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
The Site Audit engine is real: documented modules for crawlability and indexability, canonicals, structured data, mobile parity and rendering, Core Web Vitals judged against Google's published good and poor bounds at the 75th percentile, Search Console data referenced in the workflow, and multi-million-page crawling on the Enterprise tier. We found no public information on log-file analysis, regression detection between crawls, or whether issues are prioritised by traffic impact rather than count — the captured pages promise a prioritized fix list without stating the ranking basis. Strong enough to bill clients against, a step short of diagnostic. 4 2 8