HUGE UPDATE! I ran 1 million domains through Ahrefs, SEMRush, Moz, Majestic & SEO Spyglass to find out who really is the best backlink checker.
Back in 2013, I conducted an experiment to see which is the best link checker.
Long story short, Ahrefs won…
This really upset the Majestic team at the time and sparked a lot of controversy, but they did make some valid points-
And they were right!
So then re-conducted the experiment on an altogether BIGGER scale (1 million domains vs. the original 3). Ahrefs won again.
Now it’s many years later.
So I thought it would make sense to re-run the numbers this year for all 1 million domains AND compare the functionality of the tools.
But…
I’m also going to reveal how Majestic essential cheat on backlink counts (you won’t believe this one!)
What Will I Learn?
Before we get to the experiment, let me talk about my data source.
For those that don’t know, the Majestic team publish what is called the Majestic Million.
The Majestic Million is a list of the top 1 million website in the world, based on the number of referring IP’s found for that domain in their Fresh index.
So with this, Majestic SEO are outright telling us these are the sites they know the most about in terms of backlinks.
You can download a copy for yourself free of charge and it will tell you the total number of linking subnets (RefSubNets) and the total number of linking IPs (RefIPs) for each domain in the top million.
To compare Majestic SEO with Ahrefs, I’m going to look up the total number of linking subnets and IP’s for all of the domains in the Majestic Million.
To give you an example with this blog-
So in that specific instance, Majestic wins the test.
But:
Now imagine doing the same – but for 1 million sites.
That is the test I have done based on what Majestic say are the top 1 million sites in the world in terms of links.
This is what the CSV data looks like in its raw form-
And you can download a copy of the data that is used in this test.
Before I get to the results, I need to mention that both Majestic and Ahrefs maintain multiple indexes.
Majestic have two indexes: Fresh and Historic indexes.
Ahrefs have three: Live, Recent, and Historical.
You can learn more about these indexes here.
But for the sake of this article, I’ll be comparing the following indexes:
Let’s start with a comparison of the Fresh vs. Recent index.
With such a huge amount of data, I decided to split the results into 10 groups of 100,000 URLs (by Majestic GlobalRank) and then compare those groups.
This is what the group numbers look like (refer to by_groups.csv in the data pack)–
GlobalRank | Ahrefs Wins (IP) | Majestic Wins (IP) | Ahrefs Wins (Subnet) | Majestic Wins (Subnet) |
---|---|---|---|---|
1-100,000 | 85,228 | 14,762 | 86,095 | 13,896 |
100,001-200,000 | 69,953 | 30,029 | 72,114 | 27,860 |
200,001-300,000 | 74,074 | 25,902 | 77,035 | 22,928 |
300,001-400,000 | 78,264 | 21,709 | 82,075 | 17,904 |
400,001-500,000 | 74,708 | 25,264 | 79,389 | 20,582 |
500,001-600,000 | 66,252 | 33,710 | 71,124 | 28,846 |
600,001-700,000 | 75,530 | 24,427 | 81,426 | 18,512 |
700,001-800,000 | 76,733 | 23,221 | 81,346 | 18,583 |
800,001-900,000 | 79,243 | 20,705 | 85,624 | 14,279 |
900,001-1,000,000 | 79,261 | 20,687 | 85,696 | 14,187 |
Just looks like a bunch of meaningless numbers right?
What about now-
Pretty brutal to look at if you are a current Majestic SEO customer right?
Now might be the right time to switch to Ahrefs.
But before you do let’s look at the totals-
It’s worth noting that Ahrefs has actually pulled even further ahead of Majestic (by ~7% for IP wins, and ~11% for subnet wins) since 2013. Which is when I first ran this experiment.
So those are the results of the Majestic Fresh vs. Ahrefs Recent index comparison, but what about Majestic’s Historic vs. Ahrefs’ Historical?
This test is particulary interesting because-
Well:
It presents an altogether different story.
GlobalRank | Ahrefs Wins (IP) | Majestic Wins (IP) | Ahrefs Wins (Subnet) | Majestic Wins (Subnet) |
---|---|---|---|---|
1-100,000 | 15,424 | 84,555 | 14,789 | 85,187 |
100,001-200,000 | 20,320 | 79,606 | 19,873 | 80,047 |
200,001-300,000 | 18,081 | 81,855 | 17,613 | 82,309 |
300,001-400,000 | 13,645 | 86,317 | 13,177 | 86,770 |
400,001-500,000 | 11,990 | 87,976 | 11,675 | 88,275 |
500,001-600,000 | 9,186 | 90,778 | 8,973 | 90,976 |
600,001-700,000 | 11,219 | 88,674 | 11,003 | 88,870 |
700,001-800,000 | 11,167 | 88,627 | 9,120 | 90,819 |
800,001-900,000 | 10,515 | 89,433 | 9,857 | 90,036 |
900,001-1,000,000 | 10,796 | 89,139 | 10,346 | 89,580 |
I think the results become super clear when displayed in graph format:
Based on this data, Majestic absolutely crush Ahrefs when it comes to the historical index test.
