Are the values realistic or marketing-optimised?
Set conservatively. We use the lower end of public industry studies on search share and conversion uplift. The Eywora reality at comparable shops is typically clearly better, but that is not what we use here.
How binding are the numbers?
Non-binding. It is a model projection, not an assurance. The actual impact in your shop depends on catalog depth, data quality, search-traffic share and industry. We can make binding statements after a test on your own data in the 14-day trial.
Why a 17.5% search share and 5% loss?
So the model also shows a realistic lower bound for shops with little search traffic. In B2B the search share is often 25-40%; we use 17.5% and set the loss from failing searches at a flat 5% of total revenue. Those with a higher share see correspondingly higher figures in practice.
We have not measured search traffic. How do we estimate it?
In the fit-check we measure it together with your analytics data. If none is available, we estimate via industry median and confirm the assumption after 7 days of Eywora tracking.
How exactly is the added revenue achieved?
Through three mechanisms: fewer zero-result sessions (typos, synonyms), better result ordering (semantic re-ranking), and higher conversion on the results (visual + context-aware variants). Which mechanism kicks in hardest in your shop, we see after 14 days of testing.
Is the ROI reduced by Eywora costs?
Yes. The ROI values shown in the example cases include Eywora licence costs (Growth plan or enterprise estimate). Net of cost.