Once a blog has hundreds of posts, remembering what should link to what stops being a realistic workflow. New articles get attention. Older guides can become difficult to reach, even when they're still useful.
An internal link audit should help you find the next edit: a missing path, a broken destination, an unclear anchor, or a shared template sending readers to the wrong place. Adding more links isn't always the answer.
Here are five tools to compare for that job. This is a documentation-based comparison checked on November 10, 2026, not a hands-on benchmark. I'm a co-founder of Screpy, which is included below.
Count useful paths, not just links
Start with an inventory of the posts you want readers to find. A CMS export or sitemap can give you URLs to compare against the pages reached by a crawl. A page missing from a crawl isn't automatically orphaned: access rules, rendering and crawl limits may explain the gap.
Then separate total link occurrences from unique source pages. A link repeated in several places on one post doesn't create several independent paths from different articles. Also inspect where links appear. A sitewide footer and a relevant paragraph do different jobs for a reader.
| Tool | Useful audit job | Main boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Screaming Frog | Sort incoming links and inspect their sources | Desktop workflow; free crawl stops at 500 URLs |
| Sitebulb | Review depth, anchors and link distribution with guided reports | Audit comparison and scheduling require Desktop Pro |
| Ahrefs Site Audit | Investigate link relationships in a hosted audit | Free entry access requires verified sites and has monthly crawl credits |
| Link Whisper | Review WordPress post relationships and act inside the CMS | Free reporting and Premium editing features differ |
| Screpy | Trace recorded destinations back to source pages and repeated uses | Crawl coverage and current-page export limits matter |
Google's link best practices recommend contextual links and descriptive anchors. They don't prescribe a magic number of links per page.
Choose the tool around the question you need answered, not the highest link count in its dashboard.
1. Screaming Frog SEO Spider
Screaming Frog fits when you want detailed crawl data and are comfortable turning it into an editing list yourself.
Its internal linking audit guide explains how to sort the Link tab by Unique Inlinks. Three links from one source page count as three total inlinks but only one unique inlink. That distinction helps you investigate an important guide whose incoming links are concentrated on very few pages.
Inspect the actual sources before changing anything. A low count can identify a candidate for review; it doesn't prove the article needs links from unrelated posts.
The free edition and paid licence have different boundaries. Free crawling covers up to 500 URLs. JavaScript rendering, saved crawls, custom search and crawl comparison are paid features. The live pricing page showed €245 per user per year during research; crawl scale still depends on memory and storage.
A blog with 400 posts may exceed the free allowance once other discovered URLs enter the crawl. Check coverage before treating the report as your whole archive.
2. Sitebulb
Sitebulb is worth comparing when you want to explain the structure of a large archive, rather than only export errors.
Its internal linking documentation covers incoming followed links, crawl depth and anchor analysis. In Link Explorer, you can inspect incoming relationships for a target URL or review links using particular anchor text.
For orphan candidates, the documented workflow compares crawl discovery with additional sources such as XML sitemaps, analytics, Search Console or URL lists. Those extra sources matter: a crawler following links cannot discover every page that has none.
The Desktop plans list 10,000 URLs per audit for Lite and a default 500,000 for Pro. Both list JavaScript crawling; native audit comparisons and scheduling are Pro features.
Exact prices were unavailable in the dynamic pricing page returned during this review. Check the current currency, billing period and user count before purchasing.
I'd shortlist it when depth and source relationships need to be understood by someone beyond the person running the crawl. Keep its metrics as diagnostic clues, not Google's ranking scores.
3. Ahrefs Site Audit
Ahrefs Site Audit provides a hosted option for investigating internal link relationships. Its documented tools include Link Explorer, URL details with inlinks and outlinks, and bulk issue exports.
That makes it a candidate when you want source and destination evidence alongside a broader technical audit, without making a desktop application the centre of the workflow.
For a website you can verify, Ahrefs Free includes Site Audit with 5,000 crawl credits per project per month. Ahrefs says these credits count HTML pages returning 200; redirects, broken URLs and non-HTML resources don't consume that allowance.
Plan around repeated audits, not just one archive scan. Two complete crawls of a 3,000-page HTML archive would need more than 5,000 such credits. That's an illustrative calculation, not a measured crawl result.
Start with the free verified-site access and check the reports you actually need. A general product feature list shouldn't be read as a promise that every report, allowance or advanced workflow is included at every access level.
4. Link Whisper
Link Whisper is the WordPress-specific option here. Its appeal is the shorter distance between finding an underlinked post and editing links inside the CMS.
The publisher's free plugin description lists incoming link counts, outgoing internal and external link counts, and suggestions you can copy into your content. It distinguishes these from Premium features such as bulk insertion, auto-linking and full broken-link reporting.
An accessible official Starter offer listed $97/year for one site, with 2,000 AI credits included. That is an annual charge, not an $8 monthly subscription. Confirm current checkout terms and how the included credits apply to your planned work.
I'd compare it when your blog runs on WordPress and the bottleneck is making relevant editorial changes across old posts. For another CMS, a platform-independent crawler is a more natural starting point.
Review each proposed source, anchor and destination before accepting bulk changes. A suggestion can help you find a connection; it doesn't establish that the link improves the paragraph for a reader.
5. Screpy
Screpy fits the maintenance side of an internal link audit: investigate recorded destinations, trace source pages and decide whether an issue belongs to an individual post or a shared template.
Its link investigation workflow groups destinations from a completed crawl and separates usage counts from source-page counts. You can search by destination, source URL, anchor text or relationship attribute, then inspect the actual page before editing.
Keep the output boundary in mind. Table exports cover loaded destination rows on the current page, while Source Pages opens separately without an export control. This isn't a complete exported link graph or proof that every orphaned post has been found.
The Pro plan includes five projects and 5,000 crawl pages per project. Its regular annual price is $192, equivalent to $16/month paid upfront for the year. Conditional welcome offers can change the checkout total. Subscriptions renew automatically; the seven-day trial becomes paid unless cancelled in time.
I'd compare Screpy when link repairs sit alongside ongoing website audits. MCP can help an assistant investigate supported crawl evidence, but it doesn't automatically edit your posts. Recrawl after repairs and keep the coverage comparable.
Turn the audit into a short editing queue
Don't start by accepting every suggestion. Pick a small set of important posts and record the evidence for each proposed change.
For an illustrative 600-post blog, the queue might look like this:
| Finding | Check before editing | Useful next action |
|---|---|---|
| An evergreen guide appears in the CMS inventory but not in the discovered link map | Was the guide excluded, blocked or beyond the crawl limit? | If it is genuinely isolated, link from a relevant existing guide or topic hub |
| A tutorial receives many link occurrences from very few source pages | Are these repeated template links rather than editorial references? | Review related articles for a helpful contextual connection |
| A removed article is still linked from several posts | Which destination now answers the reader's question? | Update the source links to the relevant current page |
| An anchor says “click here” | Does the destination deserve a link in this sentence? | If so, describe the resource clearly in the surrounding text and anchor |
Keep the source URL, target URL, reason, owner and verification date. That is more useful to an editor than a list of pages sorted by a mysterious score.
After publishing changes, check representative source pages and rerun the relevant audit with comparable settings. Confirm the intended links exist and lead to the right content. Fewer reported issues can also mean fewer pages were reached.
For a WordPress archive, Link Whisper can bring reports closer to editing. For detailed crawl analysis, compare Screaming Frog and Sitebulb. Ahrefs offers a hosted audit starting point, while Screpy brings source investigation into ongoing technical maintenance.
Use the option that helps you make and verify the next useful edit. A larger link count isn't the outcome you're trying to ship.
Top comments (0)