This is even more apparent if we look at the totals-
So, Majestic clearly wins the historic index comparison.
But what does this really mean?
Well, historic indexes serve as records of the backlinks that have existed in their respective tools index at some point in the past, but aren’t live today.
When you take this into account, it comes as no surprise that Majestic won this test.
They’ve been saving (probably) links to their Historic index since they launched in 2009.
Ahrefs, on the other hand, has only been saving dead links to their Historical index since 2015, so Majestic has a 6 year head start here!
Bottomline: Majestic has a larger index of dead links than Ahrefs.
That’s all I’m going to say about that one.
I’ll let you decide which index is more important to you.
My methodology for this experiment is far from perfect.
So I thought I’d briefly explain what I see as some potential flaws with this data.
The graphs above show the number of “wins” rather than absolute numbers.
Because of this, the difference between the bars on the graphs is not really indicative of index size.
I’ll try to illustrate what I mean with an example:
Let’s say we have two sites:
(Yes, it’s an extreme example, but bare with me!)
Ahrefs “wins” for both of these sites, but it’s clear that there’s a much larger difference between reported numbers from each tool for Site B.
With Site A, Ahrefs only wins because they report one extra Ref.IP.
This means that the “number of wins” doesn’t give any insight into how much bigger one database is than the other.
So what does “number of wins” tell us?
It tells us that Ahrefs finds more links for any given website than Majestic, and that it’s rare for Majestic to show links than Ahrefs (links = IPs/Subnets).
FYI, if you’re wondering why I chose to compare IPs/Subnets over links, check out this article co-authored by Dixon Jones from Majestic.
It’s important to remember that we’re dealing with two totally different indexes here.
Which means that some links that Majestic reports may not exist in Ahrefs’ Index, and vice-versa.
Once again, let me offer an example.
This time we only need one hypothetical site, for which we’ll assume that both Ahrefs and Majestic report the same number of links: 3.
Here are the three hypothetical links reported by each tool:
Ahrefs | Majestic |
---|---|
domain.com/webpage | domain.com/webpage |
domain.com/webpage2 | domain.com/webpage2 |
anotherdomain.com/webpage | someotherdomain.com/blog |
Do you see my point?
Just because we have the same number of reported links from each tool doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re the same links.
You can see in our hypothetical example that only two of the links are common to both indexes.
This brings me on to an important point:
If you desperately need a full picture of your link profile, you’ll have to pay for both tools and cross-reference data.
BUT!
And this is a BIG BUT!
Even if you do that you need to understand that Majestic’s backlink stats are almost always inflated.
Why?
Because of the absolutely absurd way Majestic count and report backlinks.
I am going to talk about that more in the next section, but seriously – make sure you are sitting down for this one because I am going to show you how Majestic essentially cheats on backlink counts.
Now we’ve talked about backlink data and whatnot, I want to make an important point:
Majestic and Ahrefs are VERY different tools.
Majestic is essentially one tool: a backlink checker.
But Ahrefs is a suite of tools. Alongside Site Explorer (for checking backlink data), they also have:
Another big differentiator is the addition of “Competitive intelligence” in Ahrefs, which is basically search traffic data.
In other words, you can see how much traffic any domain or website receives from Google, and the keywords it ranks for.
See my full Ahrefs review and my Ahrefsbot blog post.
But let’s get back to backlink data for a moment…
It’s important to realise that index size means nothing unless you’re able to extract actionable data and insights from it.
Both Majestic and Ahrefs do have an API for doing this at scale (this is what I used for this study), but most of us don’t pay for access to that.
So, let’s quickly compare the on-site backlink research features that exist in Ahrefs and Majestic.
Let’s start by plugging this same URL (the beginners guide to SEO from Moz) into both tools to see what kind of insights we can get from them.
NOTE. I’m using the “exact URL” setting, because I only want to analyze backlinks pointing directly at that URL.
A few comparable metrics right off the bat:
So Majestic reports more backlinks in total, but Ahrefs reports (a lot) more referring domains.
That’s a win for Majestic, right?
Not so fast.
(This is something I really feel the need to highlight!)
Majestic’s backlink stats are almost always inflated because of the absolutely absurd way they report backlinks.
Let me illustrate by going to the Referring Domains tab in Majestic.
Majestic is reporting 370K+ backlinks from just one referring domain.
That accounts for nearly 60% of all reported backlinks!
Let’s see how many backlinks Ahrefs reports from this domain-
Just 4!
So why does Majestic report 373,004 backlinks from that domain while Ahrefs only reports 4?
