ReportGarden vs Whatagraph
An independent, review-free comparison compiled by the SaaSTracker editorial team. Both products are profiled in full, and neither can pay for placement here.
The short answer
Both sides assessedReportGarden compared with Whatagraph
Whatagraph is the better-looking, better-performing reporting product with stronger cross-source blending and a managed onboarding culture, and it costs meaningfully more. ReportGarden costs less at small scale and throws in invoicing, budgets, and SEO tooling that Whatagraph does not attempt. The decision usually comes down to whether report aesthetics and speed are worth the price gap, and for client-facing agencies they often are.
Whatagraph compared with ReportGarden
ReportGarden is the older agency reporting product, with reporting plus some client and budget management around it, and it stayed in the mid-hundreds per month band that Whatagraph has left. The comparison is now more about market position than features: ReportGarden remains buyable by a mid-sized agency without a procurement conversation, while Whatagraph requires an annual commitment and a demo. If your evaluation is driven by price and you want white-labeled multi-channel reports, ReportGarden stays on the list; if you need blends, custom metrics reused across clients, and data pushed downstream, it does not compete.
Choose ReportGarden if
Small and mid-sized digital marketing agencies, typically under about twenty retained clients, that want client reporting, budget pacing, invoicing, and keyword rank tracking from one vendor at a predictable per-client price rather than assembling three subscriptions.
Choose Whatagraph if
Marketing agencies and multi-brand or multi-location in-house teams running roughly 50 or more connected data accounts, that want cross-channel client reporting and a governed shared data layer from one vendor and can commit to an annual contract in the five-figure range.
Side by side
13 attributes| Attribute | ReportGarden | Whatagraph |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Reporting | Reporting |
| Starting price | $75 per month (Standard, up to 5 clients; list price $89) (14 days trial) | From 699 euros per month, billed annually (Max, from 50 source credits) (free trial) |
| Pricing model | Subscription priced by the number of clients you manage rather than by user seats or by data source count. Reports, dashboards, integrations, and custom metrics are included on every paid tier; the higher tier adds premium templates and a named onboarding contact. Data sources are counted toward fair-usage limits only when actively used in a report. Annual contracts are available at a discount arranged through sales rather than published on the page. | Annual subscription priced by source credits, where one connected data account equals one credit. Users, reports, and dashboards are unlimited on every plan, so cost scales with the number of client accounts and channels rather than with headcount. As of August 2026 the pricing page publishes two tiers: Max and a quote-only Prime. |
| Free plan | No | No |
| Free trial | 14 days, no credit card required | Free trial available on the Max plan (length not published) |
| Best for | Small and mid-sized digital marketing agencies, typically under about twenty retained clients, that want client reporting, budget pacing, invoicing, and keyword rank tracking from one vendor at a predictable per-client price rather than assembling three subscriptions. | Marketing agencies and multi-brand or multi-location in-house teams running roughly 50 or more connected data accounts, that want cross-channel client reporting and a governed shared data layer from one vendor and can commit to an annual contract in the five-figure range. |
| Setup time | A first client can be connected and reporting within a day: OAuth into the ad and analytics accounts, pick a template, apply branding, set a schedule. Rolling out a full roster takes longer, mostly because each client's account access has to be granted and because building the agency's canonical report layout is a design decision rather than a configuration step. | A first client report can be built in an afternoon from a template. Doing it properly across a portfolio takes longer: field mapping, custom metric definitions, account grouping, and template design are a one-to-three week project for an agency with dozens of clients, and that work is the source of most of the eventual value. |
| Learning curve | Low for building and scheduling reports; the widget canvas is conventional and reviewers consistently describe the tool as easy to learn. The parts that take longer are custom metrics, budget structures that match how you actually bill, and getting the invoice fee logic right the first time. | Moderate. The report builder is approachable for an account manager. The Data Hub is not: blends, join types, custom dimensions, and normalization decisions require someone who thinks in datasets, and getting them wrong produces confidently incorrect client-facing numbers. |
| Platforms | Web application (browser-based), PDF export, White-labeled client portal, Email-delivered scheduled reports | Web application, Scheduled email delivery, Live shareable report links, Embedded dashboards, MCP endpoint for Claude, ChatGPT, and other MCP clients |
| Compliance | GDPR | GDPR, SOC 2, ISO 27001 |
| Founded | 2013 | 2015 |
| Headquarters | Hyderabad, India, operating in the US as ReportGarden Inc. | Amsterdam, Netherlands (engineering in Vilnius, Lithuania) |
| Ownership | Independent, privately held | Venture-backed, independent |
Strengths and limitations
ReportGarden
Strengths
- Bundles agency money operations (budget pacing, spend-based invoicing, proposals) with reporting, which almost no pure reporting tool does.
- Native SEO stack: daily rank tracking across six search engines including Google Maps, a site crawler, and backlink analysis, removing a separate subscription.
- Priced per client rather than per seat, so adding staff or stakeholders never increases the bill.
- Unusually deep connector coverage in the long tail agencies actually hit, especially call tracking and secondary ad networks.
Limitations
- Application speed is the dominant complaint in user reviews: opening a report, changing a date range, or adding a metric can take a long time, and that cost multiplies across a roster during reporting week.
