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
The onpage tool states real page caps per plan (50,000 rising to 500,000, with paid extensions published) and checks HTTP headers, images, click depth, duplicate content and pagespeed via YSLOW and Google Pagespeed, with a JavaScript crawler the pricing page itself flags as an unlimited beta. The Advisor delivers prioritised to-dos, which is more than a bare list. We found no public information on log-file analysis, indexation or canonical diagnosis against Search Console data, or structured-data validation — the diagnostic layer that would lift this above a well-equipped checklist. 2 5 9