A diagnosis you can act on — ordered by what it returns, not alphabetically by error type.
Speed, indexing, redirects, sitemap — whether Google can see what it is meant to see at all
.co.uk beside .com, or an old en-US version still live — two pages competing for one search
Whether the site answers the questions people actually type, in the words they type them
Whether analytics and Search Console measure what you think, consent included
Who is ahead and why — specifically, not «they have a bigger budget»
Actions ranked by payback, with the effort estimated beside each one
Technical fixes for whatever the audit named as a blocker.
Content and visibility — if the technical side is sound, the problem is here.
Enquiries into the CRM, so the audit's effect is countable.
Correct measurement before the changes, not after.
A repeat of the audit after the work: a check, not a claim.
A scan lists everything that deviates from a template and treats it all the same. An audit separates what is actually costing you positions from what a tool reports out of habit. The list of things not worth doing is often the most useful part.
A few days to two weeks depending on the size of the site. A shop with thousands of pages takes longer, not because there is more clicking, but because patterns have to be confirmed across samples.
No. The report is yours and is written so any supplier can implement it. An audit only actionable by its author is not a diagnosis, it is a proposal in costume.
That is a result too and we say it plainly. Sometimes the problem is not the site but missing content or the wrong choice of search terms — and a rebuild would change nothing except the invoice.
Send us the site address and your trade — we reply with the scope and timing before starting anything.