Run this SEO content audit tool on any site. Get every page scored, cannibalization flagged, and a 90-day fix plan sorted by estimated traffic impact.
Connect Google Search Console to the client's site, then give Juma the domain URL. Juma reads real impression, click, and position data for every indexed page and cross-checks it against competitor benchmarks and on-page signals. The output is a PDF strategic overview and a scored Excel tracker with a 90-day action plan sorted by estimated traffic impact.
Multiple pages competing for the same keyword split ranking signals and hurt both. This step scans the full content library for keyword overlap and tells you exactly what to do with every conflicting pair. The step covers:
Catching cannibalization early stops ranking dilution before it compounds across the site.
When the audit flags a page as underperforming, this step runs a deep single-page diagnosis against the top-ranking competitors for that page's main keywords. Juma analyzes SERP features and outputs a specific fix list. The step covers:
You get a clear, ordered list of changes to make, not a general checklist of things to consider.
The audit surfaces topics competitors rank for that the client does not have a page for. This step turns that gap list into a sequenced content plan the team can execute immediately. The step covers:
Each topic is ranked so the team knows what to build first and in what order.
A Juma Project is a shared space where the team stores everything Juma needs to know about a client. Create one project per client, add context as you go, and Juma will use what's relevant every time the team runs a flow. If the project already exists from other work, just add the SEO-specific items below.
Add a short description in the project's info field that tells Juma what each file contains and when to use it. For example: "Target Keywords: priority keyword list from Q1 2026 planning. Competitor URLs: top 5 organic competitors identified during onboarding. Past Audit: March 2026 full content audit, use as baseline for comparison." This helps Juma pick the right files for the right task without guessing.
This Flow completes a website content audit across 50–100 pages in minutes, not the 8–15 hours a manual process requires. Juma applies a consistent scoring model to every page, runs a cannibalization check, and produces a PDF strategic overview and a scored Excel tracker without any manual data-pulling or spreadsheet setup.
The bigger advantage over manual audits is consistency. Different analysts weight signals differently, and there is no shared model to standardize what "needs fixing" means across a team. Juma applies the same scoring logic to every page every time, so recommendations are comparable across clients and audit cycles.
The scale difference compounds quickly. On a 200-page content library, a manual website content audit becomes a multi-week project. This Flow turns it into a single working session — and produces a more rigorous output than most manual reviews deliver.
Each page is scored using Search Console performance signals: impressions, clicks, click-through rate relative to average position, and ranking trajectory over 90 days. Juma combines this with an on-page check covering title accuracy, content depth relative to competitors, and duplicate headings — producing one composite score and a specific action recommendation per page.
The composite score maps to four outcomes: fix it, consolidate it with a stronger page, update it to recover declining rankings, or cut it from the index. Each recommendation reflects the page's specific signal profile, not a generic best practice applied across the board.
The scoring also distinguishes between problem types. A page at position 3 with below-average CTR gets flagged for a title and meta rewrite. A page at position 15 with strong click intent gets flagged for content improvement. Same score tier, different fix — and the output makes that distinction explicit.
Yes. Add previous audit results to the client project and Juma compares the current state against that baseline, flagging what improved, what declined, and what is new since the last review. This turns a one-time snapshot into a quarterly process with documented, measurable progress attached to every cycle.
The comparison flags three categories. Improvements show pages that climbed in ranking, CTR, or click volume. Declines flag pages that lost ground and need investigation. New gaps surface topics that competitors started ranking for since the last cycle — these typically become highest-priority additions to the next content plan.
For agencies, the quarterly cadence repositions the service from project to retainer. The client builds a documented growth history across cycles, the team develops real expertise in the client's content landscape, and every subsequent audit runs faster and produces more targeted recommendations than the one before.
