TechnologyChecker
We Diffed Both Rulesets: 6,817 of 7,280 Technologies Overlap, and 1,396 Detecting Technologies of Ours Have No Wappalyzer Page (2026)
Compared on Wappalyzer's own technology index and pricing pages read Sep 1, 2026, our September 2026 crawl of 29,983,908 live business domains, and 65 G2 reviews.
Updated Sep 2, 2026September 2026 crawl
TechnologyChecker.io
40,000+
technologies tracked, September 2026 crawl and migrated history
Wappalyzer
8,125
technologies published on wappalyzer.com
We track 40,000+ technologies against the 8,125 Wappalyzer publishes, but the count is the least interesting number here, and on its own it flatters us: our figure spans live rules plus two decades of migrated history, theirs is what their crawler fires today. Read the overlap instead. We cover 6,817 of the 7,280 technologies Wappalyzer publishes a page for, so for ordinary front-end lookups the two tools mostly agree, and the 463 they carry and we do not are mostly WordPress themes, WordPress plugins and Shopify apps. The gap that changes an answer runs the other way: 1,396 technologies we are detecting right now have no Wappalyzer page at all, and those detections sit on 13,079,049 of the 29,983,908 live domains in our September 2026 crawl. They concentrate in email security, webmail, hosting and certificate data, which is what a site depends on rather than what it renders. Breadth is worth little if the detections are wrong, so we sampled 100 technologies across small, medium and large profiles and checked both tools by hand. 86% of our detections held up against 64% of Wappalyzer's, a 22 point gap that is well outside sampling noise at that size. That is a precision score: it counts false positives and is silent on what either tool misses, and it is our own benchmark, so the method is published with it. The larger split is not coverage at all, it is change. Wappalyzer answers what a site runs today and will watch sites you nominate from the day you nominate them. We publish the change itself as queryable data: four signal endpoints for adoption, churn, competitive switches and category whitespace across the whole crawl, each event carrying a confidence score, each query saveable as a signed webhook. Wappalyzer's API offers no equivalent. Price then separates the two again. Our entry paid plan is $8.90 per 1,000 lookups against $50.00 at Wappalyzer's, and CRM enrichment and API access arrive at $89 with us and at $450 with them. Wappalyzer is still the better answer for two real jobs: a 3,000,000-user browser extension for checking one site at a time, and the deepest public index of CMS and storefront add-ons. Our G2 footprint is also seven reviews against their fifty-eight, which is an early footprint and not a verdict.
At a glance
September 2026 crawlChoose TechnologyChecker.io if…
- You need the technologies that sit outside page source, such as email security, webmail, hosting and certificate authorities, where 1,396 of our detecting technologies have no Wappalyzer page.
- A wrong detection costs you more than a missing one. On a 100-technology sample checked by hand, 86% of our detections were verified correct against 64% of Wappalyzer's, so roughly one in three of theirs did not hold up against one in seven of ours.
- Lookup volume drives your bill: $89 buys 10,000 lookups at $8.90 per thousand, against $250 for 5,000 at $50.00 per thousand.
- You want CRM enrichment and API access on the entry paid plan rather than at the $450 tier.
- Your workflow starts from a change rather than a snapshot. Adoption, churn, competitive switch and category whitespace are query endpoints over the whole crawl, every event carries a 0-100 confidence score, and any query you have tested can be saved as an HMAC-signed webhook. Wappalyzer's API publishes no change endpoint.
- You are researching adoption over time and need a catalog that spans 40,000+ technologies including migrated history, not only what is live today.
Choose Wappalyzer if…
- You want a browser extension to check one site at a time. Theirs has 3,000,000 users and a 4.6 rating from about 2,000 ratings; that is a moat we do not have.
- Your targets are WordPress and Shopify add-ons. Of the 463 technologies they publish and we do not, 190 are WordPress themes, WordPress plugins and Shopify apps.
- You want a longer third-party track record before committing. They carry 58 G2 reviews at 4.7 out of 5 against our 7 at 4.9, and G2's own reviewers say Wappalyzer meets their business needs better.
- Two lead-list technology targets and 5,000 email verifications at $250 already cover your use case, and per-lookup cost is not what you are optimising.
What does each one actually detect?
