Questions, answered plainly.

A first-party analytics system that scores every session on your site from 0 to 100 on how likely it was to convert, so you can grade traffic sources by the buying intent they bring rather than the volume they send.

Both, and the service is the part you are buying. There is a real system with real software behind it, and it is delivered as a deployment we carry out and configure rather than as a product you install. A version you set up yourself would reproduce the problem it exists to solve.

No. There is no signup, no login for prospective customers, no free tier and no trial. Every engagement starts with a scoping call.

B2B companies with one commercially meaningful conversion on the site, enough volume for ranking to be statistically meaningful, and someone who owns growth or marketing and would act on better measurement. It is not built for consumers, and it is not built for organisations that need procurement, SSO and a security review cycle before work can start.

Thirty minutes with the person who would do the work. We look at your site and your traffic and pin down what your conversion event actually is — which is usually harder than expected and is the most useful part of the call whether or not you go ahead. You leave knowing whether it is a fit.

Installation and verification is usually days. Configuration ranges from days to weeks, and the variance is almost never technical — it is how settled your conversion definition already is inside the business. You get a specific range in the written scope.

One technical contact for roughly an hour during deployment, plus availability during verification. The blocker is rarely engineering time; it is having someone who can settle what the conversion event is.

Because ranking requires a single axis. With five scored events you get five orderings that disagree and a human has to resolve them every time. Other events are still tracked — they are just not what everything is ranked against.

We reconfigure it, as part of the ongoing review rather than as a new project. Because the raw behavioural data is unchanged, a new definition can be applied to history as well as to future traffic, so you get a comparable series rather than a hard break in the reporting.

No. A score says a visitor's behaviour resembles that of people who converted on your site historically. It is useful for ranking and prioritisation across a population. It is not a forecast about an individual, and we would rather say that than let it be inferred.

No, and any vendor implying otherwise is overselling. It removes losses caused by domain-level blocking. It does not remove consent constraints, cross-device gaps, or conversions that complete inside third-party flows nobody instrumented. We treat the last of those as part of deployment rather than as your problem to find later.

No. Consent obligations attach to what you collect and why, not to which domain the request goes to. Where consent is required and not given, you do not collect.

No. There is no cross-site identifier and no identity graph. Scoring runs against an anonymous browser-level identifier on your site only, and produces nothing resolvable against a visitor's activity anywhere else.

It is scoped per deployment and quoted in writing after the scoping call. There are no published figures, because the work varies enough that any number would be wrong in both directions. What drives it is the configuration work, not your traffic volume.

By invoice, on the terms set out in the scope. There is no checkout on this website and we do not process card payments here.

We tell you on the call, explain why, and where we can point you at something that fits better. It costs you nothing and it is a faster outcome than a proposal nobody was going to accept.

The people who take the scoping call are the people who deploy, configure and review. There is no implementation team behind them and no junior tier doing the configuration, which caps how many deployments can be in flight at once.

Usually not, at least at first. Most clients run both. Google Analytics is a general-purpose platform holding an ads integration you may depend on; Wardly ranks everything against one commercial outcome. Keeping both also gives you a reference point while you build confidence in a new measurement layer.

No, and you should expect that. Different collection architectures, session definitions and consent handling produce different totals. During deployment we reconcile against a source you already trust so that the difference is explained before anyone notices it in a meeting.

Those are good, inexpensive, privacy-first tools that report traffic and that you configure yourself. The separation is that Wardly ranks against one conversion event rather than reporting traffic, scores visitors against the likelihood of that event, and is configured by us rather than by you. If clean private traffic reporting is what you need, use one of them.

No. Auditing and reconfiguring an existing Google Analytics property is a different job. It is worth having done and it is not what this is — Wardly is a new measurement layer deployed alongside whatever you already run.