Here is a mind map MF is giving for search volume analysis
View attachment 230387
Here is a screenshot from MF keyword research panel
View attachment 230388
Now the green tick here means that MF was able to confirm that this particular search term was found as a suggested keyword. This by itself already means that there is a certain search volume here. As obviously YT creates suggested keywords based on what's being searched... If the term was not found as a suggested KW there would have been a red cross. The number here is an estimated search value, which according to MF should be cross-checked with google trends and so on.
Now, as for C
ompetition analysis, MF only offers a "weighted" approach. Where the ranking difficulty is defined by comparing your channel stats against subscribers, views, and likes & comments of the videos already ranking for this KW.
MF offers the "gateway video" approach. They define the ranking difficulty by looking at the video from a channel with the least amount of subscribers. The more subscribers your channel has compared to the gateway video the better the chances to rank.
Unlike other tools in this article, MF does not give an overall score. Instead of that, it gives 4 main parameters affecting the ranking opportunity and calculates a grade for each of these parameters. Using such a measuring system can result in making smarter and better-balanced decisions. As even if one or two factors seem to be great, another one can block the whole idea potentially saving your time from fake gold.
In conclusion, in my own opinion, MF is the most transparent tool among the above. But is it really efficient?
Now when we are speaking in the same language, when we stated some definitions of the most important terms and have some theory under the hood... Let's just do some real-life experiments...
I have taken "Bart Simpson" as the main keyword and collected approximately 4000+ suggested KWs. I scraped each very first 20 videos in the search results for each of those 4k suggested KWs. For each keyword, and for each video ranking on that KW I have scrapped the number of subs (picked the gateway video to calculate an approximate ranking difficulty), and views count (summed up all the views counts for each video for each KW to roughly calculate the search volume (would be more accurate if I were to calculate relevance as well)). Having all that data I have sorted the KWs to detect the ones that have the most search volume while having the least ranking difficulty (based on the "gateway" video approach).
That way I picked 50 keywords, and now, most importantly, I took my time to run all those 50 KWs through each of the tools above. And here is the data.
The full table on google drive
I have collected the following values
TubeBuddy:
overall score weighted and unweighted, volume, competition, and optimization values.
VIDIQ
overall score, volume, and competition values
Morningfame
Volume, gateway video subs count, and average subs count (average subs count between videos ranking for this KW).
What can we say looking at this data?
Let's start by comparing TB and VIDIQ results
1. Overall scores for TB and VIDIQ simply don't match...
The screenshot below shows the highest values for a weighted overall score by TB
View attachment 230389
And this one is sorted from largest to smallest overall ranking store according to VIDIQ
View attachment 230390
1/10 matched...
What about competition?
2. Competiton analysis by TubeBuddy and VIDIQ do not match.
Here we go again... the tools are giving diametrically opposite results.
Remember, when TB is saying "Excellent" it means that according to TB there is no significant competition
now take a look here...
View attachment 230391
out of 57 KWs, TB and VIDIQ matched on competition level only in 7 cases...
How about TB's and VIDIQ's search volume results comparison?
Well, in this case, both of them showed a flat curve (poor/fair & 40-47 for all KW's) so there is no space to compare maximums and minimums on such data... HOWEVER, MF did show some additional interesting results...
First of all, I need to say, that MF appears to be lacking in the suggested keywords data as it did not find the majority from this list.
- (means MF is saying this suggested KW does not exist)
? (means MF is aware of this suggested KW but cannot offer the SV)
Nevertheless,
Here are the top KW sorted by search volume according to MF
View attachment 230392
No comments...
Just wanted to add that even though TB and VIDIQ are giving almost identical results on search volume for each KW in this list, MF shows results that do vary a lot... The numbers from MF are everywhere from 0 to 100 which seem to be much more alive.
How about competition analysis if we compare MF to VIDIQ and TB?
If we look close enough we can notice that in some cases where VIDIQ is saying the competition is "very low" MF proves that. But straight away we can see there are other cases where MF is showing the same figures but VIDIQ is saying "very high".
View attachment 230393
Now you will ask me: "Knowing that, how do I live my life from now on?"
Well, the data above is, in fact, too small, to make a final judgment.
I hope you enjoyed reading it...
Now I am working on automating the collection of this data from all the tools above as well as optimizing my own youtube keyword research bots
Please share your thoughts on the given data! Which Youtube keyword research tool do you use? Was it effective for you?
If this article gets 24+ likes I will publish a bigger case study with 500+ keywords involved and maybe even some real ranking experiments.
