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 Skeptic
Every limit I look for is stated and checkable: 10,000 URLs on Lite, 500,000 default with a documented raise to 2 million, 10 million on Cloud, a 10-second TTFB default, configurable render timeout and threads — with JavaScript rendering via headless Chrome and daily, weekly or monthly scheduling. Canonical and robots diagnosis goes deep — non-self-referential canonicals, canonicals pointing at noindexed URLs, conflicting robots declarations across head, header and robots.txt — alongside structured-data validation on Pro and audit comparisons to catch regressions between crawls. We found no public information on log-file analysis, crawl-budget analysis, or the basis on which the 300+ prioritised hints are ranked. 1 2 3 4 7 8