Ahrefs and Lumar (formerly Deepcrawl): side-by-side
A side-by-side comparison of Ahrefs and Lumar (formerly Deepcrawl) — features, pricing, strengths, and where each tool falls short.
Ahrefs and Lumar (formerly Deepcrawl) are rarely direct substitutes for one another — they were built to solve different problems. Ahrefs is a competitive intelligence and keyword research platform whose backlink index and 24B+ keyword database make it indispensable for off-page and content strategy. Lumar is a cloud-based site crawler built to audit, monitor, and protect large-scale websites at the infrastructure level, with modules for technical SEO, GEO/AEO, web accessibility, and CI/CD pipeline QA.
The teams that genuinely compare the two are usually mid-market or enterprise organizations asking a budgeting question: does their technical SEO need — deep crawls, change monitoring, pre-deployment QA — justify a second platform alongside their Ahrefs subscription, or can one tool cover enough ground? The answer depends heavily on site complexity and team structure. Ahrefs cannot run JavaScript-rendered crawls at enterprise scale, integrate into a CI/CD pipeline, or alert on structural changes across dozens of domains. Lumar has no proprietary keyword research database and no backlink index of its own.
Pricing transparency is another real divergence. Ahrefs publishes its tiers openly — $129/month gets you into the Lite plan, though with just one user seat and 500,000 crawl credits. Lumar lists no prices on its website at all; every prospect fills out a contact form and works through a sales process. For teams that want to evaluate cost before talking to anyone, that asymmetry matters and effectively disqualifies Lumar for self-serve or budget-constrained buyers.
What each tool is
Ahrefs
Ahrefs is an all-in-one SEO platform built around a massive proprietary backlink index and keyword database. It offers Site Explorer (competitor analysis), Keywords Explorer, Site Audit, Rank Tracker, and Content Explorer. It is widely used by agencies and in-house teams for competitive research and link building.
Lumar (formerly Deepcrawl)
Lumar (formerly Deepcrawl) is an enterprise-oriented, cloud-based website intelligence platform centered on its site crawler. It provides four core application modules — Analyze (deep audits), Monitor (change tracking and alerting), Protect (automated QA testing integrated into CI/CD pipelines), and Impact (stakeholder reporting and benchmarking). The platform covers technical SEO, generative engine optimization (GEO/AEO), web accessibility, site speed, and custom analytics. It is sold as a configurable platform where teams select the modules they need, and pricing is not published publicly — prospects must contact sales to obtain a quote. The platform holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification and is positioned primarily at enterprise and mid-market teams managing large or complex websites.
At a glance
Ahrefs
Full-stack SEO Suite
A full-stack SEO suite best known for its backlink index and keyword database.
Ahrefs Lite
- •5 projects, 750 tracked keywords
- •500,000 crawl credits/month
- •No native GSC-driven workflows like quick wins or decay
- •AI features gated to higher tiers
Lumar (formerly Deepcrawl)
Site Crawler / Technical SEO
A cloud-based website optimization platform built around deep site crawling for technical SEO, GEO/AEO, accessibility, and site speed at enterprise scale.
Not publicly documented
- •Pricing is not listed on the Lumar website; prospects are directed to fill out a contact form to receive a quote.
- •Modular packaging: teams select from Analyze, Monitor, Protect, and Impact modules.
- •No self-serve signup or publicly listed entry price was found in the source material.
- •G2 badges and enterprise testimonials (Cox Automotive, Fandom, Compare the Market) indicate a primary focus on enterprise and mid-market buyers.