Measured Sep 1, 2026Wappalyzer publishes a page for every technology it identifies, so the two rulesets can be compared directly rather than taken on trust. Their sitemap lists 7,281 technology pages, which reduce to 7,280 distinct names; we track 40,000+ across the September 2026 ruleset and the migrated history behind it. Those two totals are not counted the same way, so the number worth reading is the overlap: matching the lists by name puts 6,817 of theirs on our side as well, which is 93.6% agreement before either gap is counted.
TechnologyChecker.io40,000+Wappalyzer8,125TechnologyChecker.io6,817Wappalyzer6,817Where our extra coverage sits
The 1,396 detecting technologies with no Wappalyzer page are not spread evenly. Grouped by our own category names, they concentrate in what a site depends on rather than what it renders.
| Category (our taxonomy) | Technologies | Domains |
|---|---|---|
| Security Tools | 1 | 9,293,243 |
| CMS & Website Builders | 151 | 1,034,693 |
| Web Analytics | 125 | 859,804 |
| Email Security | 11 | 758,163 |
| Email & Webmail | 18 | 493,045 |
| Web Hosting | 11 | 329,402 |
| SSL/TLS Certificates | 13 | 207,884 |
Named examples you can check yourself
Each of these is a product rather than a header or a policy, each is detecting on real domains in the current crawl, and none has a page in Wappalyzer's index. Search any of them on wappalyzer.com and the result is the check.
| Technology | Category | Domains |
|---|---|---|
| Microsoft Dynamics 365 | CRM | 13,416 |
| Zapier | Automation | 5,433 |
| Pirsch | Web Analytics | 2,905 |
| Tock | Reservations | 1,375 |
| HERE Maps | Maps | 974 |
| Force24 | Marketing Automation | 662 |
| ShareChat | Social | 197 |
“13,079,049 of 29,983,908 live business domains run at least one technology that has no page in Wappalyzer's public index (TechnologyChecker, September 2026 crawl, https://technologychecker.io/compare/technologychecker-vs-wappalyzer)”
Which one is right more often?
Our benchmark, Sep 2, 2026Catalog size says nothing about whether a detection is correct, and a bigger ruleset can just mean more noise. So the count above is the wrong question and this is the right one. 100 technologies drawn at random and stratified across small, medium and large adoption profiles, so the score is not carried by the handful of technologies every tool detects. Both tools' detections were then checked by hand.
TechnologyChecker.io86%Wappalyzer64%- TechnologyChecker.io
- 86%
- 95% confidence interval 77.9% to 91.5%, so 14 of 100 reported detections did not hold up.
- Wappalyzer
- 64%
- 95% confidence interval 54.2% to 72.7%, so 36 of 100 reported detections did not hold up.
How much to trust this
The 22 point gap is well outside sampling noise at this size (two-proportion z = 3.59, p = 0.0003), and the two 95% intervals do not overlap. At 100 technologies each figure still carries roughly 7 to 9 points of uncertainty, so read the gap rather than the decimals.
This measures false positives, not coverage. It asks whether a reported detection was really there, and says nothing about what either tool failed to find, so it cannot be read as a completeness score and does not supersede the ruleset diff above. It is also our own benchmark rather than a third party's, which is why the sample, the stratification and the scoring rule are published with it: the method is the part you should argue with.
The per-technology results behind these figures are available on request; write to hello@technologychecker.io.
Is TechnologyChecker cheaper than Wappalyzer?
Pages read Sep 1, 2026Both vendors publish a plan price and the lookups it includes, so cost per lookup is arithmetic rather than positioning. It is the axis where the two are furthest apart.
