Tech SEO Agency

For most sites, two to three weeks from the point we have access. A large ecommerce catalogue or a multi-region enterprise site with millions of URLs takes longer, mostly because crawling and log analysis at that scale is slow. We scope the timeline before we start so there are no surprises. The audit is not the slow part. Implementation is.

With them, always. We write findings as engineering tickets with acceptance criteria, not as a PDF thrown over the wall. That means reproduction steps, the expected behaviour, and how we will verify the fix after deploy. Most of our value shows up in that handover, because the audit is easy and the shipping is hard.

Often, yes. For Next.js, React, and other modern stacks we can open pull requests for rendering, metadata, sitemap, and structured data changes, then let your team review and merge. On locked-down enterprise setups we stay in tickets and pairing sessions instead. We adapt to how your engineering org actually works.

Read access to Google Search Console and Bing Webmaster Tools, analytics, and ideally server log files or CDN logs. For migrations we also want staging access before launch. If log files are hard to get, we can start without them, but say up front that log data is where the most useful findings tend to hide on large sites.

First we stop the bleeding. We crawl the old and new URL sets, find the broken and chained redirects, check for lost canonicals and noindex tags shipped by accident, and confirm what Google has already dropped from the index. Then we sequence the recovery by traffic impact so the highest-value URLs get fixed first. Recovery is usually possible. It is faster the sooner we look.

No. A findings register is one deliverable, not the engagement. We stay through implementation, answer developer questions, review the changes on staging, and run a verification pass after deploy to confirm the fix did what we said it would. Work we cannot verify after it ships is work we will not put our name on.

This is the real failure mode in technical SEO, and it is usually organisational rather than technical. We fight it by scoring every finding on impact and implementation effort, keeping the priority list short, writing tickets a developer can pick up without a meeting, and reporting on what shipped rather than what was recommended. We can also present directly to engineering leadership to get the work onto a sprint.

A living findings register your team can see, plus a short written update at agreed intervals tied to what changed and what moved. We pull field data from the Chrome UX Report and Search Console rather than vanity lab scores. For large accounts we can wire Search Console and log data into BigQuery and Looker Studio so you watch crawl and index trends over time.

It varies. A standalone technical SEO audit is a fixed piece of work. A migration runs from pre-launch planning through post-launch monitoring, usually two to four months. Ongoing technical SEO for a large site is a retained relationship, because crawl, index, and rendering issues keep appearing as the site and its templates change. We will recommend the smallest engagement that solves your actual problem.

We do not publish pricing, and honestly no tech SEO agency can quote fairly without seeing the site, because the number depends on scale, stack, log availability, and how much implementation support you need. The first call is scoping. We look at the site, ask about access and constraints, and follow up with a written proposal and a custom quote. No packages, no anchored price on the site to work backwards from.