This happens because Majestic fail to strip URL parameters from URLs, which results in the same backlink being duplicated hundreds, sometimes even thousands of times.
This also happens when you export the data from Majestic.
Take a look at this backlink export from my blog and you’ll see that digitalphillipines.net is linking to me nearly 700,000 times-
But when we export the data and look at the links, you’ll see they are mostly duplicate links with different UTM parameters on the end-
For example Majestic counts the below as 4 separate backlinks-
But the reality is they are just one backlink – but Majestic is reporting them as 4.
In my opinion, this is total madness.
Especially when the vast majority of the 700,000 links coming from digitalphillipines.net are duplicates.
Ahref’s on the other hand, only counts 17 links-
Why?
Because Ahrefs understands that those additional URL parameters do not make them all unique links so filter them out accordingly.
If you go from the Summary page in Majestic to their Ref.Domains and Backlinks reports, you’ll notice that the total numbers of ref.domains and backlinks that you just saw on that “Summary” page now completely disappear.
That’s because these reports are limited to 30k rows of data – 600 pages, 50 results per page.
This makes every report in Majestic somewhat useless because you can only see a sample of the data!
Sure you can view the first 30,000 rows – but after that, they cut you off.
That is a huge limitation and I feel like it really goes against the grain of Majestic’s core mission.
What’s the point of building a huge database of links if you are going to limit access to it?
It’s the same when you try to export this data too – it defaults to a max of 30K rows.
However you can export more than 30k rows if you request an “advanced report” by clicking the tiny link highlighted in the screenshot below:
But even when you click this, you’re taken to quite a puzzling page where you seemingly have to tick a bunch of boxes in order to do what you want to do.
So bottomline-
In comparison, Ahrefs shows full data in both their Ref.Domains and Backlinks reports.
And exporting FULL DATA is super easy – just hit the “export” button.
Much nicer!
However, one downside of this is that reports sometimes load slower in Ahrefs than Majestic, especially when analysing big sites.
This is because Ahrefs has to work to pull all data, whereas Majestic just has to show a cached sample of 30K pages/ref.domains.
To be honest:
Any further comparison here makes no sense because Majestic’s on-site tools only works with a sample of data whereas Ahrefs lets you work with FULL data.
However, I do want to compare and highlight a few things in these reports.
But first, I want to talk a bit about indexes.
So you may have noticed that Majestic has two different indexes for you to choose from, while Ahrefs has three.
You may have noticed in the screenshots above that Majestic defaults to their Fresh index, whereas Ahrefs defaults to their Live index.
Let me try to explain the deal with all of these indexes.
So Ahrefs Live index is updated every 15 minutes, and I know they put a lot of effort into re-crawling all links in their Live index pretty regularly.
But as Ahrefs recrawls links, they naturally come across some that are no longer there.
Like, sometimes the page will still be live, but the link will be gone. Or maybe the actual linking page can no longer be found.
In this case, Ahrefs removes the link from their Live index, but it remains in their Recent index, where this backlink stays for 90 more days. Quite often the pages disappear because of server downtime, so when Ahrefs next re-crawls the page, they may see that the link is still there.
If this happens, it gets moved back to the Live index.
If Ahrefs don’t see the link going live again within 90 days of it being moved to the Recent Index, it gets moved to the Historical index. This is basically a graveyard for all backlinks that they’ve once seen as live, but the subsequent recrawls confirmed their death.
To summarise (for Ahrefs):
Unlike Ahrefs, they don’t maintain a Live index. They only have their Fresh index, which is kind of the same as Ahrefs’ Recent index as it contains all links that were seen live in the last 90 days, regardless of their status at the present moment.
They also have their Historic Index, which is comparable to Ahrefs Historical index. However, it is vastly bigger than Ahrefs’ Historic index because they started saving deleted links years before Ahrefs did.
To summarise (for Majestic):
Having used both tools on and off for a good few years, I know that Ahrefs only started adding links to their Historic index around mid-2015, whereas I’d say Majestic has been doing that for at least 5 years.
That’s exactly why Majestic’s is bigger right now.
Either way, these tools historic indexes are essentially graveyard of links, so most of the links in both Majestic and Ahrefs Historic indexes are no longer live.
But anyway, now we’ve tackled the technicalities, I can move on to some features.
Before I do that, I want to stress something:
I much prefer Ahrefs over Majestic.
So most of the stuff I discuss below will be reasons why that is the case.
But let’s start with a brief comparison of the summary/overview reports in Ahrefs and Majestic.
To start, I’ll highlight a couple of super useful graphs that I absolutely love on the Overview tab in Ahrefs Site Explorer: Referring Domains and Organic Traffic.
These show how the number of referring domains and amount of organic traffic has changed to a site (or URL) over time.
Here’s the referring domains graph:
Here’s the organic search traffic one:
Unfortunately, Majestic have no such graph for backlink data, and they don’t have any data on search traffic at all.
