When you're researching competitors, what do you pay attention to first?

DigitalProfessor

Registered Member
Joined
May 2, 2026
Messages
62
Reaction score
48
I have noticed that when I look at competing blogs, I often learn more by manually browsing their content than by looking at SEO metrics alone.

Things like content structure, topics coverage, internal linking, and even how they format their articles can reveal a lot about why a site is performing well.

I am curious what everyone focuses on first when analyzing another blog. Do you start with SEO tools, traffic estimates, backlinks, content quality, or something else?

I just want to hear different approaches.
 
Depending on the niche, most of the times competitor research is less about "learning on what to do" and more on "shall i go into this or shall i look for an alternative". Basically a strenght measurement. If you are into a million dollar project you are not asking this, you technically already know what you need to beat them or you wouldn't probably be on that project. So it's pretty much black and white for me: on what to avoid, or just ignore competitors and go all in with what we have.

But if you are in a learning process, I can understand that you could be looking for cues on how to improve for yourself from competitors.

But dont forget the basics like reviewing the linking profile and all that, but again pretty much analysis on what to avoid.
 
I usually start with content coverage and search intent because that often explains rankings better than SEO metrics alone. Strong internal linking and topical depth tend to stand out pretty quickly when a site is doing well.
 
The first thing I check is which topics they're consistently publishing around.
That often reveals their real growth strategy faster than backlink data.
 
Depending on the niche, most of the times competitor research is less about "learning on what to do" and more on "shall i go into this or shall i look for an alternative". Basically a strenght measurement. If you are into a million dollar project you are not asking this, you technically already know what you need to beat them or you wouldn't probably be on that project. So it's pretty much black and white for me: on what to avoid, or just ignore competitors and go all in with what we have.

But if you are in a learning process, I can understand that you could be looking for cues on how to improve for yourself from competitors.

But dont forget the basics like reviewing the linking profile and all that, but again pretty much analysis on what to avoid.
Good point. I think competitors research is just as valuable for identifying opportunities to avoid as it is for finding opportunities to pursue. Sometimes knowing what not to target can save a lot of time and effort.
 
I usually start with content coverage and search intent because that often explains rankings better than SEO metrics alone. Strong internal linking and topical depth tend to stand out pretty quickly when a site is doing well.
I agree. Search intent is often the first thing I look at too, because even strong SEO metrics can not compensate for content that does not match what users are looking for. Topical depth definitely becomes obvious when comparing high performing sites.
 
The first thing I check is which topics they're consistently publishing around.
That often reveals their real growth strategy faster than backlink data.
That's a good point. Looking at the topics they repeatedly cover can reveal a lot about their long term strategy and where they are seeing results. Sometimes those patterns are more insightful than metrics alone.
 
I check their internal linking and how they cluster topics first, because that tells you exactly how they're gaming Google for topical authority.
 
Back
Top