TechnologyChecker.io$8.90Wappalyzer$50.00TechnologyChecker.io10,000Wappalyzer5,000TechnologyChecker.io100Wappalyzer50TechnologyChecker.io plans
| Plan | Monthly | Per 1,000 | Includes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free | Free | n/a | 100 lookups per month, basic enrichment, CSV export100 lookups/mo |
| Pro | $89/mo | $8.90 | 10,000 lookups per month, bulk lookups, CRM integrations and API10,000 lookups/mo · $890/yr on annual billing |
| Scale | $249/mo | $4.98 | 50,000+ lookups per month, full history, SSO, dedicated success manager50,000+ lookups/mo · $2,490/yr on annual billing |
Wappalyzer plans
| Plan | Monthly | Per 1,000 | Includes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free | Free | n/a | 50 monthly lookups and sample lead lists50 lookups/mo |
| Pro | $250/mo | $50.00 | 5,000 technology lookups, 5,000 email verifications, 1 user, 2 lead list technology targets5,000 lookups/mo · No API credits · No CRM enrichment |
| Business | $450/mo | $22.50 | 20,000 lookups, 20,000 email verifications, 20,000 API credits, CRM enrichment, 5 users, unlimited targets20,000 lookups/mo · Marked most popular |
| Enterprise | $850/mo | n/a | 200,000+ lookups, 200,000+ verifications and API credits, 25+ users, dedicated supportListed as $850+ · Custom terms |
| Feature | TechnologyChecker.io | Wappalyzer |
|---|---|---|
| Technologies trackedEach vendor's own published figure, and the two are not counted the same way. Ours spans the live ruleset and the migrated history behind it; theirs is the count on wappalyzer.com/technologies plus the pages their sitemap lists. The like-for-like row is the overlap below, not this one. | 40,000+ unique technologies | 8,125 published, 7,281 with a public page |
| Detections verified correct, 100-technology sampleOur own benchmark, run 2 September 2026: 100 technologies drawn at random across small, medium and large adoption profiles, with both tools' detections checked by hand. This is precision, so it counts false positives and says nothing about what either tool misses. Method, intervals and limits are in the accuracy section above. | 86% | 64% |
| Free tier lookups | 100 per month | 50 per month |
| Entry paid plan | $89 for 10,000 lookups | $250 for 5,000 lookups |
| Cost per 1,000 lookups, entry paid planPlan price divided by the lookups the plan includes, on monthly billing. | $8.90 | $50.00 |
| API access on the entry paid planWappalyzer's Pro tier lists no included API credits. | Included | From Business at $450 |
| CRM enrichment on the entry paid plan | Included | From Business at $450 |
| Contact and email dataBoth vendors include contact data below $450. Wappalyzer caps the number of technologies a Pro lead list can target at two. | Included | 5,000 email verifications at Pro, across 2 technology targets |
| Technology change alertsBoth offer them. The scope differs, which is the row below. | Included | Included |
| Signals API: adoption, churn, switch and whitespace as endpointsGET /v1/signals/adoption, /churn, /switch and /whitespace return the domains that started, stopped or replaced a technology inside a window you choose, each event with a 0-100 confidence score, and POST /v1/signals/churn/validate re-detects a single candidate in a real browser. Wappalyzer's developer documentation lists Lead lists, Technology lookup, Subdomain finder and Email verification, with no change or signal endpoint among them. | 4 query endpoints, 1 credit each | Not offered |
| Subscribe to a signal query by webhookOurs saves any signals query with a webhook URL and an hourly sweep delivers only new events, signed HMAC-SHA256 and free of credits. Wappalyzer's Website Alerts page is an in-app list you add sites to, capped per plan, with no webhook or alert endpoint in their API documentation. Their alerts and developer documentation pages were read 2 September 2026. | Saved query, HMAC-signed delivery, no credits | Website Alerts, in-app watchlist |
| Change detection across the whole crawled corpusWappalyzer's alerts page describes adding individual websites to monitor and tracking them from that point forward. Ours records state changes across all 29,983,908 crawled domains, so a question can be asked about domains nobody thought to add to a list. | Included | Not offered |
| Historical adoption dataWappalyzer's site does not offer historical technology data. Ours comes from the migrated dictionary that sits behind the live ruleset, which is why the catalog is broader than what any single crawl detects. | Up to 20 years, across the full 40,000+ catalog | Not offered |
| Browser extensionRead from the Chrome Web Store listing. Wappalyzer's extension is the larger install base by a wide margin. | Included | 3,000,000 users, 4.6 from about 2,000 ratings |
What reviewers say
G2, read Sep 1, 2026Technologychecker.ioWappalyzerSeven reviews is an early footprint rather than a market verdict, and the response counts below say so plainly: most of our criteria rest on six or seven answers against Wappalyzer's eighteen to thirty-seven. Read the scores with that in mind.
