Enter your URL for a free SEO audit of your homepage, instantly - no sign up, no account. Then run the full site-wide audit we run on our own 10+ production sites: 180+ technical checks plus PageSpeed. First audit free, then $9 one-time - not a $100+/mo subscription.
Instant, free, no account needed. We check your homepage on the spot.
Not a one-page checker. We crawl your whole site and report issues by severity, grouped so you can fix the root cause once.
Every broken internal and outbound link, redirect chains, and broken redirects across the site.
Accidental noindex, canonical errors, and pages that quietly fell out of Google's index.
Missing, duplicate, too long or too short - the basics that still move rankings.
JSON-LD errors and missing fields that block rich results in search.
Slow pages, unminified assets, and full PageSpeed metrics per URL.
Sitemap and robots issues that stop search engines from crawling you correctly.
Confirm ownership with DNS, a meta tag, or a file.
We crawl your pages and score your technical SEO health.
Work top issues first, re-run, and track your progress.
You do not have to. The big SEO suites charge $100-250 every month and build their tools around keywords and backlinks, treating technical health as a side feature. Kalenux SEO Audit is built for whole-site technical health, is free to start, and then costs a one-time $9-49 in credits that never expire, with no subscription.
Free covers several different arrangements, and knowing which one you are looking at matters more than the word itself. The distinction is almost always about cost per crawl, because that is the number that scales with your site rather than with the tool.
A single-page check is cheap to provide: one request, some parsing, a result returned. That is why instant per-URL checks are widely free and usually need no account. A site-wide crawl is a different economic proposition, because auditing ten thousand pages means ten thousand requests plus the storage and processing behind them.
This is why free tiers put their limits where they do. The cap is usually on URLs per crawl, crawls per month, or how much history you can keep, and the one that matters is whichever your site is about to hit. A five hundred URL cap is irrelevant on a small site and immediately blocking on a mid-sized one.
Three questions separate tools that stay useful from tools that stop being free at the moment you need them. Does the free tier crawl your whole site or only a sample. Does it keep history, so you can prove that a fix worked rather than only seeing today. And does it export, so the findings can leave the tool and reach whoever will actually make the changes.
History is the one people underestimate. A single audit tells you the state of the site now. Two audits with the difference between them tell you what your work changed, which is both more actionable and the only honest way to report progress to anyone else.
Google Search Console is free without qualification and shows something no crawler can: what Google actually did with your pages, including which are indexed and which queries you appear for. It is reactive, reporting on crawls that already happened, so it complements rather than replaces an on-demand crawl. PageSpeed Insights is similarly free and authoritative for Core Web Vitals on a per-URL basis, and the Rich Results Test validates structured data against what Google can actually use.
Between them these cover indexing reality, performance and schema validity at no cost. What they do not do is crawl your whole site on demand and compare runs, which is the gap a crawler fills.
Report quality varies more than price does. A useful one tells you what is wrong, where, and what to change; a weak one shows you a score and asks for your email.
Findings grouped by cause, not a list of pages. A raw export of four thousand rows is not a task list, it is a reason to close the tab. Almost every large count collapses when grouped: a missing meta description on eight hundred pages is usually one template that does not emit one, and a broken link on two hundred pages is one dead URL in a shared footer.
It should also name the specific URL for every finding, state what was expected against what was found, and rank by impact rather than listing everything at equal weight. A report that says "improve your meta descriptions" without naming which pages has moved the work to you rather than doing it.
Treat any single number as a prompt, not a verdict. Scores are weighted sums chosen by whoever built the tool, so the same site legitimately scores differently across two products and neither is lying. A score is useful for tracking one site over time and close to meaningless for comparing two.
Watch the denominator too. Two hundred pages missing a description means something different on a 250-page site than on a 40,000-page one, and a report quoting the count without the total is telling you less than it appears to.
Commonly at sampling: the report covers a handful of pages rather than the whole site, which hides exactly the template-level faults that matter most. Others withhold the URL list, so you get counts you cannot act on, or offer no export, so nothing reaches whoever will make the change.
History is the other frequent omission, and the one people notice last. Without a previous run to compare against, you can see the state of the site but never demonstrate that your work changed it, which is the only evidence anyone else will accept.
Instant per-URL checks genuinely need no account: one request, some parsing, a result. A full crawl is asynchronous by nature, since it can take minutes to hours, so it needs somewhere to send you when it finishes and something to attach the history to.
That is the real trade, rather than a paywall in disguise. If you want one page checked now, use a no-sign-up tool. If you want the whole site crawled and compared over time, an account is what the comparison is stored against.
No credit card. Create an account and run your first crawl.
Run my free SEO audit