They do show you two graphs that they call “URL backlink history” and “Referring domains” – but these are entirely different.
In Majestic’s own words, these charts show “the number of Referring Domains [or backlinks] reviewed every day.”
So this graph mostly refers to how fast Majestic crawls the web, rather than showing how fast your target acquired backlinks.
As a result, these graphs don’t tell you anything about how a target’s backlink profile has changed over time, so I don’t really understand why they’re useful.
If anyone does happen to have a good use case, feel free to let me know in the comments!
And it’s also an image, it’s not an interactive graph. So I can’t hover my mouse over a specific date and get the precise number, like I can in Ahrefs.
As for the other numbers that you can see in Ahrefs “Overview” report and in Majestic “Summary” report, they’re more or less comparable.
Pretty standard stuff, no striking differences there.
I’d say the only major difference is the fact that each tool shows their proprietary metrics.
In Majestic’s case, these are TF/CF.
And in Ahrefs these are UR/DR.
Comparing them is a different story, so I’m not even going to attempt that but I do use both sets of metrics to evaluate expired domains/aged doamins.
Let’s move on to the referring domains reports.
Majestic has quite a few data points in their Ref.domains report, so they had to introduce a few different views.
Here’s the one they default to: Links.
For me, the most useful data points here are:
I think it’s really cool how they include the number of ref.domains and backlinks to each ref.domain – that’s something Ahrefs doesn’t do.
I also like their Geo report.
This shows things like the domain language(s), TLD, IP, IP location (cool!), TF/CF.
In fact, a lot of these reports are quite cool – I recommend playing around with them.
But what about filtering and sorting options?
Unfortunately, these don’t really exist (I guess their different reports kind of count of filters?) but they do have “Order by” and “Then” sorting options, which are quite confusing.
I think the biggest letdown here is that many of these reports end up being kind of pointless, simply due to the fact that Majestic only lets you work with sample data.
Sure, you have 30K rows to play with, which admittedly is plenty for most sites. But for some sites it just doesn’t cut it.
Here’s another thing:
Although Majestic have a column with a number showing the number backlinks, they don’t differentiate between dofollow and nofollow links.
This means it’s only possible to sort by the number of backlinks from a ref.domain – you can’t sort by the referring domains with the most dofollow backlinks, for example.
Ahrefs, on the other hand, absolutely shines when it comes to filtering and sorting.
For a start, there’s a column highlighting dofollow/nofollow links, and it’s easy to sort a list of referring domains by that metric.
And once again, Ahrefs will sort the entire list of ref.domains – not just a sample of the data like in Majestic.
Here’s another notable feature Ahrefs has in this report:
You can easily filter referring domains by the backlink type, and can instantly see how many referring domains of each type there is.
So if you want to export dofollow ref.domains only, simply filter and click export. Easy as that.
Back to Majestic, it looks like the domain with the most backlinks to this Moz guide is ryangum.com.
It has almost 378K backlinks. Let’s click on that number and see what they are.
Aaaannnndddd… I see only 10.
Useless.
It’s a completely different story in Ahrefs, as they show everything – it’s even downloadable.
And again, I’ll reiterate the point I touched on earlier – some of the backlink numbers are absolutely crazy in Majestic thanks to the duplicated backlinks with URL parameters.
Case in point:
(I guess Majestic doesn’t care about URL parameters?)
But anyway… let’s move on.
Let’s start with Majestic.
In the Ref.domains report, there was at least some sorting options – here there are none.
All they give you is option to show/hide deleted links and display 1/3/10/all backlinks per domain.
I can see how one backlink per domain is useful, but three and ten… c’mon!
It almost feels like someone was desperate to come up with some kind of useful functionality here, but failed miserably.
Regardless, none of these restrictions matter anyway because this report (like the rest) only shows a sample of 30k rows out of almost 100k. That means Majestic are hiding 70% of the links they know about from you.
Luckily, things are more logical in Ahrefs.
First things first, their Backlinks report doesn’t show sampled data – it’s full data.
You can also choose to show either Similar links, One link per domain, or All links.
This report defaults to Group similar links. This makes sense, as it groups sitewide and duplicated links, but still shows unique links from unique pages of the same domain. Which is pretty cool.
Is this report perfect? No. I’ve seen a few bugs here and there, but the usability and convenience of this filter still beats Majestic’s useless “3/10 links per domain” filter by a wide margin.
You probably already spotted those other filters too – Link type, Platform, and Language.
I recommend playing around with these – they’re really cool!
There are also some sorting options, including:
Combining sorting AND filtering is when you really start to do some cool stuff.
For example, you could filter by dofollow links only, from English sites only, and then sort by DR.
Seriously, play around this this report – you can do TONS.