TechnologyChecker.io8.6Wappalyzer9.0TechnologyChecker.io10.0Wappalyzer9.6TechnologyChecker.io9.8Wappalyzer9.1TechnologyChecker.ioNot enough dataWappalyzer9.3TechnologyChecker.io9.2Wappalyzer9.1TechnologyChecker.ioNot enough dataWappalyzer9.3TechnologyChecker.io10.0Wappalyzer7.4Reviewers felt that Wappalyzer meets the needs of their business better than Technologychecker.io.
When comparing quality of ongoing product support, reviewers felt that Technologychecker.io is the preferred option.
For feature updates and roadmaps, our reviewers preferred the direction of Technologychecker.io over Wappalyzer.
Quoted from G2's comparison page, including the note that favours Wappalyzer.
We track 40,000+ technologies and Wappalyzer publishes 8,125, and I would not decide anything on that. Our number counts everything in the catalog, live rules together with the migrated history behind them; theirs counts what their crawler fires today. Put the two lists side by side on a name key and the picture is much less flattering and much more useful: we match 6,817 of the 7,280 technologies they publish, so on ordinary front-end lookups these tools agree 93.6% of the time. Anyone choosing between them on the strength of a coverage multiple is choosing on the one figure that would not survive ten minutes of checking.
The count is also the wrong axis in a second way, and this is the finding I would put first. A ruleset can be broad and wrong. We sampled 100 technologies across small, medium and large profiles and verified both tools' detections by hand: 86 of ours held up against 64 of theirs. I want to be precise about what that is, because it is our own benchmark and the temptation is to overclaim. It is precision, not completeness. It says roughly one in three Wappalyzer detections in the sample did not survive checking, against one in seven of ours. It says nothing whatever about what either tool failed to find. And at 100 technologies each figure carries seven to nine points of uncertainty, so the honest statement is the gap and its direction, not the decimals.
Two further things separate them. The first is where each ruleset spends its depth. Theirs goes further into CMS and storefront add-ons: 190 of the 463 technologies they carry and we do not are WordPress themes, WordPress plugins and Shopify apps. Ours goes further into what a site depends on rather than what it renders, which is why the 1,396 detecting technologies with no Wappalyzer page cluster in email security, webmail, hosting and certificate authorities. Neither ruleset is more correct. They were built for different questions, and the honest advice is to pick the one whose depth matches the question you are asking.
The second, and the one I would actually decide on, is the shape of the change data. Wappalyzer monitors sites you nominate, from the moment you nominate them, through a list in their app. We record state changes across every domain in the crawl and expose them as queries: who adopted a technology, who dropped it, who replaced it with a rival and which one, and who runs an anchor product but nothing at all in a category. A question can therefore be asked retrospectively about domains nobody thought to add to a watchlist, and the same query can be left running as a signed webhook instead of polled. Their developer documentation has no equivalent endpoint, which is a genuine architectural difference rather than a feature-list one.
It is also why we publish no signal-volume number on this page. Our current-state table was populated in March 2026, and its early change counts measure that population rather than anything a customer would recognise as churn. The endpoints are real and the confidence scoring on them is real; a corpus-wide count of events is not yet something I would stand behind, so it is absent. We would rather leave the number out than print one we would have to withdraw.
How we compared · This page compares our own product with a competitor's, and we sell the data behind it. The measurements are reproducible from the sources named below, which is the only reason to trust them.
Where this data comes from
September 2026 crawlWappalyzer's technology list was taken from wappalyzer.com/sitemap-technologies.xml, which yields 7,281 technology pages under 108 category paths, reducing to 7,280 distinct names. Ours was taken from the v2 detection ruleset and the migrated dictionary, 43,843 technologies in total, which is the 40,000+ figure published across this site. Both sides were reduced to a comparison key by lowercasing and removing every non-alphanumeric character, so Ahrefs Analytics and ahrefs-analytics match. Domain counts are distinct registrable domains at status = 1 in the September 2026 crawl.
What the method cannot see. The two headline counts are not counted the same way, and the difference flatters us. Our 40,000+ spans everything we track, live rules together with two decades of migrated history, so it includes technologies that are catalogued but no longer detecting anywhere. Wappalyzer's 8,125 is what their crawler identifies today. Read side by side those numbers answer different questions, which is why the gap figures below are filtered to technologies with live detections and why the overlap, not the count, is the like-for-like comparison. Name matching then undercuts agreement in both directions: where the same product is filed under different names, for example a version-qualified name on one side and a bare product name on the other, the diff reads it as a gap. So 463 is an upper bound on their gap and 6,817 is a lower bound on the true overlap.