Feature comparison
Side-by-side feature breakdown across pricing, data, workflows, and collaboration.
| Feature | Ahrefs | Lumar (formerly Deepcrawl) |
|---|---|---|
| Data & coverage | ||
| Native Google Search Console integration | No | Yes |
| Keyword research database | 24B+ keywords (proprietary) | No |
| Backlink index | Yes | No |
| SERP feature tracking | Yes | Not publicly documented |
| Workflows built for you | ||
| Quick wins (pages 1 click from page 1) | No | No |
| Content decay detection | Manual via Site Explorer | No |
| Weak & dead URL identification | No | Yes |
| AI content briefs | Add-on (AI Content Helper) | No |
| Content groups & cohort analysis | No | — |
| Collaboration & sharing | ||
| Magic-link read-only sharing | No | Not publicly documented |
| Multi-property dashboards | Yes | Yes |
| Seats included on entry plan | 1 user | Not publicly documented |
| Pricing & value | ||
| Entry plan price | $129/mo | Not publicly documented |
| Free tier | No | No |
| BYOK (bring your own DataForSEO key) | No | — |
| Crawling | ||
| JavaScript rendering | — | Yes |
| Crawl limit on entry plan | — | Not publicly documented |
| Scheduled / cloud crawling | — | Yes |
| Log file analysis | — | Not publicly documented |
| Runs locally (desktop) or in the cloud | — | Cloud only |
The differences that actually matter
Crawler depth and technical SEO scope
This is the sharpest functional divide. Lumar's crawler handles JavaScript rendering, runs on a cloud infrastructure designed for very large sites, and feeds four distinct modules — Analyze, Monitor, Protect, and Impact — each targeting a different phase of site health management. Ahrefs Site Audit crawls up to 500,000 pages per month on Lite and surfaces common issues, but it is not designed for enterprise-scale scheduled crawling, multi-domain change monitoring, or pre-deployment regression testing. If crawling is the primary job, Lumar is the more purpose-built tool by a wide margin.
Backlink and keyword data
Ahrefs maintains one of the largest third-party backlink indexes in the industry and a keyword database exceeding 24 billion terms across multiple search engines. Lumar has no proprietary backlink index — it integrates with Majestic for backlink data — and no keyword research database. For any workflow that requires discovering link opportunities, analyzing competitor link profiles, or building topical keyword maps, Ahrefs is the functional tool. Lumar does not compete in this dimension at all.
CI/CD integration and pre-deployment QA
Lumar Protect is a capability that Ahrefs simply does not offer: automated SEO and accessibility QA tests that run inside a CI/CD pipeline, catching regressions before a deployment reaches the live site. For engineering-adjacent SEO teams at mid-market and enterprise companies, this is a material differentiator. Ahrefs has no equivalent feature. If your team ships frequent code changes to a large site and needs a safety net for technical SEO regressions, Lumar Protect addresses that problem directly.
Pricing transparency and access model
Ahrefs publishes four tiers. The entry Lite plan costs $129/month and includes one user seat, 5 projects, 750 tracked keywords, and 500,000 crawl credits. You can sign up without talking to anyone. Lumar publishes no pricing on its website — the only path to a number is submitting a contact form and engaging with a sales team. Lumar's enterprise testimonials (Cox Automotive, Fandom, Compare the Market) signal a price point well above Ahrefs Lite. Teams that need to evaluate cost independently before a procurement conversation are better served by Ahrefs' model.
Expanding coverage: GEO/AEO and accessibility
Lumar is actively extending beyond traditional technical SEO into generative engine optimization (GEO/AEO) — helping teams understand and optimize their visibility in AI-powered search — as well as web accessibility auditing and site speed measurement. Ahrefs does not document equivalent capabilities in these areas. For organizations that need a single platform to cover accessibility compliance, AI search readiness, and crawl health across an enterprise site portfolio, Lumar's expanding module set is relevant in a way that Ahrefs is not.
