Same rubric. Different findings do the damage.
There is one product and one 129-check rubric. What changes between these is which failures dominate, and every page below ends by saying where the fit is bad.
Designed for
These three are named in the product brief as the audiences it was built around.
Enough pages that cannibalization and crawl waste are real costs, and no in-house SEO engineer.
Read → Agencies and consultantsAudit-to-merge as a repeatable retainer deliverable rather than a bespoke project each time.
Read → Small technical teamsTechnical enough to merge a pull request, uninterested in becoming an SEO.
Read →Also applies to
Segments where the rubric does real work, written from what it actually finds on that kind of site rather than from a persona.
A rubric that shows its working, and a coverage figure you can defend in a meeting.
StartupsFind out why organic traffic never started, before you spend on ads to compensate.
EnterpriseRead this before you start a procurement process: several answers are no.
Not built yet E-commerceComing soon: the catalogue-specific checks are not built.
Not built yet PublishersArchive-scale corpora, where overlap and decay compound quietly.
NonprofitsThe free scorecard is a complete diagnostic and costs nothing.
Higher educationSprawling multi-department sites where nobody owns the whole domain.
Who it is not for
Teams who want a fully autonomous agent with no review step. The loop stops twice and asks, by design. If the value you are buying is that nobody has to look at it, the gates will feel like friction for as long as you use the product, and they are not going away.
Also a poor fit for a site with a handful of pages and no publishing cadence. Most of what the rubric catches (crawl waste, cannibalization, coverage gaps) needs enough surface area to be worth automating. The free scan will tell you that for nothing.