Services Keep it healthy
something is wrong but i cannot see what
SEO audit services for sites that stalled
from $120SEO audit services that name what is blocking your rankings and indexing, sorted by what to fix first. The same checks run across 740+ sites, in plain English.
What's included
- Full crawl and index-coverage check
- Redirects, canonicals, robots, and sitemap issues
- On-page gaps, thin pages, and duplicate content
- Core Web Vitals and mobile problems
- A prioritized fix list, not a data dump
- A walkthrough so you know what each item means
Price
The audit is diagnosis only, so the price does not change much with site size. Fixing what it finds is quoted separately, and you are free to hand the report to anyone.
Most audits are a 300-line export that no one ever acts on. Mine is a short list of what is actually wrong, in the order that will move the needle, in plain English.
I crawl the whole site, cross-check it against Search Console, and separate the problems that cost you traffic from the noise. You get the list, the reasons, and the fixes. If you want, I will do the fixes too.
When an audit is the right purchase
Audits fit two situations. Something broke and you do not know what, or you are about to spend on content or ads and want to know the foundation will hold. Both share a shape: the money at stake is larger than the cost of looking first.
If you already know the symptom, buy the fix instead. Pages missing from the index is a named problem with a named service. Slow pages are a named problem. An audit is what you buy when the symptom is that the graph went down and nobody can say why.
More than one audit has turned into a monthly plan once the owner saw the list. That is not the goal of the exercise, but it is what tends to happen when the findings turn out to be a maintenance failure rather than a one-off break.
What gets checked, and in what order
The technical SEO audit checklist is the list I work through, published in full, in the order I run it. It is public deliberately: an audit whose method is a secret is a report you cannot argue with.
Findings come back in two piles rather than one severity list, because the two are bought differently and by different budgets. Technical SEO vs content SEO explains that split and how to work out which pile your site is actually short on.
What the quote depends on
What the quote depends on is written up in SEO audit cost, and what you get back is shown in the SEO audit report sample rather than described. Both exist so you can judge the work before paying for it, and so you can compare a quote from me against a quote from anybody else on the same terms.
Size matters less than you would expect. A 40-page site with three migrations behind it takes longer than a clean 400-page catalogue, because the work is in the history rather than in the page count.
Working remotely
I run audits from Pakistan for clients in the UK, the US, Australia and 59 other countries. Everything happens through Search Console, a crawl and a written report, so the whole method leaves a trail you can check line by line. There is nothing in this service that a site visit would improve.
Tell me the domain and I will quote the audit.
- step 1 · crawlA full crawl of the site, cross-checked against Search Console coverage and performance data.
- step 2 · rankFindings sorted by what actually costs you traffic, not by how easy they are to list.
- step 3 · handoverA plain-English report with the fixes in priority order. You action it, or I quote the fixes and do them.
before you ask
Common questions.
What do I actually receive at the end of an audit?
A short written report, in priority order, with each finding stated as a problem rather than as a metric. Every item says what is wrong, which URLs it affects, why it costs you something, and what the fix is. Findings arrive in two piles, the technical ones and the content ones, because they get actioned by different people and usually out of different budgets. What you do not get is a three-hundred-line crawler export with a severity colour on each row, because nobody has ever acted on one of those.
Who does the fixing once the audit is done?
Whoever you want. Plenty of clients hand the list to their own developer, which is why it is written to be readable by someone who is not an SEO. If you would rather not manage that, I quote the fixes separately once the list exists, so you are deciding on real work rather than on an estimate made before anyone looked. Splitting it this way also means the audit stays honest: I am not incentivised to find work.
Do you audit sites you did not build?
Almost all of them are sites I did not build, and that is the normal case rather than an exception. It does mean the first pass is partly archaeology: working out what previous plugins, migrations and consultants left behind. Old redirect chains, a stray noindex from a staging site, two sitemap systems running at once. Those are frequently the actual finding, and they are only visible to someone who did not make them.
Should I start with an audit or go straight to indexing?
If the specific symptom is that pages are missing from Google and you already know which ones, indexing is the cheaper and more direct route and an audit would be a detour. An audit is the right first step when the symptom is vague: traffic slid and nobody knows why, or you are about to spend real money on content and want to know the foundation will hold it. Vague symptom, audit. Named symptom, fix the named thing.
What happens if the audit finds nothing seriously wrong?
You get told that, in writing, which is a genuinely useful outcome even though it feels like a waste of a fee. A clean technical result usually means the problem is elsewhere: not enough content on the topics you want, or content that exists but does not answer the query as well as page one does. That is a different budget and a different plan, and knowing which of the two you are facing is most of the value of looking.
Everything else I run.
Get found
Build and fix
Keep it healthy