Compare topic coverage
Semantic groups on both sites show which topics are deeper, thinner, or missing. You are looking at the shape of the content system, not a handful of ranking pages.
Both crawls keep their pages, topics, and internal paths attached, so a gap is never just a missing keyword.
Put two crawls side by side, see where coverage and structure differ, then turn the real gaps into work — not a list of URLs to copy.
Semantic groups on both sites show which topics are deeper, thinner, or missing. You are looking at the shape of the content system, not a handful of ranking pages.
Page types, depth, substance, and internal paths explain why a competitor’s coverage holds together. The difference is often the supporting pages, not the headline article.
Useful opportunities become a content and linking plan tied to pages from both crawls. Copycat lists stay out; the recommendation has to point at evidence.
Find subjects a competitor supports more completely, with the pages that prove it.
Compare templates, hubs, and internal paths across both sites.
Keep every recommendation grounded in real pages from both crawls.
Example questions include: Show me internal linking opportunities, Audit this site, Where should I start?, Find pages competing for the same intent, What changed since the last crawl?.
Crawl a site, then ask what needs attention.
free to start