It’s normal to notice differences between Pathmonk analytics and other tools like Google Analytics, HubSpot, or Meta Ads.
These discrepancies don’t mean that your data is incorrect, they happen because Pathmonk uses a different tracking method designed to give you a more complete and privacy-friendly picture of your visitors.
Below, you’ll find the main reasons why numbers may differ and what they actually mean.
1. Pathmonk uses fingerprint technology, not cookies
Unlike most analytics tools, Pathmonk doesn’t rely on cookies or consent banners to track visitors.
Our fingerprint technology recognizes users through anonymous browser and device signals, so we can identify every single visitor, even if they:
Reject or clear cookies
Use private browsing modes
Visit from multiple devices
This often results in higher and more accurate visitor counts than cookie-based tools, which can only track users who’ve accepted cookies.
2. Bot traffic
Pathmonk identifies and filters a higher number of bots than other analytics sources.
This can affect your monthly visitor count, especially if your site receives a significant amount of automated traffic.
By default, bots are not included in any buyer journey data.
If a large number of bots are detected, Pathmonk’s visitor numbers may differ from tools that don’t filter them as precisely.
We still track this bot trafic, though it doesn't count towards your subscription pageviews. You can check your bot traffic anytime under Analytics → Dashboard → Bot Traffic.
3. Unique visitors vs. total visitors
Pathmonk tracks unique visitors, not total sessions.
If someone visits your website multiple times, even through a new browser session or search, Pathmonk recognizes them as the same returning visitor. Their sessions are automatically combined into a single fingerprint, giving you a more accurate view of how users behave over time, rather than counting every visit as a new person.
Was this article helpful?
That’s Great!
Thank you for your feedback
Sorry! We couldn't be helpful
Thank you for your feedback
Feedback sent
We appreciate your effort and will try to fix the article