Launched this week
Connect Google Search Console, Google Analytics, import your Ahrefs or Semrush lists, and crawl your site on 200-point technical SEO Audit. CrawlRaven joins all four and hands back a ranked plan: what to write, what to update, what to fix first.
CrawlRaven
How about GEO？
CrawlRaven
@ivory_xuxuxu We do not have GEO or AI SEO yet.
CrawlRaven
@ayushtweetshere Thanks Ayush!
Been in SEO space for 10 years now.
My workflow moved between duplicating and changing filters across tab, joining multiple Sheets just to get the right insights. I have longed for something like this. The existing tools never changed my workflow, but this one did.
Super excited to share it with the amazing guys at Product Hunt!
Looking forward to your feedback and support
@ayushtweetshere Hey, pulling GSC and GA4 into one place is the boring problem nobody wants to solve. When I've worked with SEO agencies the crawl reports were always 200 issues long with no sense of which five actually moved traffic. Does CrawlRaven rank findings by likely impact, or is prioritizing still on me?
CrawlRaven
@artem_fedorovich Yeah, the "200 issues, no idea which five matter" report is exactly what we were sick of. Every finding gets an impact score from 0 to 100, and your list sorts by it, so the top of the page is the handful worth doing this week. The score comes from your own numbers: how much real search demand a term has and how close you already are to winning it.
Note: Search Console is live today, GA4 and the crawl audit are coming next.
CrawlRaven
@tehreem_fatima5 Daily. CrawlRaven pulls fresh Search Console data every day for every site, and the decay and cannibalization detectors re-run on each sync. So a page that starts slipping shows up in your list within a day or two of the trend appearing, not weeks later when it's already fallen off page 1.
Raakesh, the ranking by impressions and closeness to page 1 is the part that caught me, because it also shows where a model like this can struggle.
I run SEO for a niche B2B product in healthcare. My highest-intent terms show zero or missing volume in every tool and barely register in Search Console, since only a few hundred people a month search them at all, yet those are the ones that convert. A prioritizer built on demand would push them straight to the bottom.
Can I weight a keyword up by hand, or mark a low-volume term as high-value, so the ranked plan does not bury the long tail a small market lives on?
CrawlRaven
@clemente_lopez1 I agree with your use case. I have similar experience. Highest intent terms often show very minimal data in GSC. We have plans to add controls for the user where they can decide how they want to prioritise. Consider this added to roadmap.
@aditi_chaturvedi Aditi, that means a lot, thanks for putting it on the roadmap.
Reading the rest of the thread, Raakesh mentioned a 50-impression floor and skipping anything past position 20. My convert-but-low-volume terms sit under both, so a manual weight only saves them if it overrides those floors too, not just the sort order. Otherwise they get filtered out before the ranking ever sees them.
The version I would pay for is a protected list: terms I mark by hand that stay in the plan no matter what the demand signal says. Would that fit how you are picturing the control?
200-point technical audit is a specific number worth unpacking. Is that 200 distinct checks across categories like indexability, Core Web Vitals, structured data, internal linking, and so on, or is it more like a marketing number that counts variations of similar checks? Screaming Frog and Sitebulb also run extensive technical audits, curious what CrawlRaven's crawl catches that those tools typically miss or under-weight.
CrawlRaven
@ansari_adinThe crawl is what we're building next, so I won't pretend a 200-check spec sheet exists today. That number comes from our v1, which was a full technical SEO crawler before we rebuilt around Search Console data.
I'm not trying to beat Screaming Frog or Sitebulb on check count. We're building the part they leave to you: ranking each finding by whether it hits a page that actually gets traffic and sits close to a win. A broken canonical on a dead page and one on your top traffic page look the same in most crawlers. We tell you which to fix first, using your GSC data.
So what we catch that they miss is the impact ranking. Happy to send you the real breakdown once it ships.
@rakesh_rry The broken canonical on a dead page versus a top traffic page distinction is exactly the right problem to solve, most crawlers hand you a list and leave the triage entirely to you.
the impact-ranking questions are all covered well, but I'm more curious about the white-label report narratives since that's the part agencies will forward straight to non-technical clients without necessarily editing the wording. a plain-English "why" for a ranking drop or a prioritized fix is easy to state confidently even when the real cause is multiple overlapping factors. is there anything that keeps the generated narrative hedged when the underlying data doesn't clearly support a single-cause story, or is that something the agency has to catch themselves before sending it out?
CrawlRaven
@galdayan We are still working on this feature. It will be available to all users soon. The idea is that we share data and key insights in the report. Consider this like a data backed executive summary. The "why" is often nuanced and subjective. Such claims will not be included in the reports.
@aditi_chaturvedi got it, that answers it actually - if a nuanced/multi-cause "why" just gets left out entirely rather than stated with false confidence, that's the safer default for something agencies forward untouched. does the report still surface the underlying signals in that case (so the agency can write their own why), or does it just show the ranked fix with no narrative at all when it's not confident enough to include one?
LottieFiles
The move from 'here's your data' to 'here's the prioritized plan' is the right one — merging GSC + GA4 + a backlink import is exactly the manual stitching most of us do by hand every week. Two questions from someone who lives in this stack: (1) content-decay detection leans on GSC, which lags a few days and drops/anonymizes low-impression long-tail queries — how do you keep those reporting gaps from surfacing as false decay signals? (2) for cannibalization, are you clustering on actual SERP/URL overlap or on keyword-string similarity? The intent-vs-string distinction is where most tools get it wrong.
CrawlRaven
@reallynattu Decay vs. GSC lag: the importer only pulls finalized days. It requests through yesterday; Google's API returns nothing for the 2-3 days still settling. No guessed buffer.
Decay scores at the page level, not per query, summing clicks across every query hitting that page — a few long-tail queries dropping from GSC's anonymization barely move a page total.
Cannibalization: Currently we have exact keyword-string match today, not SERP overlap. A conflict fires when one query splits across pages, gated by total demand and the runner-up's share.
It doesn't check whether the ranking URLs actually overlap on the SERP. It doesn't cluster near-duplicates either — "tag extractor," "tags extractor," and "youtube tag extractor" show up as three rows in our own output, though one page owns all three.
String match is where tools get it wrong. SERP/URL overlap clustering is next.
MonoCloud for Startups
Congrats on the launch! The cannibalization detection caught my eye. I'd pay for that alone if it works well, because everyone knows two of your own pages end up competing for the same keyword, and nobody checks it regularly since it means exporting everything and cross-referencing by hand.
One question, what happens when the keyword list itself is stale? Does the tool flag keywords that stopped mattering, or does it take the list as given?
Upvoted, will try it on our site this week.
CrawlRaven
@roguetink You will be able to see ranks, positions and pages for any given keyword. It recommend how to target keywords and in what priority
CrawlRaven
@roguetink Thanks. Cannibalization was one of the original itches, my cofounder's agency was doing exactly that export-and-cross-reference routine you describe.
On stale keywords, the list isn't taken as given. Every keyword is matched against your live Search Console data, which refreshes daily, so one that stopped mattering shows its real current numbers. And you can mark any keyword as ignored, it drops out of your working list without being deleted, so the list stays clean.
An automatic "this keyword is dead" flag isn't there yet, but it's a really good idea. Would love to hear what it finds on your site this week.