Full site crawl
Every indexable and non-indexable URL, checked for status codes, canonicalization, duplicate content, and crawl accessibility.

Diagnosis
Not a fifty-page export from a crawling tool. A written diagnosis, prioritised by effort and impact, that your team can act on with or without us.
Most SEO audits are a tool export with a logo on the cover page. Ours is a written document, produced by a person who read the crawl data, cross-referenced it against your analytics, and made judgment calls about what actually matters for your site versus what is technically true but functionally irrelevant.
The point of an audit is to answer one question honestly: what is capping this site's organic performance right now, in order of how much it is costing you. That means separating the issue that is quietly suppressing every page on the site from the issue affecting eleven pages nobody links to. Both are real. They are not equally urgent.
We run this as a standalone engagement as often as we run it as the front end of a longer program. You keep the document either way. If you want to hand it to an internal team or another agency and implement it yourselves, that is a legitimate use of the work and we say so upfront.
The output is built to survive scrutiny. Every finding is backed by the crawl data, the log data where we have it, and the Search Console and analytics numbers behind it, so nothing in the document is an opinion dressed up as a fact.
What it is
The audit covers both the technical layer and the content layer, because a site can fail at either one independently.
On the technical side we crawl the full site for indexation status, canonicalization, redirect chains, status code errors, duplicate content, XML sitemap accuracy, robots directives, and Core Web Vitals. Where log files are available, we review them directly to see what crawlers are actually spending their budget on, which is more reliable than inferring it from a third-party crawl alone.
On the content side we evaluate topical coverage against demand, thin or duplicate pages, title and meta patterns, heading structure, internal link distribution, and how well existing pages match search intent for the terms they are trying to rank for. We also review the backlink profile for both opportunity and risk.
The written deliverable organizes every finding under a clear heading, states the evidence, states the impact, and states the fix. Findings are grouped by page template or issue type rather than listed as a flat, unordered list of a hundred items, because that is how the work actually gets assigned and fixed.
Prioritization runs on two axes: effort to fix and expected impact. A one-line canonical tag fix that unblocks indexation on thousands of pages sits at the top. A content rewrite on a low-traffic page sits near the bottom. We show our reasoning on both axes so you can challenge it if you disagree.
Fit
We would rather say no early than sell a program that cannot work.
Deliverables
One written document, organized so it can be acted on immediately.
Every indexable and non-indexable URL, checked for status codes, canonicalization, duplicate content, and crawl accessibility.
Every issue documented with the evidence behind it, from Core Web Vitals problems to broken redirect chains and orphaned pages.
An evaluation of topical coverage, thin content, and how well existing pages actually match what people are searching for.
Every finding ranked by effort and impact, so your team knows what to fix first without guessing.
An assessment of the existing link profile for both untapped opportunity and any risk that needs cleanup.
A live session to walk through the document, answer questions, and align on what happens next, whether that is with us or internally.
How we run it
Roughly two to three weeks from kickoff to delivered document, depending on site size.
We get read access to Search Console, analytics, and the CMS where possible, and confirm which sections of the site are in scope.
Full site crawl plus a pull of historical Search Console and analytics data to give findings real context rather than a single snapshot.
Findings get grouped, evidenced, and ranked by effort and impact. This is the step that separates a written audit from a raw tool export.
You get the document in advance of a live session, so the meeting is spent on questions and decisions rather than a first read.
A full technical crawl, a content and intent review, and a backlink assessment, compiled into a written document that ranks every finding by effort and impact. It is a diagnosis you can act on directly, with or without continuing into implementation.
Where this connects
The audit sets the agenda. These are the programs it typically leads into.
When the top findings are structural, they get resolved through a foundational SEO build rather than a patchwork of individual fixes.
Narrower crawlability and indexation issues without a full architecture rebuild are handled under technical SEO as a more contained scope of work.
If the finding is that content does not match demand, the next step is usually keyword research to rebuild the topical map from actual search behavior.
An audit also flags where competitors are simply better positioned, which is the specific question answered in competitor analysis as its own deliverable.
If Core Web Vitals or rendering issues show up as top findings, the fix frequently sits in application frontends since those are frontend engineering problems wearing an SEO label.
Questions
You keep the document whether or not you continue with us.