On-Page SEO Checker

Paste the page URL into the checker above and add the keyword you want it to rank for. It reads the page and reports on the title, meta description, headings, keyword usage, images, links and technical basics, marking each as a pass, a warning or a fail with the rule behind the verdict.

A tool that reads a single page and reports whether its on-page elements follow accepted practice. On-page means everything you control on the page itself: the title, the headings, the content, the images and the internal links. It does not cover backlinks or anything else off the page.

It automates a checklist. Rather than viewing source and counting characters by hand, it extracts the elements that matter, measures them against known thresholds, and tells you which ones are outside those thresholds. What it cannot do is judge whether your content is any good, which is the part that decides most rankings.

Start with the page and the keyword together, because half the checks are meaningless without a target. Run the audit, fix everything marked fail, then decide which warnings matter for your page. Re-run to confirm. Then do the part no tool does for you: read the pages currently ranking and ask whether yours is genuinely more useful.

The checker above gives one out of 100, calculated from the checks that actually ran. It is useful as a before-and-after comparison on the same page. Treat it as a progress indicator rather than as a number with meaning of its own, since every tool computes its score differently.

It is fine, and it matters less than which checks are failing. A page at 75 with a solid title, one clear H1 and good content is in better shape than a page at 90 that is technically immaculate and says nothing. Look at the failures, not the total.

On-page checks tell you the page is not making obvious mistakes. Whether your SEO is good is answered by whether you rank and whether the traffic converts. Use this tool to remove the mechanical problems, then use rankings and Search Console impressions to judge whether the content itself is competitive.

For a single page and a target keyword, the tool above does the job free with no account. For continuous site-wide monitoring, the paid crawlers from the large vendors are the right instrument, since they track hundreds of pages over time. Use the free tool for a page, a crawler for a site.

There is no single best one, because they check similar things and disagree mainly on scoring. What varies more usefully is whether a tool takes a target keyword. Many do not, which means they can only report generic hygiene rather than whether the page is optimised for the term you care about.

Everything on the page you control: the title tag, meta description, URL, headings, body content and how it uses your keyword, images and their alt text, internal links, and technical elements such as the canonical tag and mobile viewport. Backlinks and domain authority are off-page and are not covered here.

On-page is what you change on your own page: content, headings, tags, structure. Off-page is what happens elsewhere and points back at you, mostly links and mentions from other sites. On-page you control completely, off-page you can only influence. This tool covers the first, and our Backlink Checker covers the second.

Nothing breaks. Google truncates the display with an ellipsis, so anything past roughly 60 characters may not be visible in results. The whole title is still read for relevance, so the cost is to clicks rather than ranking. The exact cut-off is measured in pixels, not characters, which is why 60 is a guideline rather than a hard limit.

There is no hard maximum. The practical limit is display width, about 600 pixels, which works out at roughly 60 characters for typical text. Titles in all caps or full of wide letters get cut sooner. Put the important words first and the truncation stops mattering.

Between 120 and 155 characters, which is what this tool checks against. Under 120 leaves space unused, and past about 155 Google truncates. As with titles, the real limit is pixel width, so treat the number as a guide rather than a rule.

It gets cut off in results, and Google may also decide to write its own snippet from the page instead. That is not a penalty and it happens routinely even with good descriptions, since Google rewrites snippets to match the query. Keeping to the length simply improves the odds that yours is the one shown.

One H1 naming the page's topic, H2s for the main sections, H3s for subsections beneath them. Use them in order and do not skip levels for styling reasons. Headings serve readers first, and search engines read them as an outline, which is why a well-structured page tends to be a well-understood one.

There is no fixed limit, unlike the title tag, because the H1 is not truncated in results. Keep it clear and specific, typically 20 to 70 characters. It usually resembles the title tag without needing to match it exactly, since the title is written for the search result and the H1 for the person already on the page.

Between roughly 0.5% and 3%, which is what this tool flags against, and the honest answer is that it is not a lever worth pulling. Density is a symptom rather than a cause: content written properly about a topic lands in that range without anyone aiming for it. The check exists to catch stuffing, not to set a target.

Yes, in two ways. It makes images accessible to people using screen readers, which is the main reason to do it, and it gives search engines text describing an image they cannot otherwise interpret, which can bring image search traffic. Describe the image plainly. Alt text stuffed with keywords helps nobody.

The alt attribute on an image tag, holding a short text description of what the image shows. It is read aloud by screen readers and displayed when an image fails to load. For decorative images an empty alt is correct, since it tells screen readers to skip them, and this tool counts an empty alt as intentional rather than as a failure.