Seodar.io VS Canva

Seodar.io's answer

Two things. First, the audit ends in a ranked to-do list rather than a spreadsheet: 195 technical checks produce one health score, and every finding is ordered by how much score it returns for the effort involved, with the affected pages named and plain language on why it matters and what to change. Second, AI visibility: Seodar asks ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Perplexity about your site and keeps their answers, the verdict from each engine and the sources each one cited, so you can see whether assistants can find you at all. Accessibility is unusual here too - axe-core against WCAG 2.2 A and AA runs inside the same crawl, on every plan including the free one.

Seodar.io's answer

Because it shows its arithmetic. The health score is 100 minus weighted penalties and the breakdown is on screen; every finding names the pages it came from; competitors are crawled on your own schedule and scored by the same checks, so the comparison is measured rather than borrowed from a third-party index. It also refuses to promise what nobody can: Seodar will not tell you that a fix will move you up the results. It tells you what is wrong, how much of your site it affects, whether the sites ahead of you have the same problem, and whether AI assistants can find you. Plans run from free to EUR 199 per month, which is a fraction of the enterprise platforms that combine SEO, accessibility and monitoring in one place.

Seodar.io's answer

The person who owns the fixing rather than the reporting: in-house SEO and marketing teams, developers who inherited a site they did not build, and agencies that have to explain the work to a client. The Agency plan is built for that last group, with client seats, white-label reports and scheduled delivery. Site size is not the dividing line - the free plan covers one small site, and the top plan crawls up to 20,000 pages per scan across 30 sites.

Seodar.io's answer

Next.js 16 with React 19, TypeScript and Tailwind CSS 4 on the front end. Python 3.12 with FastAPI for the API, and arq for the background workers that run crawls, rank checks and scheduled reports. Playwright driving Chromium does the crawling and rendering, which is what makes checks against a fully rendered page and axe-core accessibility testing possible. PostgreSQL 17 with pgvector for storage and Redis 8 for queues and caching. The AI features call the Anthropic API. Everything runs in Docker behind Traefik, with Cloudflare in front.

Seodar.io's answer

I built it out of frustration. Across several startups the hardest part was never fixing the problems - it was seeing exactly what they were, with the evidence spread across Google Search Console, Bing Webmaster Tools, Cloudflare and a handful of separate tools that never quite lined up. The idea was to spare other founders that: one place covering the whole life cycle of a site, with 195 technical checks, accessibility and AI visibility side by side.

The product that came out of it is opinionated in one way: every number has to be traceable to what produced it. The score shows its arithmetic, each finding names the pages it came from, and the tool will not claim that a fix will move you up the results, because nothing can honestly claim that. What it does tell you is what is wrong, how much of your site it affects, whether the sites ahead of you have the same problem, and whether AI assistants can find you at all.