Link/Search Tracking Websites - Huge Variance in Results

[PROFRBcom]

Have you ever noticed that depending on whether you use Semrush or Majestic or Ahrefs or whatever the variance in reported information is HUGE?

For example, here is Semrush vs Ahrefs for our main site:


Pretty huge difference right? One reports almost 4x as much traffic as the other!

PRO TIP: Use this to your advantage when talking to your AMs or potential... show them the site that casts your website(s) in the best light

[Nocturnalant]

Their keyword databases might differ from each other as well as KW volume values. Plus they might use defferent CTR coeffecients, for example.

[wonderpunter]

None of them ever right either..

[Adamovich]

These tools like Semrush and Ahrefs basically try to 'guess' search engine's ranking algorithm and replicate it to offer analytics to website owners. Obviously, none of these tools are spot on, and it makes sense because they have no way to verify their results unless the owner of every website they have in their database gave them access to their Google Analytics

From my experience, some tools are 'better' in estimating actual results according to what users says when comparing the results to their work and actual website data. For example, Ahrefs is said to be one of the best in keyword research and estimating ratings while being WAY OFF in traffic estimation. That's where Semrush is better. I think it all comes down to what you need most for yourself.

Myself for example, I'm not interested in traffic numbers, because I get exact results from Google analytics. But I appreciate ratings and estimations for keywords, because I can't get that data on my own. So I use Ahrefs and ignore traffic data

[chaumi]

+1 with Adamovich

I believe the only fairly accurate way to be sure is real time tracking with recent history stored/visible ....though open to being proved wrong.

[PROFRBcom]

Their keyword databases might differ from each other as well as KW volume values. Plus they might use defferent CTR coeffecients, for example.

Yes, this is exactly my point. Due to differences in estimations, algos, databases, these figures vary a HUGE amount.

Meaning a lot of this data is poor quality and should only be used, if at all, for general guidelines.

None of them ever right either..

So true. I have yet to see anything close to our analytics... which is both a blessing and a curse.

[baldidiot]

None of them ever right either..

They never will be, they can't take into account sharp changes in data fast enough (ie: interest for euro 2020 now v next month) so even if they had the correct CTR and volumes unless they had access to real time trends the numbers will always be off.

Plus they don't count the minor, (ie: <10) terms which collectively make up for a pretty big proportion of searches.

Just take it more as a rough comparative guideline than an absolute figure.

[CHIC21]

Yes. The difference is very big. I agree with Adamovich's. I also use a separate tool for different tasks. backlinks - ahrefs, Keys - semrush, General analytics - similarweb...