ProofStack research · 2026-08-08

Three Google Analytics alternatives, compared on public evidence only

First, what this is not: not a review. We have not lived with these products and do not judge their interfaces. What follows is the evidence anyone can verify themselves: pricing structure, revenue disclosures, and the acquisition playbook each site declares through its own structure. Observed 2026-08-08.

Why the "GA alternative" frame

Autocomplete data (Google and Bing, observed 2026-08-08) shows demand pools almost entirely under "google analytics alternative" (long tail: free, self hosted, open source). People search challenger-versus-incumbent, not challenger-versus-challenger: "plausible vs" completes to English synonyms, "umami vs" to food. The vendors behave accordingly: Plausible maintains vs-google-analytics and vs-matomo pages but no vs-fathom (we checked: 404).

Pricing: three kinds of transparency

Three entirely different playbooks (counted from their sitemaps)

Three judgments you can take away

  1. Same category, same incumbent, three alive playbooks — there is no standard answer, but every survivor bet heavily on one: 104 posts, or a 38k-star community, or minimalism so complete there is no sitemap. The half-hearted middle is the only losing position.
  2. Comparison pages can live anywhere, but they must exist: Umami built 14, Plausible 8, all aimed at "alternative" searches — consistent with what our Tally teardown found.
  3. Crawler-invisible pricing has a real cost now: in AI search, a price that cannot be read is a price that does not exist.

Method

Page counts come from each vendor's public sitemap on the stated date; prices are transcribed from the pricing pages that day; revenue appears only as dated public disclosures; autocomplete comes from Google's and Bing's public endpoints. We have no affiliate or commercial relationship with any of the three.

Full case study with revenue evidence · Pricing benchmarks