouse data only. For crawl budget and indexing diagnostics, Seolyzer's log analysis and cross-analysis mode are the tool built for that job.
Is Treo's free tier good enough for a small business site?
Yes, for a single site the free tier covers CrUX field data and limited Lighthouse audits, which is enough to see whether real users are experiencing good Core Web Vitals. The limitation shows up if you manage more than one site or need competitive benchmarking, both of which require the $75/month Vital plan.
Does Seolyzer track Core Web Vitals?
No. Seolyzer has no page speed, Lighthouse, or Core Web Vitals data. It is built around site crawling, real-time server log analysis, and Google Search Console integration. For Core Web Vitals specifically, Treo is the dedicated tool.
Why does Treo's pricing jump so much between Free and Vital?
The Free tier is capped at one site with limited Lighthouse audits and no competitive benchmarking or API access, which are the features most agencies actually need. The $75/month Vital plan unlocks up to five sites, hourly Lighthouse audits, competitive benchmarking, and API access, which is a meaningful jump in capability, not just a price increase.
Which tool is a better fit for an agency managing many client sites?
It depends on what the agency needs to deliver. Treo's multi-site dashboard and competitive benchmarking scale cleanly across a portfolio of client sites for performance reporting. Seolyzer is built for deeper diagnostic work on individual large or complex sites where crawl budget or indexing is a specific, active problem, and its lack of a self-serve multi-site pricing tier makes it less suited to running across a broad client roster.
Does either tool require installing tracking code on the website?
Treo does not; it uses public CrUX data from Google and runs Lighthouse audits on demand, with no script or cookie involved. Seolyzer requires connecting your server logs directly, which is a data pipeline setup rather than a tracking script, but it is a more involved technical step than Treo's zero-install approach.