Here’s one final report I want to briefly highlight (this one is specific to Ahrefs):
Ahrefs is MUCH MORE than just a backlink checking tool. They have world-class search traffic data too.
Yes, there are other tools have one of the two (e.g., Majestic with their backlink data) but Ahrefs does an amazing job of merging backlink and search traffic data together.
I don’t think there’s a better example of this than in their Top Pages report.
This shows the “top pages” on a domain by search traffic.
But this report is super cool because it also shows:
There’s also a keywords dropdown which unveils ALL the keywords each page is ranking for.
Majestic has nothing like this, so there’s nothing to compare here.
I mentioned earlier that Ahrefs is much more than a backlink checking tool.
It’s actually a suite of SEO tools.
Content Explorer is one tool I want to highlight here – this is a database of almost a billion web pages complete with backlinks and traffic data.
Basically, you enter a keyword and it’ll return any content containing (in either the title or body of the article, depending on your selection).
Here are the results for “SEO”:
The highlighted region shows some of the cool data that Content Explorer shows for each and every results – there’s Domain Rating, referring domains, and organic traffic.
I’m not aware of any other tool that can do this and honestly, it’s super-useful! And let’s not forget the “who tweeted” button which is useful for any content marketers out there.
But what about Majestic? Where does that shine?
Well there are some cool things that I like, such as their Trust Flow and Citation Flow metrics.
If you’ve read my guide to finding expired domains, you’ll already know that I look at a ratio of these two metrics to find decent domains.
I’m also a fan of Majestic’s Topical Trust Flow metric, which is super useful for getting a sense of how relevant a backlink profile is.
However, I’ve found that this isn’t always particularly accurate.
You can see in the screenshot above that mythemeshop.com (a website selling premium Wordpress themes including my theme) falls into the ‘Health’ category when looking at Topical Trust Flow.
That doesn’t seem right to me.
So as you can see, the tool that’s most useful for you will depend on the kind of data that you’re trying to access.
I have to be honest though:
For me, Ahrefs is my go-to tool for almost everything these days. I’d say Majestic does maybe 10-20% of what Ahrefs does, and that’s being generous!
Irrespective of opinion, bias and discreditation – the data does not lie.
The data never lies, its why I love working with data so much. Want to settle which design is better? Test it.
Want to see which is the best backlink checker? Test it.
Data does not lie.
Ahrefs is clearly the winner here by a huge margin – a much larger margin than my initial test with just 3 domains highlighted.
In the Wins by IP test, Ahrefs finds 216% more than Majestic SEO. They are winning on ~76% of domains compared to Majestic SEO’s ~24%.
In the Wins by Subnets test, Ahrefs is also the clear winner finding 306% more links than Majestic SEO. They are winning on ~80% of domains compared to Majestic SEO’s ~20%.
So quite clearly, the best backlink checker is Ahrefs. PERIOD.
Even if the source data is Majestic SEO’s very own Majestic Million – Ahrefs still knows more about them than Majestic does.
Unless you only care about who has the biggest database of dead links of course.
And let’s not forget about all of the other awesome tools Ahrefs has – it is so much more than a backlink checker.
In an effort to be unbiased and transparent, I have 2 seperate ways for you to independently verify the data yourself.
All of the data used in this test is available to download here.
This is the easiest way to spot check the data.
You can manually spot check these at random!
What if you want to verify the data for all million domains though?
Well for that you will need a linux server with shell access, an Ahrefs API key and these files.
WARNING: Before you do this be aware that 1,000,000 API credits with Ahrefs costs $10,000.
For full transparency’s sake Ahrefs gave me an API key with 1,000,000 credits so I could run this test.
If any established bloggers want to confirm these results themselves and publish on their blog then please get in touch with me.
Anyway here is how to do it-
Remember folks regardless of all of the controversy the data does not lie.
The simple fact is Ahrefs knows 216% more about Majestic SEO’s Majestic Million than they do (compared to 57% when I first ran this test in April 2013)
And if you haven’t checked out Ahrefs for a while you might be surprised, because it has evolved from a simple backlink checker to a complete SEO tool.
You can sign up for an Ahrefs account here to check it out for yourself.
And, if you’re on a budget and want to get more information about free tools, check out the Ahrefs Webmaster Tools as well as my free seo tools list.
Next time you see this topic in a forum – feel free to use this post to instantly win the argument.
887 Responses
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Increase Your Search Traffic
In Just 28 Days…
I used Majestic, ahrefs, raven and many other backlink explorer tools and i think raven is best in the comparson of ahrefs and majestic
Hi,Then you probably want to read this https://searchlogistics.com/seo/tools/backlink-checkers/
I wonder if he will come back, he just got his backlink.. so.. lol beside matt, do you know rand and his team working on new Moz? Moz.com ? Probably they are going to launch something competitive like ahrefs products…
Loved this article and felt compelled to comment, regardless of which is link checker is better the argument put forth by Matthew is one of the most complete and effective I have read. I appreciate an argument that has humour, data and a strong personality which makes it incredibly persuasive. Good job!
