Feasible vs Matomo

Matomo has been going since 2007 and does more than everything else in this comparison combined. Heatmaps. Session recording. A/B testing. Form analytics. A tag manager. Custom dimensions, roll-up reporting, a server-log importer, a plugin marketplace, on-premise deployments with real support contracts.

We do none of that. Read the concession section before you read the prices, because on features this isn’t close.

Price

From Matomo’s pricing page, read September 3, 2026. Matomo publishes in euros; the USD figures are theirs, from the same page. Annual billing is ten times monthly.

Annual USD, list price, before tax.

At a million a month, Matomo Cloud is $2,040 a year and Feasible is $99. Twenty times. But that comparison is unfair to us, and here’s why.

A hit isn’t a pageview

Matomo doesn’t bill for pageviews. It bills for hits, and its own FAQ defines one as “a single interaction sent to Matomo and processed for reporting or analysis” - page views, events, downloads, outlinks, site searches, content tracking and crashes. (Heartbeat timers used to measure time on page don’t count, which is fair.)

So turn on download tracking and outbound-link tracking, which most sites do, and one pageview can send two or three hits.

Our unit is narrower, though not as much narrower as we’d like to claim. We count pageviews and custom events, and downloads and outbound clicks are custom events, so they land on our meter too. Site searches and content-tracking requests don’t, because our script never sends them.

Work it through. A documentation site doing 400,000 pageviews a month, with 150,000 outbound clicks, 50,000 file downloads and 400,000 site-search and content-tracking requests, is at a million hits. That site is on Matomo’s $2,040 tier. On our meter it’s 600,000 - pageviews, clicks and downloads - against a million. $99.

The lesson isn’t that our number is always the small one. It’s the check worth running on any two prices in this market: find out what the number on the pricing page counts.

Self-hosting

Matomo’s core is GPL-3.0 and free to self-host. That’s genuine, and it’s the reason Matomo runs on a large share of the privacy-conscious web.

Two things follow that people miss.

The features that make Matomo Matomo are proprietary and sold separately. Funnels, heatmaps, session recording, A/B testing and form analytics are premium plugins under the InnoCraft license. Since 2025 they’re sold as On-Premise bundles, and the cheapest one - Team, up to 4 users and 5 million hits a month - is €2,750 a year on Matomo’s pricing page. Business is €14,500.

It needs a real server, and a cron job you have to watch. Matomo’s own requirements page recommends 2 CPUs and 2 GB of RAM up to 100,000 pageviews a month, and 4 CPUs and 8 GB up to a million, plus a second server above that. Their developer docs are blunter still: with more than 500 page views a day you should disable browser archiving and set up CLI archiving. And their archiving FAQ says your “most important job as an administrator will be to check weekly, or daily, for any messages which arise during the archiving process.”

Feasible self-hosted is one Go binary and one SQLite file, on 1 core and 512 MB of RAM. No PHP, no MySQL, no archiving cron, no plugin licenses. Every feature is in it, because there’s only one build.

We’re not claiming SQLite is a better database than MySQL for analytics - that’s not the argument. The argument is that there’s one process and one file, and nothing to tune.

The script

Measured September 3, 2026 with gzip -9:

About fourteen times. Reproduce with curl -H 'Accept-Encoding: identity' <url> | gzip -9 | wc -c.

Some of that weight is Matomo doing more - heatmap and session-recording capture have to live somewhere. It’s still 46 KB on every page load.

Side by side

Where Matomo wins

Almost everywhere on features, and it isn’t close.

Depth. Visitor logs, visitor profiles, custom dimensions, hundreds of segments, ecommerce reporting, goal attribution across dozens of models, roll-up reporting across properties. If someone in your organization asks a question you didn’t anticipate, Matomo probably answers it. We probably don’t.

The premium plugins. Heatmaps, session recording, A/B testing and form analytics are things we don’t have and haven’t announced. If any of them is on your list, this comparison is over.

Enterprise fit. SSO, on-premise deployment with a paid support contract, twenty years of compliance paperwork, and the fact that public-sector procurement in Europe already knows the name. We have none of that either.

A lighter copyleft license. Matomo’s core is GPL-3.0. Ours is AGPL-3.0 - same family, but AGPL adds a network clause GPL doesn’t have. On that specific axis Matomo asks less of you than we do, and it’s worth knowing if your company’s policy cares.

Your data sits in Europe on Matomo Cloud. We’re in Oregon.

Where Feasible wins

Matomo has more reports than we do by a wide margin. It doesn’t have this one.

Feasible counts every event it drops and gives each drop a named reason - bot, datacenter_ip, referrer_spam, outdated_browser, automation, hostname_not_allowed, shield_ip, rate_limited and more - on a health screen per site, for the last 24 hours.

It shows which client address it resolved for your last request and from which header, and it warns you when your reverse proxy isn’t forwarding visitor addresses. That’s the misconfiguration that silently collapses every visitor into one and geolocates your whole audience to your datacenter. A button fires a real test event through the public URL, so it exercises your proxy and headers the way a browser would instead of calling an internal function and reporting success.

Nobody else in this comparison publishes a counted, reasoned drop log. If you’ve ever spent a morning working out why your numbers halved on Tuesday, that’s the feature.

Which one to pick

If what you look at is traffic, pages, sources, countries, devices, goals and funnels - and you’d like the bill to be $99 and the server to be one file - then the twenty-times difference is buying you reports you don’t open.

That’s the whole pitch. Matomo is a bigger tool. Some people need a bigger tool.

More: the whole price ladder, or what’s in Feasible with the gaps listed plainly.