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 crawler runs on a schedule with tiered monthly URL limits, JavaScript rendering described as based on the same technology as the official Googlebot, and issue categories — broken links, duplicate content, missing structured data — sorted by importance with change counts between crawls. Core Web Vitals are measured from both lab and field data, with daily Lighthouse measurements stored permanently and downloadable as raw JSON. We found no public information on log-file analysis, indexation or canonical diagnosis, or prioritisation by traffic impact, so the audit reads as a well-sorted list rather than a diagnosis of what Google actually fetched. 2 3 4