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 Data Analyst
The homepage explicitly markets fixing technical website errors ('Löse technische Website-Fehler effizient') with Web Performance and Qualitätssicherung among its seven pillars, so an audit capability clearly exists. But no page limits, crawl schedule, JavaScript rendering, Core Web Vitals detail, or Search Console/log-file comparison is stated anywhere — I'm crediting that the crawler exists and nothing more. 1