Crawl and index coverage
A full crawl set against what Search Console reports as indexed. The interesting number is the gap: pages that exist, are crawled, and are refused. That gap usually explains more than anything else in the report.
Most audits are a tool export with a logo on the front: four hundred issues sorted by severity, which tells you nothing about which three are costing you money. Ours is a diagnosis. We crawl the site, compare it against what Google has actually indexed, check what you already rank for and whether AI assistants can find you, then rank the findings by what fixing them is worth.
Thanks, that’s with us.
A senior engineer reads every enquiry and will reply as soon as they can.
Book a time that suits you, or send a message on WhatsApp.
Free
No obligation
1,000+
Clients served
UK
Registered company
4.6/5
Rated on Clutch
Quick answer
An SEO audit is a diagnosis of why a site is or is not earning search traffic. A good one answers three questions in order: can search engines reach and index these pages, do the pages answer questions people are actually asking, and is there enough external credibility for them to be trusted. Most audits skip straight to the second and assume the first is fine.
The difference between a useful audit and a tool export is prioritisation. A crawler will happily report four hundred issues. Perhaps five of them are costing you anything. The work is in separating causes from symptoms, and in being willing to tell you which findings are not worth fixing.
We also check something most audits still do not: whether AI assistants can find and quote you. Buyers increasingly ask ChatGPT, Copilot or Google's AI before they look at a list of links, and being invisible there is a separate problem from ranking badly.
You get the findings in writing with the evidence behind each one. If the honest conclusion is that search is not your constraint, or that paid search would serve you better right now, that is what the audit will say.
What is checked
Eight areas. Not every site has a problem in every one, and the report says plainly where we found nothing worth reporting.
A full crawl set against what Search Console reports as indexed. The interesting number is the gap: pages that exist, are crawled, and are refused. That gap usually explains more than anything else in the report.
What the page contains after JavaScript runs, compared with the raw HTML. Framework sites routinely serve crawlers an empty shell while looking perfect in a browser, and nothing else in the audit matters if this is wrong.
Largest Contentful Paint, layout shift and interaction delay, measured on mobile where the thresholds actually bite. We separate what is your code from what is your tag manager, because the fixes are different.
How authority flows through internal links, which pages are orphaned, and whether templates are generating near-duplicates that compete with each other. On large sites this is where most of the lost value sits.
Whether the pages you have match the intent behind the queries you want, where you are ranking on page two with real volume, and which pages are better consolidated or retired than improved.
For businesses that trade somewhere specific: Google Business Profile completeness, categories, citation consistency and review flow, and whether you appear in the map pack for the searches that matter.
Whether AI crawlers are allowed, whether your pages contain anything quotable, whether your structured data confirms it, and whether third-party sources corroborate what you say about yourself.
Whether your company resolves to one consistent entity across your site, your schema, your directory profiles and your press, or whether a model has several competing versions to choose between.
The gap
The difference between the audit you have probably had before and this one.
Already had an audit that did not change anything?
That is the usual outcome, and it is normally a prioritisation failure rather than a diagnostic one. Send us the old report with the site and we will tell you which of its findings were actually worth acting on.
In practice
Six findings we see repeatedly. These describe recurring patterns, not named client engagements.
A noindex tag, a robots rule or a canonical left pointing at a staging domain after a launch, quietly excluding a section of the site. Cheap to fix, invisible without comparing the crawl against what Google reports, and often years old.
A framework site that renders client-side and serves an almost empty document to anything that does not execute JavaScript. The page looks perfect in a browser and contains nothing a crawler can index.
Pages built over the years for variations of the same search, splitting internal links and leaving Google to pick. Consolidating them with proper redirects usually recovers more traffic than writing anything new.
Queries sitting between positions eleven and twenty with meaningful impressions. Strengthening an existing page that already ranks there is almost always cheaper than building a new one for the same term.
Analytics, advertising and session-recording scripts loading before the stylesheet and pushing the main content back by seconds on mobile. The site's own code is often fine; the tag stack is not.
