Crawling & technical audit
How this is scored
Site crawling at real scale: what the crawler finds, how deeply it checks, whether Core Web Vitals and indexation problems are diagnosed rather than merely listed.
0 — No site crawler; the product is keyword data only.
3 — A crawler with a low page cap that reports broken links and missing tags, with no prioritisation and no rendering of JavaScript.
5 — Scheduled crawls at a stated page limit, JavaScript rendering, issue categories with severity, and Core Web Vitals pulled per template.
8 — Log-file or Search Console integration to compare what the crawler sees against what Google fetched, indexation and canonical diagnosis, structured-data validation, and issues prioritised by traffic impact rather than count.
10 — The audit is diagnostic rather than a list: crawl budget analysed, rendering differences surfaced, regressions detected between crawls with the deploy that caused them inferrable, and remediation guidance specific enough for a developer ticket.
The Agency Owner
Weekly Rogerbot crawls at published page caps of 100,000 to 1,250,000 pages per week, issue categories with "Moz Recommends Fixing" guidance and new-issue alerts between crawls, and Lighthouse-style Core Web Vitals rated for mobile and desktop with weekly re-analysis and ninety days of history put this at the scheduled-crawl level. We found no public information on JavaScript rendering, Search Console or log-file comparison, structured-data validation, or canonical diagnosis, so the deeper diagnostic layer rests on nothing I can verify — and the vendor's own help pages say the crawlers run from North America, an accuracy caveat for my European sites. 2 4 5