Design skin
Display
Start with the kind of upside you want to investigate, then open the existing tool that can test it. This is a curated router, not an audit result: it has not analyzed a site, found an opportunity, or estimated anyone's upside.
This is a precomputed public report — filters and sorting run in your browser, and nothing you enter is sent or stored. This page does not analyze a site. Each destination explains its own input handling and evidence limits. Anonymous run-level outcome counters may be used for aggregate research; URLs, domains, IPs, and identifiers are never included, and no statistic is released below 100 runs.
Workflow registry last reviewed Jul 18, 2026.
Find pages, queries, and topics where observed search or competitor data supports a next step.
Rank pages using striking-distance queries, CTR gaps, and stable-ranking decline signals.
Turn a GSC export into filters, segments, and page-query views that expose useful patterns.
Compare supplied competitor keyword exports to find topics competitors cover and your site may not.
Separate queries into overlap and coverage groups using the paid and organic data you provide.
Estimate where stronger organic coverage could plausibly reduce reliance on paid clicks.
Compare a target with supplied competitors and identify bounded high-overlap claims that lack visible first-hand artifacts.
Model which known ranking keywords could plausibly explain the page-level gap in a supplied GSC export.
Identify numerical, comparative, or research-style claims with missing, aging, unreachable, or suspicious citation evidence.
Use observed page relationships to plan internal links and redirect destinations.
Visualize topical clusters and identify candidate connections supported by the URLs and links supplied.
Build a reviewable source-to-destination map for URLs being moved, consolidated, or retired.
Use technical evidence to identify improvements, without treating every detected issue as valuable work.
Run a bounded crawl to collect technical findings that may support an improvement opportunity.
Validate supplied markup and distinguish errors, limitations, and eligible enhancement candidates.
Join supplied sitemap membership, current crawl signals, and a GSC Page Indexing export to expose URLs that need investigation.
Goal: Find pages that may deserve an update.
Evidence: Comparable GSCA free Google service that reports how a site performs in Google Search and surfaces problems with how Google crawls, indexes, and serves it. It's first-party data straight from Google — but you don't need it to appear in results. page and page-by-query exports, with a prior period when decline matters.
Action: Open “Which Pages Should I Work On?”, review the contributing queries, and validate intent before editing.
Verification: Compare the next equivalent reporting window without treating one modeled score as a guarantee.
No. It routes you to free tools that can evaluate specific inputs. A card is a workflow choice, not a claim that your site has that opportunity.
The destination tool needs site-specific evidence, a meaningful target, and an action with plausible upside. Warnings without that evidence remain issues, configurations, or observations.
A workflow appears here only when a public tool can gather the evidence needed to evaluate it honestly. The router does not invent traffic, revenue, or ranking upside.
Yes. Every workflow on this page opens an available free tool on this site; no signup is required.
Upvote what you want most. New ideas can be submitted from the floating Feedback menu; requests appear here once approved, and the most-wanted rise to the top.
You won't be emailed about that request anymore.
Loading…
New requests are reviewed before they appear here.
Where this tool helps
Start with content, link, or technical upside and route directly to the free tool that can gather the evidence needed to evaluate it.
Compare quick-win, query-pattern, content-gap, paid-versus-organic, and citation workflows before deciding which supplied dataset can support the next action.
Find the workflow for evaluating topical link relationships or building a reviewable source-to-destination redirect map without assuming every possible connection is useful.
Route to crawl, structured-data, or indexation-evidence tools while requiring page importance, intended state, and verification before prioritizing remediation.
Watch the full workflow
If you want to improve your SEO but you are not sure which analysis to run, the SEO Opportunity Finder can point you in the right direction. I will show you the main use cases, how to read each option, and how to continue with the right free tool.
This page is a tool chooser. It does not scan your website or tell you that a problem definitely exists. Instead, you start with the SEO result you want, such as improving content or internal links, and the page points you to a free tool that can help you investigate it.
This is useful when you know the goal but do not know which tool to use. Common examples include deciding which pages to update, finding internal-link ideas, planning redirects, or choosing technical SEO work. Each option tells you what data you need and what to do next.
Before choosing anything, notice this important difference. An issue is something that might be wrong. An opportunity is work that has supporting data, a useful target, and a reasonable chance of helping. A warning by itself does not prove that fixing it should be a priority.
The content section helps with questions about pages, queries, competitors, and search demand. For example, you can find pages that may need an update, compare topics with a competitor, or review which claims need stronger sources. Choose the card that matches the decision you are trying to make.
Every card follows the same simple layout. The title tells you the goal. The short description explains what the tool checks. "Evidence needed" lists the data you should have, and "Next action" explains how to use the result. The link at the bottom opens the matching tool.
The links section covers two common jobs. One option helps you explore how pages are connected through internal links. The other helps you match old URLs with possible redirect destinations. These tools suggest relationships for you to review; they do not decide that every suggestion is correct.
The technical section points to tools for crawling a small set of pages, checking structured data, or comparing indexing information. A technical warning matters only after you confirm that the page is important and that the current behavior is not what you intended.
Here is a complete example. The goal is to find pages that may need an update. The required data comes from Google Search Console, including page and query exports from comparable time periods. Next, open "Which Pages Should I Work On," review the queries behind each page, and confirm the search intent before editing.
The same five-step process works for every option. Choose your goal. Check which data is required. Run the suggested tool with information from your own site. Review the pages, queries, or URLs behind the result. Then decide whether the likely benefit is worth the effort, and verify the result after making a change.
There are a few important limits. This page has not analyzed your website, so seeing a card does not prove that the opportunity exists for you. It also does not estimate traffic, revenue, or ranking gains. The destination tool gives you evidence to review, not a guaranteed recommendation.
To get started, choose one card that matches your goal and make sure you can provide the data it asks for. Open the tool, keep date ranges and filters consistent when comparing data, and inspect the supporting pages or queries. After you make a change, use the same method to check what happened.
That is the SEO Opportunity Finder. Choose the result you want, make sure you have the required data, and open the suggested tool. Review the evidence before making a change, then check the result again after the work is complete.