An SEO audit that ends in a fix list, not a PDF

AED 7,500 to AED 30,000 covers most of what we are asked to build. The number moves on how many URLs and templates, whether log file analysis and international hreflang are in scope, how many languages, and whether the audit covers one site or a group. Anything quoted before those are known is a guess. We scope first, then price, and the scope document is yours whether or not you proceed. These are market ranges rather than a fixed rate card — the proposal carries the real figure.

A full one, roughly every twelve to eighteen months for a stable site. More often than that and you are mostly re-reading the same findings, because the previous list has not been implemented yet. The exceptions are worth knowing: audit before and after a migration, after a redesign, and when traffic drops without an obvious cause.

Two to three weeks for most sites. Large e-commerce catalogues or multi-market groups run longer. If we are waiting on Search Console access or server logs, that is usually what extends it, so both are worth arranging in week one.

Google Search Console and Analytics as a minimum, ideally read-only. Server logs and staging access make the audit substantially better. We can work without them and the crawl-budget section becomes inference rather than evidence, which we will label.

The observation that a small share of pages and fixes drives most of the result. It is broadly true and it is why prioritisation matters more than completeness. Treat it as a reason to sequence work rather than as a law — the specific 20 percent is different for every site, and finding it is what the audit is for.

No, but the shape of it has changed and anyone telling you otherwise in either direction is selling something. AI answers and zero-click results have taken a real bite out of informational traffic. Commercial queries, where someone is choosing a supplier, still go through a results page. The practical response is to stop measuring success in sessions and start measuring it in qualified enquiries.

Yes. Cannibalisation, thin pages, and the gap between what you have published and what your buyers search for. In practice the content findings often outrank the technical ones commercially, which surprises people who expected a technical document.

A written document with the findings traced to causes, a prioritised fix list with estimated impact and developer hours per item, the items we recommend skipping with reasons, and a working session with whoever implements it.

That is what it is written for. If they have questions afterwards we will answer them, and we offer a re-check once the work ships to confirm the fixes landed as intended.

The audit will not. Implementing it might. That distinction matters, because an audit that sits unimplemented is a cost with no return, which is why the fix list is priced and why we push hard on the handover.

No, and a meaningful share of our audits are implemented by the client's own team or by their existing agency. The document is deliberately written to be usable that way.