Ultimate Niche Finder?
- Thread starter The SEO
- Start date
girlincloud
Newbie
- Feb 18, 2014
- 1
- 0
I am also choosing between these 2. I am currently on my 8th day trial with Long Tail Pro, loving it so far EXCEPT I seem to be getting a lot of verification requests and it can get very annoying. But other than this issue, I really like LTP.
What about UNF? Is it really much better than LTP? Thanks.
ardley216
Elite Member
- Mar 28, 2008
- 2,389
- 2,418
I've used both. And for me UNF wins hands down. One thing I would say is that both cannot determine competition for shit. I've tested over 3000 keywords on both UNF and LTP and there is absolutely NO correlation.
With regards to accuracy, it is as accurate as Google's own data. I have the developer diagnostics panel on mine (they forgot to turn it off when debugging something), and I watch exactly how it gets the data.
UNF is awesome and mining up to 30,000 keywords and sorting them - Don't bother with anything else. LTP is kinda clunky and crappy all round.
I use UNF all the time, the support is great, they fixed the GKP change over in a few days. if you want a hand with keyword research give me a PM
With regards to accuracy, it is as accurate as Google's own data. I have the developer diagnostics panel on mine (they forgot to turn it off when debugging something), and I watch exactly how it gets the data.
UNF is awesome and mining up to 30,000 keywords and sorting them - Don't bother with anything else. LTP is kinda clunky and crappy all round.
I use UNF all the time, the support is great, they fixed the GKP change over in a few days. if you want a hand with keyword research give me a PM
Last edited:
fan690
Junior Member
- Feb 11, 2014
- 112
- 37
I have used both UNF and Long Tail Pro. I primarily use UNF to get search results as it is fast especially searching over 10000 keywords. I find it lightweight compared to LTP. And sorting and filtering is fast on UNF!
The accuracy for competitiveness for both is not accurate at all, as mentioned by ardley216. Correct me if Im wrong somebody but I think UNF only uses top 3 results to determine the competitiveness. So I only use it as a guide and have to use other software or manually check the top 10 to determine if the keyword is worth pursuing. This is where LTP is good, as within the software you can check the top ten results of each keyword and look at their Juice links and Page Rank of each. So thats my experience of both software, and both has helped me rank some juicy long tail keywords.
In terms of search results for UNF it seems to be ok as of now as Im comparing results in Keyword Planner.
The accuracy for competitiveness for both is not accurate at all, as mentioned by ardley216. Correct me if Im wrong somebody but I think UNF only uses top 3 results to determine the competitiveness. So I only use it as a guide and have to use other software or manually check the top 10 to determine if the keyword is worth pursuing. This is where LTP is good, as within the software you can check the top ten results of each keyword and look at their Juice links and Page Rank of each. So thats my experience of both software, and both has helped me rank some juicy long tail keywords.
In terms of search results for UNF it seems to be ok as of now as Im comparing results in Keyword Planner.
ardley216
Elite Member
- Mar 28, 2008
- 2,389
- 2,418
I worked out EXACTLY how UNF determines its difficulty (developers I hope you change this), it takes the Page Authority of ONLY the #1 result - might as well just randomly generate a number 1 - 5.
If you want to determine competition easily on mass, use UNF + MS. Find 10k+ keywords, stick them in MS, analyse competition, untick everything except the majesticSEO stuff and in a few second you'll have a massive list of numbers, export it to excel, and sort the table smallest to largest. GENERALLY speaking the one with less results is going to be easier. From here you can analyse them one by one.
I've done a TON of testing to find correlations of difficulty metrics, and this is the only method that has some kind of correlation on a large scale (5000+ at a time). It is by NO means guaranteed at all.
If you want to determine competition easily on mass, use UNF + MS. Find 10k+ keywords, stick them in MS, analyse competition, untick everything except the majesticSEO stuff and in a few second you'll have a massive list of numbers, export it to excel, and sort the table smallest to largest. GENERALLY speaking the one with less results is going to be easier. From here you can analyse them one by one.
I've done a TON of testing to find correlations of difficulty metrics, and this is the only method that has some kind of correlation on a large scale (5000+ at a time). It is by NO means guaranteed at all.
Last edited:
Everyone,
Reading through the thread, and it's good information on how to make UNF better. We are way, way faster than LTP--that's true.
I few months ago I ran a comparison between keywords in LTP and UNF. I'll try to put a post up on the UNF site later this week.
A question for you all. For my comparison, I used 1-20 as Very Easy, 20-30 as Easy, 30-50 as Moderate, 50-60 as Hard, and 60 or greater as Very Hard. I then compared LTPs results with UNF's.
Would you say that the number difficulty I assigned to LTP is accurate? I couldn't find any documentation on their site. I appreciate any comments.
Reading through the thread, and it's good information on how to make UNF better. We are way, way faster than LTP--that's true.
I few months ago I ran a comparison between keywords in LTP and UNF. I'll try to put a post up on the UNF site later this week.
A question for you all. For my comparison, I used 1-20 as Very Easy, 20-30 as Easy, 30-50 as Moderate, 50-60 as Hard, and 60 or greater as Very Hard. I then compared LTPs results with UNF's.
Would you say that the number difficulty I assigned to LTP is accurate? I couldn't find any documentation on their site. I appreciate any comments.
ardley216
Elite Member
- Mar 28, 2008
- 2,389
- 2,418
UNF is WAY faster, and I use it over LTP because it so much easier to use.
But with regards to difficulty rating, you might as well use a random number generator.
I have done lots of testing of keywords (cos I love keyword research ), I took 195 keywords that I KNOW have a wide range of difficulty, and compared them to exact match results
The X axis is the Google exact match results rated from 1-195 in ascending order (lowest first). If we assume a loose difficulty indicator is exact results, lower being easier, we can see there is no trend at all. I tried this with other difficulty indicators and I get the same result.
One simple change can make this into a CRAZILY good piece of software: Take an average of the top 10 PA. From my testing this is the single best difficulty metric.
But with regards to difficulty rating, you might as well use a random number generator.
I have done lots of testing of keywords (cos I love keyword research
), I took 195 keywords that I KNOW have a wide range of difficulty, and compared them to exact match results
The X axis is the Google exact match results rated from 1-195 in ascending order (lowest first). If we assume a loose difficulty indicator is exact results, lower being easier, we can see there is no trend at all. I tried this with other difficulty indicators and I get the same result.
One simple change can make this into a CRAZILY good piece of software: Take an average of the top 10 PA. From my testing this is the single best difficulty metric.
