Unitix.pro's answer

They are the tools an Amazon agency built for its own specialists and then published, unchanged and free, rather than a limited trial of something we sell.

Each one answers a single question and stops. The listing audit tells you what to fix first and what it costs you to leave it. The keyword tool tells you how much of a search term the three products Amazon names already hold. The inspector tells you which phrases Amazon names your product on at all. There is no dashboard to learn and no seat to buy.

Nothing asks for an account, a trial or a Seller Central connection. You paste a public ASIN or a phrase and read the answer, and every result copies as a link that reopens the same check for whoever you send it to.

mbuzz.co's answer:

Every attribution tool runs a model under the hood and reports its number like it came from physics. mbuzz is the only one that shows the model. Eight of them side by side, plus a SQL-like DSL to edit or write your own. You stop arguing about which channel works and start arguing about which model you should trust.

Unitix.pro's answer

For most of what a subscription suite does, they should not, and we would rather say so than pretend otherwise. A keyword database with a volume column against every phrase, bulk export, historical archives, product research and supplier tools are real needs, and they are reasons to pay for one of the established products.

Choose these when the question is narrower than a workflow:

• You want one listing scored before a meeting, with the findings ordered by what each costs rather than by where it sits on the page.
• You want to know whether a search term has room in it before you bid, and who the three products taking its clicks actually are.
• You want to see which phrases Amazon names your product on at all, which is a shorter list than most sellers expect.
• You want this week's organic position next to last week's, without setting up a project first.
• You want to hand a colleague or a supplier a link that reopens the same check, rather than a screenshot.

And the practical reasons:

• Free, with no account. No signup, no trial, no card, no seat.
• No Seller Central connection. Nothing is asked for and nothing could be granted. Any public ASIN works.
• Built by people who use them. These are the checks UNITIX specialists run on client accounts, published as they are rather than as a demo of something else.

mbuzz.co's answer:

Dreamdata, HockeyStack, and Northbeam all ship with a proprietary "data-driven" model you can't see inside. You pay $1,400–$5,000 a month to trust their math. mbuzz runs eight models you can inspect, lets you edit the logic in a SQL-like DSL, keeps your data exportable on every plan, and starts at $0. For a $1–100M company spending $20K–$1M a month on ads, that's the difference between renting an attribution tool and owning an attribution stack.

Unitix.pro's answer

Amazon sellers and brand owners who run their own advertising and listings, and the people working alongside them: in-house marketplace managers, freelancers and agency specialists.

The common thread is a specific question rather than an ongoing workflow. Someone checking a competitor before a call, sizing up a search term before committing budget, or working out whether the listing or the campaigns are the reason sales moved.

Sellers deciding whether a paid suite is worth it use them too, which we are comfortable with.

mbuzz.co's answer:

Technical marketers, marketing ops, growth engineers, and data-savvy CMOs at startups and mid-market SaaS, DTC, fintech, and healthtech companies spending $20K–$1M a month on paid media. Specifically the ones who've stopped trusting their dashboard — who want to audit the math themselves, not hear "trust our algorithm."

Unitix.pro's answer

They started as internal checks. UNITIX specialists run client accounts, and the same questions came up on every one: is the listing the problem or the advertising, does this phrase have room in it, where did this product rank last month.

Those checks lived in scripts and spreadsheets for a long time. Turning them into pages anyone could open was mostly a matter of building the interface, and once that existed, keeping them behind a signup form did not make sense to us.

The agency's work is running accounts. The tools are the part of it that costs nothing to give away.

mbuzz.co's answer:

Years of wrestling with the limitations of various existing solutions, platform-inflated ROAS, and enterprise attribution tools that cost more than the budgets they were measuring. Every tool I tried picked one model and hid the math. I wanted to compare models, argue with them, and write my own rules — so I built one. mbuzz is the attribution platform I wished existed when I was trying to explain channel performance to a CFO who didn't believe the Meta pixel.

Unitix.pro's answer

Next.js and TypeScript, server-rendered on Node. The tools run as server routes rather than in the browser, which is why they work without an account and without anything installed.

mbuzz.co's answer:

Ruby on Rails (backend + dashboard), PostgreSQL, Sidekiq for background jobs, Stimulus/Turbo for the frontend. Open-source SDKs in Ruby, Node, Python, and PHP. Deployed via Kamal on DigitalOcean.

Unitix.pro's answer

The tools are free and used anonymously, so there is no customer list to publish. UNITIX Agency's own clients are under NDA and appear as anonymised case studies by category at unitix.pro/case-studies.