Hi Alex, I’m glad you enjoyed the post – not everyone appreciated the humour but I backed it up with data so its all good =D
Hi,Well the lyrics have to fit the story :PThey are using Disqus I think – but I’ll see if something similar is available for Wordpress based comment systems
This one really delivers. Some really helpful insights and a great read on top of that. Made me subscribe to Ahrefs paid program to check it out myself 🙂
Another case study to come this week 🙂 You heard it here first!
I like this post Matthew, I like it a lot. Most people would ignore the challenge and just move onto the next blog post, I love how you came back fighting and just nailed it. I hope this post earns you a ton of commission!
Hi,O/1st: I like this music..but I don’t know the lyrics..too fast !! :)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffVIq_dbOq82nd: http://mashable.com/2013/03/15/google-reader-rss-void/
Matthew, be always like that 🙂 !! Love the way you crack down everything!! haha
Its what I do 🙂
Matt O/Suggestion – You perhaps need to put another cool music just for reading comments here… :)2nd – I have read few of good comments here and I want to tweet the comment..Find that plugin maybe…that would increase your social traffic more…The best post ever O/Congrats !!
Hi Zul,Got any suggestions for the music?Regarding point 2 – thats interesting, do you have any examples of that in action?
I have no links to either ahrefs or majestic but I feel you’re being a bit harsh on Majestic. The post is long and maybe I missed the section where majestic’s marketing CEO was acting as bad as you claimed.Anyway, one thing I’d like someone to mention is the quality of the links. We all know it’s not all about number of links, but quality. So does Majestic show fewer links because they discount the low quality ones, or are they just bad? If the former, then it’s not something bad, but perhaps good as it’s no use thinking that such and such a site has so many links when in reality most are worth very little in Google’s eyes. OSE always shows much fewer links. I wonder why. Are they not good enough or do they only show links that matter? Again, OSE has a very good reputation – why so? Is it because they know what they are doing with their backlinks checking?
Hi,Valid point – but I dont think the focus should be on quality and should be on whether the link is still live/reporting accurate data.I certainly do not want to give anyone else the ability to decide what is a quality link or not, everyone has a different opinion on that and mine is as simple as “if its good enough to be in Googles index, its good enough to link to my site”But people like to make things complicated and come up with all sorts of voodoo to decide if something is a good link.I don’t want Majestic or Ahrefs making that decision for me :)But whether the links are still live or not – well that could be a killer for either of them.
Great article & analysis. I must say I am not surprised at the conclusion as I use both ahrefs & majestic on a daily basis and typically see 10% – 30% more links via ahrefs.Ahrefs really nailed this on so many levels.
Hi Kevin,Hopefully that wont be the case 3 months from now 🙂
I am glad to know that my choice was right! I didnt dig into this much, but chosen ahref with basic analysis.I yet to find time for the proposed verification methods. good job Woodward.
No worrys (:
If Majestic and Ahrefs were willing to give me unlimited API access I could do something like that.
Wow. Awesome analysis. I have been using Ahrefs for a while now. Great to see come comparison data. Keep up the great content man
NO worrys 🙂
Was about to sign up to Majestic SeO to hook up to my market samurai… looks like may have to reconsider.. I wonder if Market Samurai would be able to link up to AHrefs..
Hi Allan,Drop them a mail and ask – show them this post and they’ll see the importance of it.
Ahrefs is my backlink checker of choice, and your competitive analysis confirms the quality of the tool. Was pleased to discover that the Ahref developers are from Kiev, Ukraine – one of my favorite cities in the world, for sure!
I have never visited Kiev, but its on the list across the next year =D
I have used both and will periodically switch things up but still like all that Ahrefs offers the best. Thanks for the incredibly interesting read!
Hi Anita,Really they both suck and provide small coverage, just ahrefs sucks a lot less.
Could outsource it to the phillipines I suppose
Haha perhaps I should! Would love to see majestic come back though!
Hi,Seems pretty obvious once they explain it, I’m surprised majestic weren’t aware of any of the possibilities.Difference in technical knowledge perhaps?
Haha indeed 🙂
Oh dear !!!! as one of our popular past UK TV shows catch line used to say “Check Please” you may relate Matt??
Hit the nail on the head… the leg and hands. Immovable. Brillian
Cheers 🙂
Re: Ahrefs response — The round robin DNS is an excellent explanation for the multiple IPs. (Place /foot in mouth here). I wonder how Cloudflare and Dynamic DNS also contribute.