Pages that rank adequately but contain no direct answer to the question being asked, no structured data to confirm it, and no corroborating third-party source. The site is findable and still never cited.
How it works
No call required to start, and no obligation at the end.
The URL, and what you are trying to sell. If you can say which queries matter commercially, say so, because it changes what we look at first. Read-only access to Search Console helps a great deal but is not required.
A crawl, an indexation comparison, a rendered-DOM check, Core Web Vitals on mobile, structured data, internal linking and an AI visibility check. We look for causes, not for a long list of symptoms.
In writing, ranked by what fixing each is worth, with the evidence attached so you can check the reasoning. Including the items we recommend not bothering with, and why.
Take the report to your own team, to another agency, or ask us to implement. The findings are yours regardless. If the honest answer is that search is not your constraint right now, the report will say that instead.
Clear scope · Regular demos · Full handover
Honest fit
An audit is a diagnosis. It is worth doing when you do not know the cause, and a waste when you already do.
How this differs
Three things sold under the same word. The differences are worth knowing before you commission any of them.
| Automated tool report | Typical agency audit | This audit | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who produces it | A crawler, automatically | An account manager from a crawl | The engineer who would fix it |
| Prioritisation | By the tool's severity scale | By severity, usually | By what the fix is worth |
| Rendering checked | Rarely | Sometimes | Always, against the raw HTML |
| Indexation gap | Not compared | Sometimes compared | Compared directly with Search Console |
| AI search | Not covered | Mentioned | Checked and reported separately |
| Cost | Free or low | Often four figures | Free, findings yours either way |
Sectors
Large, templated or recently migrated sites, where a single decision can affect thousands of URLs at once.
FAQ
What people ask before sending us a URL. If yours is not here, put it in the form.
Still have a question?
Ask us directly. A senior engineer reads every question.
Ask about your projectYes. You get the findings in writing with the evidence, and they are yours whether or not you work with us. We do it because a diagnosis is the honest basis for proposing work, and because it filters out the engagements where we would not have added value anyway.
The website address and a sentence about what you sell and to whom. Read-only access to Google Search Console makes the audit considerably more useful, because it shows what Google has actually indexed and what you already rank for, but it is not required.
Crawl and indexation coverage, rendering, Core Web Vitals on mobile, site architecture and internal linking, structured data, content against search intent, local visibility where relevant, and AI search visibility. Each finding carries the evidence and an estimate of what fixing it is worth.
Those tools produce an excellent list of issues sorted by their own severity scale. They cannot tell you which three of four hundred findings are costing you money, they rarely check what the page looks like after JavaScript, and they do not assess whether AI assistants can quote you.
Yes, and it happens. If your market has no search volume, if your site is already clean and the constraint is authority, or if you need enquiries faster than organic search can deliver, the report says so and names the honest alternative instead.
Yes, as a separate section. We check whether AI crawlers are permitted, whether your pages contain direct answers a model can lift, whether structured data confirms them, and whether independent sources corroborate what you claim about your own business.
Yes, though there is no obligation. We are a software company, so the same engineers who find the problems can make the changes, in your codebase or ours. Many clients take the report to their own developers instead, which is a perfectly good outcome.
It will tell you which problems are quick removals of an obstacle and which require building authority over months. It will not give you a date for a ranking, because that depends on competitors and on Google, and anyone quoting one is guessing.
Usually because the findings were never prioritised by value, so they went into a development backlog and stayed there. Send us the old report along with the site and we will tell you which of its recommendations were actually worth acting on.
Yes. Most of the work is the same wherever the business trades, and we work with clients across Europe, North America and the Middle East. Local search and language targeting are the parts that change, and the report covers them where they apply.
Start here
A senior engineer reads every enquiry. You will get questions back if something is unclear, the findings when they are done, and an honest view on whether search is the right channel for you at all.
Thanks, that’s with us.
A senior engineer reads every enquiry and will reply as soon as they can.
Book a time that suits you, or send a message on WhatsApp.