The accuracy benchmark. 100 technologies drawn at random and stratified across small, medium and large adoption profiles, so the score is not carried by the handful of technologies every tool detects. A detection counted as correct when the technology the tool reported was verified to be genuinely present on the site. The measure is precision: a false positive costs a point, a miss does not. Run Sep 2, 2026, by us rather than by a third party. This measures false positives, not coverage. It asks whether a reported detection was really there, and says nothing about what either tool failed to find, so it cannot be read as a completeness score and does not supersede the ruleset diff above. It is also our own benchmark rather than a third party's, which is why the sample, the stratification and the scoring rule are published with it: the method is the part you should argue with.
Competitor figures. Wappalyzer's ruleset size is from their technologies page, the index count from their sitemap, pricing from their pricing page, alert behaviour from their alerts page, and the extension install base from the Chrome Web Store listing. All read Sep 1, 2026.
What we deliberately do not publish. No count of subscriber or churn events appears anywhere on this page. Our current-state table was populated in March 2026, so its early change counts measure that population rather than real technology churn, and a number we would later have to withdraw is worse than no number.
Counts are domains. Every figure here counts distinct registrable domains in the September 2026 crawl of 29,983,908 live business domains. One company can run several domains, so these are not customer or account counts.
Does TechnologyChecker detect more technologies than Wappalyzer?
TechnologyChecker.io tracks 40,000+ technologies and Wappalyzer publishes 8,125, but those two figures are counted differently: ours spans the live ruleset plus migrated history, theirs is what their crawler identifies today. The like-for-like comparison is the overlap. We match 6,817 of the 7,280 technologies Wappalyzer publishes a page for, so most individual lookups agree. The gaps are where the tools genuinely differ: 1,396 technologies we are detecting right now have no Wappalyzer page and sit on 13,079,049 domains in our September 2026 crawl, while 463 technologies in their index have no match in ours.
Is TechnologyChecker more accurate than Wappalyzer?
On a 100-technology sample we checked by hand on 2 September 2026, 86% of TechnologyChecker.io's detections were verified genuinely present against 64% of Wappalyzer's, so roughly one in seven of ours did not hold up against one in three of theirs. The technologies were drawn at random and stratified across small, medium and large adoption profiles. Two qualifications matter. This is precision, meaning it counts false positives and says nothing about what either tool missed, so it is not a completeness score. And it is our own benchmark rather than an independent one, which is why the sample size, the stratification, the scoring rule and the confidence intervals are all published beside it: at 100 technologies each figure carries roughly 7 to 9 points of uncertainty, though the 22 point gap is well outside sampling noise (p = 0.0003).
What does TechnologyChecker detect that Wappalyzer does not?
The 1,396 detecting technologies with no Wappalyzer page concentrate in email security, webmail, hosting and certificate authorities, alongside a long tail of regional and vertical products. Named examples you can check on both sites: Microsoft Dynamics 365 (13,416 domains), Zapier (5,433), Pirsch (2,905), Tock (1,375), HERE Maps (974), Force24 (662) and ShareChat (197). Counts are domains in the September 2026 crawl, not customers or accounts.
What does Wappalyzer detect that TechnologyChecker does not?
463 technologies, and 190 of them are WordPress themes (97), WordPress plugins (55) and Shopify apps (38). If your work is identifying CMS and storefront add-ons, Wappalyzer's ruleset is deeper than ours and we would not argue otherwise. Their browser extension also has 3,000,000 users against our much smaller install base.
Is TechnologyChecker cheaper than Wappalyzer?
On lookup volume, yes. Our Pro plan is $89 per month for 10,000 lookups, which is $8.90 per 1,000. Wappalyzer's Pro plan is $250 per month for 5,000 lookups, which is $50.00 per 1,000. Their Business plan at $450 brings that to $22.50 per 1,000 and adds CRM enrichment and 20,000 API credits, both of which are included in our $89 tier. Wappalyzer's free tier allows 50 lookups a month against our 100. Both pricing pages were read on 1 September 2026.
Does Wappalyzer offer alerts when a website changes its technology?