Daaaayyyymmmmm!Hey Matt,I’ve been using majestic for a while now. Thank you I will end my subscription and switch over to ahrefs as in RIGHT NOW. LOL.+1 tweet like for ahrefs! FTW!”I would literally be honoured if you drop kicked me through a table! Probably try and snap a picture and grab an autograph on the way down (yeah i’m that guy)!”Well said son.
Thanks very much =D
I’ve always thought that ahrefs was better than any of them. Yikes about the CEO. Wish ahrefs would have kept the keyword ranking, but then again traffic>rankings.
You thought correctly 🙂
Wow. Majestic seem rather ridiculous right now. But I’m sure the winners will be the SEO community. Majestic will be motivated to invest more to reach Ahref’s level. If they can catch up with OSE and Ahrefs, we’ll certainly be spoiled for choice. They’ll need to improve their site’s interface though. I’m curious though. Ahrefs winning by 1 referring IP address on a domain = Ahrefs win.Majestic winning by 100000 referring IPs on a domain = Majestic win?
Exactly 🙂 Hopefully this will just further drive innovation and we all benefit!
I have my suspicions… Are you running a book? 3-1 on… My money is on Ahrefs, knockout in the 3rd round 😉
I’m a sr. software engineer in the marketing/advertising niche and used both Majestic and Ahrefs until this article. Seeing a CEO discredit a blogger in such an unprofessional manner leaves me with an unshakable feeling, I almost took it as an attack/disgust against the public voice.I was pointed to this article within the Traffic Planet SEO Skype group (120 other SEO/Marketing members, dont hold me to the exact number lol) and must I say, well put together. To Majestics point, I could probably argue the referring subnet/domain may be an anomaly to Ahrefs benefit but the overall testing paints a more accurate picture. I really appreciate a blogger who takes the time to be transparent and analyze a dataset to seek truth.
Hi John,Your feelings are shared across the web and in the flurry of emails I have recieved about Majestics public behaviour.Have a read through the comments at http://www.seobook.com/comparing-backlink-data-providers for example
Now that would make you an overnight billionaire I would say, one for dragons den 🙂
Hi,I haven’t attended any USA based conference (UK ones suck) but I’m doing a lot of travelling this year (will be on the east coast for 2 weeks end of Aug) and perhaps a conference will be on the horizon :)I think the level of testing that is now required is far beyond the reach of myself and Ann, we are talking about some serious hardware to process this data.
Hey MattJust made myself a cuppa and read through your post, need to make myself another one now to read the comments. Really interesting and great post, i have been using AHREFS for good 6 months now and is overall just better than any others. Easier to use, more data, more up to date data, nicer layout and again more data 🙂
If only I could make a website that made me brews on demand.
Hey Matt,I’m not much of an seo’r but from a business point of view thank goodness Dixon is “only” the CEO of Majestic, and not heading up the PR dept.
Actually he is the marketing CEO.Yeah.
10,000,000 domains??? You are killing me 🙂 I am going to Pubcon New Orleans soon and then to Pubcon Florida (Matt, will you be there for the promised drop kick?) and I am not sure I’ll have the time for the monster experiment in between. But I’ll see what I can do!!!
Hi Matt.Another great read! I started to skim through this but then got really into it and found it very interesting! I like it how you stood your ground and backed everything up with some solid data… Some strong work Matt
Everyone gets hooked on a good story :)I don’t like being put in a corner, but when I am =D
Hey Matt,0/Yeah already saw that…sorry for the misunderstanding..the ROUGH NUMBER that I meant here is like what our fellow friend said below…Hi, the reply of majestic realize a few things. The number of referring ip and subnets is just a “number”. Nothing can prove that these number is correct or not for both ahref and majestic. The only way to make a conclusive experiment is to introduce two other variables: the number of wrong ip wins and number of wrong subnet wins. Then to calculate the number of correct ip and subnet. I don’t know if this is feasible though.
What a fantastic read Matt! I actually did get a coffee when I saw how long it was and settled back for what turned out to back up my own (non-technical) findings about who offers the best back-link data. My results were from nagging others for information ;-)I look forward to seeing how things pan out in the next round.Are you selling ring-side seats?Andy
Hi Andy,I’m sure things are going to get bloody – but who is going to deliver the knockout blow 🙂
Hi,The data for Ann’s analysis is available for you to download and verify for yourself. No lies are told in her post! The only thing it lacked that my post covered is how the sites were chosen, but other than that the 100 random sites do show Majestic as the winner.I actually hope that Majestic come back and disprove this post, it will be a great twist to the story and will turn up the heat further. I’m already aware of how they might do this and keeping an eye on it myself.Majestic and Ahrefs both have an equal stage here to do what they want 🙂
Hi, the reply of majestic realize a few things. The number of referring ip and subnets is just a “number”. Nothing can prove that these number is correct or not for both ahref and majestic. The only way to make a conclusive experiment is to introduce two other variables: the number of wrong ip wins and number of wrong subnet wins. Then to calculate the number of correct ip and subnet. I don’t know if this is feasible though.It may be possible that ahref takes more time to remove deleted backlinks from thei index. What I mean is the number of live ips and subnets which important.And the fact that ahref found more backlinks than ips is strange. Hope to hear an answer from them.