- Cross-source blending is limited; reviewers specifically describe difficulty combining metrics from different platforms (for example Twitter, Google, and Facebook) into a single unified view.
- The workflow is described as comfortable for a small number of clients and increasingly manual beyond that, which limits it exactly where an agency's reporting pain is worst.
- Only two price points are published (5 clients and 10 clients); everything larger is a quote, so budgeting past ten clients requires a sales conversation.
Whatagraph
Strengths
- A genuine data modeling layer, not just a report renderer: field mapping, custom metrics, account grouping, and joins with explicit join-type control.
- Cross-channel blending is a first-class feature rather than a workaround, so blended cost per acquisition across six platforms is a defined metric instead of a spreadsheet.
- Unlimited users on every plan, which suits agencies where a dozen people touch reports and clients need viewer access.
- White labeling goes as far as a custom report domain, so nothing in the client-facing experience carries the vendor's name.
Limitations
- The published floor is 699 euros per month billed annually with no free plan and no monthly option, which removes the product from consideration for small agencies and freelancers entirely.
- Pricing is credit-based with no small top-up path, so crossing an allocation forces a tier move rather than an incremental charge; agencies report the jump as unpredictable.
- Public API access and BigQuery or Looker Studio transfer are locked behind the quote-only Prime tier, so the integration path many technical buyers want is not purchasable at the published price.
- Report layout is constrained by a grid and fixed widget sizing; reviewers consistently note limited freedom over widget dimensions and design, which frustrates teams with strict brand templates.
Pricing compared
ReportGarden
Subscription priced by the number of clients you manage rather than by user seats or by data source count. Reports, dashboards, integrations, and custom metrics are included on every paid tier; the higher tier adds premium templates and a named onboarding contact. Data sources are counted toward fair-usage limits only when actively used in a report. Annual contracts are available at a discount arranged through sales rather than published on the page.
- Standard$75
- Professional$125
- CustomQuote
Judged purely on reporting, $75 per month for five clients is mid-market for this category and there are cheaper and faster canvases. Judged on the full bundle, it looks better: budget pacing, invoice generation from real spend, proposal building, daily rank tracking across six search engines, and a site crawler are each things agencies commonly buy separately, and any one of them replacing a $30 to $60 subscription changes the arithmetic. The value case weakens as the roster grows, both because the client-count meter escalates into an unpublished quote past ten and because the application's speed becomes a labor cost at volume. Buy it for the bundle at small scale; do not buy it expecting the fastest reporting experience in the category.
Whatagraph
Annual subscription priced by source credits, where one connected data account equals one credit. Users, reports, and dashboards are unlimited on every plan, so cost scales with the number of client accounts and channels rather than with headcount. As of August 2026 the pricing page publishes two tiers: Max and a quote-only Prime.
- MaxFrom 699 euros
- PrimeCustom
Whatagraph has repriced itself out of the small end of the market it originally served, and any assessment has to start there. At 50 or more connected accounts, with real cross-channel blending and a team whose account managers otherwise spend days a month in spreadsheets, the arithmetic works: roughly 8,400 euros a year is less than a fractional analyst, and the governed data layer plus warehouse transfer replaces a connector subscription as well as a reporting tool. Below about 25 connected accounts it does not work, and the honest recommendation is a cheaper per-client reporting tool. The product is good; the question is whether your account count is large enough to make the floor price rational, and for most businesses reading a small-business directory the answer is no.
Editorial verdict on each
ReportGarden
ReportGarden is the agency reporting tool that remembered agencies also have to bill people. Budget pacing with alerts, invoices generated from real ad spend, proposals, and native daily rank tracking across six search engines sit alongside the white-labeled reports, and at $75 per month for five clients that bundle can displace two or three other subscriptions. Against that, the product's weakest point is the one an agency touches most: reviewers have complained for years that the application is slow to load reports and change date ranges, cross-source blending is limited, and the interface looks its age next to newer rivals. It is also a small independent vendor with a difficult history, and the published price list stops at ten clients. Trial it during a real month-end, on real client accounts, and decide whether the operations bundle is worth the friction; if you only need the report to be fast and beautiful, look at AgencyAnalytics or Whatagraph first.
Read the full ReportGarden profileWhatagraph
Whatagraph built something real over the past three years. The Data Hub, with field mapping, custom metrics, account grouping, and join-controlled blends, is a genuine modeling layer rather than a dashboard with a settings page, and pushing those same definitions to BigQuery and to AI clients over MCP is a coherent answer to the problem of numbers disagreeing across surfaces. The engineering is not in question. The positioning is. The product that once served a five-person agency for a couple hundred dollars a month now publishes a single entry plan at 699 euros per month billed annually with a 50-credit floor, no free plan, no monthly option, and the API locked behind a quote. That is an agency-scale platform purchase, and it should be evaluated as one: count your connected accounts first, and if the number is under about 25, buy AgencyAnalytics, Swydo, DashThis, or ReportGarden instead and revisit Whatagraph when your portfolio has grown into the price.
Read the full Whatagraph profileReportGarden profile last reviewed 2026-08-23; Whatagraph last reviewed 2026-08-23. Pricing is compiled from public sources and can change without notice. See our methodology.