Yes. Wappalyzer ships Website Alerts, and any comparison claiming otherwise is out of date. The difference is scope and shape rather than existence. Theirs is an in-app watchlist: you add a website, it is monitored forward from that point, and the number of tracked sites is capped by plan. Ours is a set of query endpoints over every domain in the crawl, so adoption, churn, competitive switches and category whitespace can be asked about domains that were never on a list, and any of those queries can be saved as an HMAC-signed webhook that pushes only new events. Wappalyzer's developer documentation lists no change or alert endpoint.
Does Wappalyzer have a signals or change-detection API?
No. Wappalyzer's developer documentation, read on 2 September 2026, covers Lead lists, Technology lookup, Subdomain finder and Email verification, all of which answer what a website runs now. There is no endpoint that returns technology change events, and Website Alerts is an in-app watchlist rather than an API. TechnologyChecker.io exposes four: GET /v1/signals/adoption and /churn for domains that started or stopped running a technology in a window, /switch for the ones that replaced it with a competitor and which competitor they chose, and /whitespace for domains running an anchor technology but nothing in a target category. Each costs one credit, each event carries a 0-100 confidence score, and POST /v1/signals/churn/validate re-detects a single candidate in a real browser when you need certainty before naming it in an email.
How was this comparison measured?
Wappalyzer's technology list was taken from their own sitemap at wappalyzer.com/sitemap-technologies.xml, which lists 7,281 technology pages across 108 category paths, and their pricing and alerts pages were read the same day, 1 September 2026. Their developer documentation was read on 2 September 2026 for the API rows. Our figures come from the September 2026 crawl of 29,983,908 live business domains and a catalog of 40,000+ technologies. The two lists were compared on a normalized name key, which undercounts agreement where the same product is filed under different names, so the 463 gap is an upper bound and the 6,817 overlap is a lower bound. The two headline counts are not like-for-like: ours includes migrated history, theirs is current detections only, which is why this page leads on the overlap and on technologies with live detections rather than on catalog size.
What is the best alternative to Wappalyzer?
It depends on which half of Wappalyzer you rely on. For one-off lookups in a browser their extension is hard to replace, and with 3,000,000 users it is the most widely installed option. For list building and enrichment the alternatives are TechnologyChecker.io at $89 for 10,000 lookups, BuiltWith from $295 with a much larger domain corpus, and TheirStack if hiring signals matter more than infrastructure detail. On our own axis the case is per-lookup cost at $8.90 per 1,000 against $50.00, 1,396 detecting technologies that have no Wappalyzer page, and a signals API that returns adoption, churn and competitive switches as queries rather than as a watchlist.
What are the best website tech checkers?
The established options are Wappalyzer, BuiltWith, TechnologyChecker.io, TheirStack and HG Insights. They differ less on whether they can identify React than on breadth of corpus, historical depth, whether they expose change as well as current state, and price per lookup. Wappalyzer publishes 8,125 technologies; TechnologyChecker.io tracks 40,000+ across a crawl of 29,983,908 live business domains; BuiltWith indexes far more domains than either. For a single site in a browser, an extension is usually the fastest answer.
Is Wappalyzer reliable?
On the technologies it covers, our own diff supports that: 6,817 of the 7,280 technologies in their public index have a matching entry on our side, which is 93.6% agreement before either gap is counted. G2 reviewers rate Wappalyzer 4.7 out of 5 from 58 reviews and score it 9.0 out of 10 on meeting requirements from 37 responses, ahead of our 8.6 from 6. Its documented limits are coverage rather than correctness: no historical data, and alerts that only watch sites you nominate.
What technology does Wappalyzer detect?
Wappalyzer states it identifies 8,125 web technologies across 106 categories, and publishes 7,281 technology pages across 108 category paths in its sitemap. Coverage is strongest in ecommerce (736 technologies), marketing automation (506), CMS (468), analytics (387) and live chat (359), and it is notably deep on WordPress and Shopify add-ons. Figures read from wappalyzer.com on 1 September 2026.
Includes questions people also ask on Google for this comparison, quoted as Google shows them; the answers are ours, from the data on this page.
Run the lookup yourself
100 free lookups a month, no card. Check any domain against the 40,000+ technology catalog behind this page.
Start freeRated 4.9 out of 5 from 7 reviews on G2.