WooRank alternatives: how I tested them
This is the material behind the WooRank alternatives comparison. In September 2026 I ran the free version of every tool I could use without an account on two public sites whose defects I had listed beforehand. I make CometWeb Insight, one of the tools compared, so keep that in mind when you read the results. Everything you need to repeat the test is in this folder.
What I looked at
WooRank sells quick SEO reviews, a site crawl and client reports, so I wanted to know which tools do the same job, what each finds on a real site and what it costs. I picked two homepages with opposite profiles: danluu.com, a bare engineering blog, and allbirds.com, a well-built Shopify store. Before any tool ran, I checked each defect with curl (headers, HTML, robots.txt, redirects) and in a browser.
| Site | Real defects | Correct items (reporting one is a false alarm) |
|---|---|---|
| danluu.com | 9: no title, H1, meta description, canonical or lang; http:// answers 200 without a redirect; no favicon; none of six security headers; robots.txt is an unrendered Jekyll template | few: viewport, sitemap and HTTPS itself |
| allbirds.com | 8: two-hop redirect chain; no Referrer-Policy; no Permissions-Policy; a CSP that only upgrades requests; HSTS of about 91 days; no Cache-Control on the page; no JSON-LD; a 714 KB HTML document | 12: title, H1, meta description, canonical, lang, favicon link, viewport, HTTP to HTTPS, HSTS, CSP, X-Frame-Options and X-Content-Type-Options present, hreflang, doctype, an alt attribute on every image |
The 13 images on allbirds.com with alt="" don't count as a defect. An empty alt is right for decoration, and only a person can tell whether each image is decorative.
A tool got 1 point when its report named a defect and 0.5 when it mentioned the fact without calling it a problem or covered only part of it. Reporting a correct item as broken counted as a false alarm. Anything I couldn't reproduce stayed out of both columns and is described in the run notes. The comparison page shows whole numbers and counts a partial hit as found, with a note under the chart, so SEOptimer's 2.5 and Seobility's 1.5 on allbirds.com appear there as 3/8 and 2/8.
Results
I didn't create accounts, start trials or pay for anything.
| Tool | How I ran it | Result |
|---|---|---|
| SEOptimer | free report at seoptimer.com/<domain>, "View Live Audit" | danluu.com 7/9; allbirds.com 2.5/8 with 1 false alarm. My second report of the day already showed a daily-limit message. |
| Seobility | free SEO Checker, standard mode without JavaScript | danluu.com 6/9; allbirds.com 1.5/8 with 1 false alarm. 3 checks a day without an account. |
| WooRank | woorank.com/en/www/<domain> without an account | a teaser of a stored review from October 2023, with 2 of 79 checks visible. A fresh review needs signup. |
| Sitechecker | free checker on the homepage and on /on-page-seo-checker/ | no report in two attempts |
| SE Ranking, SiteGuru, Insites | need a trial, an account or a demo | described from vendor pages only |
| CometWeb Insight | my account, "Single page", Standard level, which is the scan the free plan includes | danluu.com 8/9; allbirds.com 4/8 with 0 false alarms |
Insight's Standard level has no security module, which starts with the Complete level on the Growth plan. A free account gets one Standard audit a month, so repeating both runs on a free account takes two months.
What I fixed in Insight during the test
The first Standard run on danluu.com scored 6/9. The checks for the HTTP redirect and the favicon existed, but their results never reached the report. I fixed that the same day, and the fix briefly caused two false alarms on allbirds.com, which I also fixed before the day was over. That later run was the first to report the redirect chain.
Every run on allbirds.com that day also reported "3 images with no alt attribute". At first I left it unscored as unconfirmed. The next day I traced it to an unrendered Vue template in the cart modal, so it was a false alarm, and I fixed Insight to ignore such markup. I then reran Standard on both sites: danluu.com 8/9 and allbirds.com 4/8, with no false alarms. The comparison page reports those reruns, and every run is in runs-danluu/ and runs-allbirds/.
Insight Complete, outside the free comparison
I also ran Insight's Complete level on both sites. It needs the Growth plan and adds the security module and an OWASP ZAP scan. It found 9/9 on danluu.com and 8/8 on allbirds.com, with 0 false alarms on the 12 correct items. I don't compare it with the other tools, because I ran those only at their free level. My agency page quotes it, because agencies start on a paid plan.
Prices
Prices come from each vendor's own pricing page, in USD on monthly billing as shown to US visitors. Some vendors switch currency by IP, and Seobility shows EUR by default. In a second, separate pass I checked 49 vendor claims live: 46 held up, 3 were ambiguous because the vendor's own pages disagree, and none were wrong. The details are in factcheck.md. I didn't use G2, affiliate blogs or review sites as sources.
What this data can't tell you
- Two homepages are a small sample. A tool that misses a defect here may catch it elsewhere, and the other way round.
- SEOptimer tests from US servers, and allbirds.com may serve a regional variant there, so I left its claim that the page uses schema unscored.
- I tested free levels only. Paid plans of the other tools may find more.
- Tools and prices change, so check again before you rely on these numbers.
Files
results.csv: the score for each tool and siteanswer-key-danluu/answer-key.mdandanswer-key-allbirds/answer-key.md: what each site really has, with the headers androbots.txtI saved- run notes for danluu.com, defect by defect: Insight Standard, Insight Complete, Insight Comprehensive, SEOptimer, Seobility, WooRank, Sitechecker
- run notes for allbirds.com: Insight Standard, Insight Complete, SEOptimer, Seobility
vendor-sources.json: prices and features with the vendor page for eachfactcheck.md: the second check of every vendor claim
To repeat it, run each tool on both homepages and score the reports against the two answer keys.