Reviews
Part of How should a buyer score the evidence behind SEO tool claims?
How to source every claim in an SEO tools comparison
A working method for SEO tools comparisons: name a source for every claim, fix the billing unit first, and record what the evidence cannot prove.
What to take away
A team in Bristol shortlisting three rank trackers will see the same phrasing on every pricing page for SEO tools. What separates the suppliers is the evidence behind each claim.
- A product comparison holds up when every row names a source a colleague can reopen and date.
- Vendor pages are good evidence for scope and price. They rarely prove performance on your own site.
- Cost rows must fix the billing unit first, because a seat and a credit are not the same thing.
- Keep every source in one register, or the comparison expires without anyone noticing.
Start with the claim, then find the source
Write each row as a claim before you hunt for proof. "Tracks daily positions across named locations" is a claim. The vendor's plan page may be a fair source for it. The vendor's blog is not a fair source for a claim about ranking uplift.
Sort claims before sourcing
Is the claim about what the tool does?
cite vendor solution page
it is a results claim, no primary source
Sort claims into two kinds: what the tool does, and what it achieves. Only the first normally has a primary source you can cite.
Vendor solution pages document scope well. The technical SEO solutions page from Semrush lists the issue types the product is built to find. That is enough for a scope row and not enough for a results row.
Every row carries three fields
Claim, source, date read. A row claiming that a tool lists the issue types it is built to find, sourced to the Semrush technical SEO solutions page and dated the day you read that page, can be reopened by a colleague. The same claim sourced to a vendor blog post cannot.
A comparison also needs a scoring rule before anyone publishes a verdict. Our reviews and comparison methods guide sets out how to grade evidence so two reviewers reach the same score.
Fix the billing unit before comparing cost
Licence comparisons fail when two suppliers bill different things. One charges per seat, another per credit, a third per thousand API calls. Convert every quote to a monthly figure for the same workload, then compare.
Where a vendor publishes API pricing, that page is the right citation for cost, because the unit is defined there. Moz sets out its plans on the Moz API pricing page, which lets a buyer put a credit-based price beside a seat-based one.
For example, a team paying £400 a month for five seats is not comparable with a credit plan until you estimate how many credits that workload would consume. Write the assumption beside the number.
Match each claim to the right source
Most comparison tables mix evidence types without saying which is which. Separate them and the table becomes defensible.
Where vendor documentation is enough
Scope, supported integrations and plan limits are safe to cite from vendor documentation, dated on the day you read it. Release notes are the better source for a change in behaviour.
Where you need an independent source
Performance and crawling behaviour need a source the vendor does not control. Crawling is the clearest example. A supplier may state that its crawler follows directives. Google's own documentation on how Google interprets the robots.txt specification describes how those directives are read.
Where nothing independent exists, mark the row as unverified instead of deleting it. An unverified row still tells a reader what to test in a trial.
Our SEO tools selection checklist covers the practical steps after the scoring decision, from licence terms to the data handling questions worth putting to a supplier. For UK buyers, the named authority on those answers is the Information Commissioner's Office, which upholds the Data Protection Act 2018 and the UK GDPR.
Glossary of comparison terms
- Billing unit
- the thing you pay for, such as a seat, a credit or a thousand API calls.
- Primary source
- the document that sets the rule or the price, such as a vendor pricing page.
- Secondary source
- someone else's summary, useful for orientation rather than citation.
- Source register
- a dated list of the URLs and documents behind each comparison row.
Common questions
How many sources does each row need?
One good primary source per row is enough for scope and price. Performance rows need a source outside the vendor, or a note that the claim is unverified.
Can I cite a vendor case study as evidence?
No. A case study shows what happened for one customer, chosen by the supplier. Treat it as a starting point for questions.
How often should I recheck prices and sources?
At each renewal, and sooner if a pricing page or release note changes. Date every entry so an out-of-date figure is visible.
Does a free trial count as evidence?
Only if you record what you tested, on what data and when. Your own results are primary evidence for your site, not for anyone else's.