Hi,Very valuable insight and you are correct that is right – we are still relying on the numbers to be correct in the first place but Majestic have a valid points, ahrefs don’t always add up.I’m sure they are keeping an eye on that.Either way I’m waiting for Ahrefs explanation 🙂
Hi Matt, 0/100 comments !! Again the figure speaks itself how powerful a post with fact, data and explanation.I read her article but writing a post based on experience, rough number and how many high profile friends she got is not going to be nowhere rather than trying to hide something underneath the carpet. Typical tricks anyway. As an analyst who’s currently working at oil and gas company (listed in 500 fortune) every month I got to present monthly performance review of my department in front of my bosses. If I present something not based on FACT and NUMBER but based on WHAT I THINK, WHAT I HAVE EXPERIENCE, A NUMBER THAT I THINK, HOW MANY GOOD HIGH PROFILE FRIENDs I GOT without any PROOF like analysis, number and reason behind it..This is what my boss will say to me…”Zul, you are giving us a big B***Sh**, if you’re not fit to be an analyst you better quit”… A good experience anyway back 3 yrs ago 0/Dear Majestic,I neither on Matt’s side or your side but I’m just a loyal reader of Matt’s blog and I like how he walks the talk with number and explanation..So the only way your side to beat this super hot fact is present to us you counter attack with number, analysis and fact, and of course a video STEP-BY-STEP without any step skipped is the lethal weapon to shut Matt’s mouth.!! Good luck :)Thanks 0/Zul
Awesome post Matt, and well done for trying to cover all bases and keep it as scientific as possible.I do find it funny that you refer to both Majestic and Ahrefs as being crap though. Fact of the matter is, unless you have access to the data Google has, this is as good as its going to get.I’ve been a user of Ahrefs for a long time, and was a Majestic user prior to that. I’ve always thought that Majestic found more links, but that many of them, particularly from the historic index, were actually dead links. I think something that would make both these tools infinitely better would be if you had the option to check for dead links prior to exporting the data, so the dataset you are given is as accurate as possible. As it is I have to use a 3rd party tool to verify, and we all know how there is always going to be a margin of error….
Hi Jeff,Well I had to defend myself a little as well – not usually one for the public fight but thats the corner I was put in.It is true they are fighting over who can take the biggest shit – check it out https://searchlogistics.com/seo/tools/backlink-checkers/That is the other problem with all of them, the data is not real time. Hence why I combine data from multiple sources and use https://searchlogistics.com/seo/tools/backlink-checkers/
This was so much fun to read… just beautiful. I’m on your blog all day long. It’s crazy how much information I find here.I’m currently testing the tiered link building for a small niche site of mine. Thank you for all the resources and information, you are my main learning source at the moment.You rock!
Hi George,Glad you liked the post – keep learning brother!
I’m going to hold fire jumping on the ‘OMG best post ever’ bandwagon until majestic provide their full reply tbh. I’m not biased toward any backlink checker, but more data doesn’t mean it’s better value/better service being offered. It is interesting though. If the backlink data being provided by Ahrefs is more accurate than Majestics then i’ll sign up via your aff link asap, after all its accurate/up to date data that sells it for me, not the amount of data.
Hi Matt,Things could get interesting with what I’ve just read from Majestic :)Get your seats folks!
The fact it read (and still does read) perfectly for me might say something about me ^^
You really can’t deny the facts you laid out in this post. It is a monster. Also, the controversy that you sparked pretty awesome. It’s not easy to take on the big dog, but you definitely laid it on the line.Nice work.
Hi,I just played the cards Dixon gave me :)I’m a marketer, he’s a marketer – should know better.Hopefully they come and smash it with a follow up that disproves the whole test.
Hi,Thats the problem, we HAVE to use them – this stops them from innovating.
Hi Karl,Make sure it impresses me the first time then 🙂
Karmas a bitch
Nice work, Matthew, really appreciate what you’ve uncovered. I know which provider I’ll prefer going forward, based not only (but mostly) on the data returned, but also due to the communication style used by one.
Hi David,Well Dixons actions speak for themselves and that directly reflects on Majestic as a whole. Trust me I’ve sat in enough HR meetings/disciplinarys in my time – people don’t like the truth. Its funny because the first thing Alex did in his response was discredit the competition instead of focusing on the grown up stuff.Perhaps thats just the way the Majestic cloth is cut!
Good stuff. Each tool has its pitfalls but we still have to use them..
Yes – to get the best look at the backlink picture you need data from multiple sources not just 1.Going back to my original post, ahrefs only found 10% of the link it could do.They are both shit.