Enter a URL and the checker runs roughly fourteen on-page checks against the live HTML — title, meta description, headings, image alt text, canonical, viewport, structured data and more — returning a 0–100 score with prioritized fixes.
Pro tip: Re-run after each fix so you can watch the score climb and confirm the issue cleared.
Each run evaluates a fixed panel of on-page signals and assigns weighted points to each. The heaviest weights sit with the fundamentals: the title tag (with a bonus for a sensible 30–65 character length), the meta description, a single clear H1, the viewport tag, whether the page is indexable rather than carrying noindex, and image alt-text coverage across the images it finds.
Lighter-weighted checks round out the picture: HTTPS, supporting H2 subheadings, a canonical tag, content depth by word count, an Open Graph title, the HTML lang attribute, a declared favicon, and JSON-LD structured data. Every check reports a Strong, Partial, or Missing status with a short detail such as the actual title length or alt coverage percentage.
The earned points from all checks are added together and clamped to a 0–100 scale, then mapped to a letter grade: A from 90, B from 80, C from 70, D from 55, and F below that. Because the checks are weighted, fixing a missing title or restoring indexability moves the number far more than adding a favicon. The result also surfaces a short, ranked list of priority fixes, ordered by how many points each gap is costing you.
This number is a triage aid, not a Google ranking and not a promise of one. It looks only at on-page markup and deliberately ignores off-page factors such as backlinks, domain authority, search intent, and how competitors are doing for the same query. A page can score in the nineties here and still rank poorly if the content does not match what searchers want, and a lower score simply points to fixable on-page hygiene. Treat it as a checklist with weights, not a verdict on whether you will rank.
Not every check is worth the same. The title tag carries up to twelve points, with full credit when the title runs roughly 30 to 65 characters and reduced credit when it exists but sits outside that range. The meta description, image alt coverage, and content depth are each worth up to ten points — the description scores in full at about 70 to 165 characters, alt coverage scales directly with the percentage of images that have alt text, and content depth steps up at roughly 100, 300, and 600 words. HTTPS, a single clear H1, the viewport tag, and indexability are each worth eight points.
The lighter checks fill in the rest: a canonical tag and supporting H2 subheadings, an Open Graph title, JSON-LD structured data, an HTML lang attribute, and a declared favicon each contribute a smaller share. Because the weights differ this much, restoring a missing title or fixing an accidental noindex moves the number far more than adding a favicon — which is exactly why the priority-fix list is ordered by the points each gap is costing you.
Start at the top of the priority-fix list, since it is already sorted by impact — the items there are the cheapest points on the board. Confirm the page is indexable before anything else, because an accidental noindex both zeroes a high-weight check and, more importantly, keeps the page out of search entirely. Aim your title and meta description at their full-credit ranges rather than just making sure they exist, and raise alt coverage by writing genuine descriptions for meaningful images instead of stuffing keywords. Remember that content depth is a blunt word-count signal: clearing the 600-word tier earns the points, but it is no substitute for actually answering the searcher's question well.
This number is a triage aid, not a Google ranking and not a promise of one. It looks only at on-page markup and deliberately ignores off-page factors such as backlinks, domain authority, search intent, and how competitors are doing for the same query. A page can score in the nineties here and still rank poorly if the content does not match what searchers want, and a lower score simply points to fixable on-page hygiene. Treat it as a weighted checklist, then judge content quality and relevance separately.
Only the URL you enter is sent to our edge, which fetches the page once and inspects its HTML to run the checks. The page content is not stored, and because the request is anonymous, only publicly reachable pages can be scored.
Input: https://example.com/guide/keyword-research
Output: SEO score 88/100 · Grade B · Checks passed 12/14. Priority fixes: Structured data (none found) and Canonical tag (missing).
Strong fundamentals; adding JSON-LD and a canonical are the cheapest remaining wins.
Input: https://example.com/untitled
Output: SEO score 46/100 · Grade F · Checks passed 4/14. Priority fixes: Title tag (missing), Meta description (missing), Image alt coverage (20% of 15 images).
A missing title and description are the highest-weighted gaps and should be fixed first.
Input: https://example.com/landing/new
Output: SEO score 71/100 · Grade C · Checks passed 10/14. Priority fixes: Indexable (noindex present) and Content depth (180 words).
The noindex is the urgent fix — it keeps an otherwise solid page out of search entirely.
No. It is a weighted heuristic based purely on on-page signals in your HTML. It does not consider backlinks, authority, search intent, or competition, so a high score is hygiene confirmation, not a ranking guarantee.
Fourteen, spanning HTTPS, the title, meta description, a single H1, H2 subheadings, viewport, canonical, indexability, image alt coverage, content depth, Open Graph, HTML lang, favicon, and JSON-LD structured data.
A title that exists but falls outside the roughly 30–65 character sweet spot earns reduced points. Tightening it into that range claims the remaining points for the title check.
The final 0–100 score maps to a grade: A from 90, B from 80, C from 70, D from 55, and F below 55. The grade is just a label on the same number, so improving the score is what moves the letter.
No. It audits the single URL you enter. Run it again on each page you want scored, since results apply only to the HTML returned for that one address.
It will not. Clearing the checks removes on-page obstacles, but rankings also depend on content relevance, links, and competition that this tool does not measure.
Our editorial and data-source notes explain how each check works and where estimates come from.