Where each tool wins and falls short
Ahrefs
Strengths
- Largest third-party backlink index in the industry
- Mature competitor research workflows
- Strong brand and educational content
Weaknesses
- Expensive — entry plan starts at $129/mo with low row caps
- Data is third-party estimated, not your real Google Search Console truth
- No native AI content briefs grounded in your performance data
- Steep learning curve for non-SEO specialists
Lumar (formerly Deepcrawl)
Strengths
- Deep, flexible site crawler capable of handling very large-scale websites with JavaScript rendering
- Automated QA testing via Lumar Protect with CI/CD pipeline integration — prevents issues from reaching the live site
- Multi-domain monitoring with customizable alerts, segmentation, and dashboards in a single view
- Expanding coverage beyond technical SEO into GEO/AEO (AI search visibility), web accessibility, and site speed
Weaknesses
- Pricing is entirely sales-gated — no public pricing tiers, free trial, or self-serve entry point documented on the site
- No native keyword research database or proprietary backlink index; relies on integrations (e.g., Majestic) for backlink data
- No documented quick-wins workflow, content decay detection, or AI content briefs grounded in GSC performance data
- Heavy enterprise positioning means smaller teams may find the platform over-engineered and difficult to procure without a lengthy sales process
Who each tool fits
Ahrefs
Best for
- •Agencies running deep competitor backlink analysis
- •Teams that prioritize off-page SEO and link building
- •Researching keywords across many domains you do not own
Not ideal for
- •Teams whose primary signal is their own Google Search Console data
- •Smaller sites priced out of the $129+/mo entry tier
- •Founders who want actionable next steps, not just raw data
Lumar (formerly Deepcrawl)
Best for
- •Enterprise or mid-market teams managing large-scale or complex websites that require deep technical audits
- •Teams that need automated QA testing integrated into CI/CD pipelines to catch issues before deployment
- •Organizations monitoring multiple domains or geographies who need customizable alerting and multi-property dashboards
- •SEO teams that want to combine crawl data with Google Analytics, Google Search Console, and Majestic data in one platform
Not ideal for
- •Small businesses or individuals — pricing is enterprise-oriented and not publicly available for self-serve sign-up
- •Teams looking for a keyword research database or backlink index as a primary feature, as these are not core Lumar capabilities
- •Users who want an out-of-the-box quick wins or content decay workflow driven by their own GSC performance data
- •Buyers who need transparent, self-serve pricing before engaging with a sales team
Which should you choose?
Ahrefs is the right choice when backlink analysis, keyword research, and competitive benchmarking are the core job. Lumar is the right choice when the core job is crawling and protecting a large, technically complex website — particularly if pre-deployment QA or multi-domain monitoring is a requirement. Neither tool replicates what the other does best.
Choose Ahrefs if…
- Your primary workflows are backlink prospecting, competitor gap analysis, or keyword research across domains you do not own
- You need a self-serve tool with published pricing — Ahrefs Lite starts at $129/month with no sales call required
- You're an agency or in-house team that needs mature rank tracking and SERP feature data alongside site auditing in one subscription
- You want to track up to 750 keywords and audit up to 500,000 pages per month on a predictable monthly budget
Choose Lumar (formerly Deepcrawl) if…
- Your site is large or JavaScript-heavy and requires scheduled cloud crawls, segmentation, and customizable alerting across multiple domains
- Your engineering team deploys frequently and you need automated QA tests wired into CI/CD pipelines to catch SEO and accessibility regressions before they go live
- You need to combine crawl data with Google Analytics, Google Search Console, and Majestic backlink data in a single enterprise dashboard
- Your organization is evaluating GEO/AEO (AI search visibility) and web accessibility alongside traditional technical SEO, all in one governed platform
Frequently asked questions
What buyers ask when weighing Ahrefs and Lumar (formerly Deepcrawl).
For smaller or moderately sized sites, Ahrefs Site Audit covers many common technical issues within its 500,000 crawl credit monthly limit. But it does not support JavaScript rendering at enterprise scale, lacks scheduled multi-domain monitoring with custom alerts, and has no CI/CD integration for pre-deployment QA. Enterprise teams managing large or complex sites will find Lumar's Analyze and Monitor modules significantly more capable.
No. Lumar does not maintain a keyword research database or offer keyword exploration workflows. Its platform is built around crawl data, site health monitoring, and technical analysis. For keyword research, Ahrefs provides a 24B+ keyword database. Teams using Lumar for technical SEO typically rely on a separate tool for keyword and competitive research.
Ahrefs Lite is $129/month with self-serve signup. Lumar does not publish any pricing — prospects must complete a contact form to receive a quote. Based on its enterprise positioning and customers like Cox Automotive and Compare the Market, Lumar's pricing is almost certainly substantially higher than Ahrefs Lite. There is no free tier or documented free trial for either product.
No. Lumar does not maintain a proprietary backlink index. It integrates with Majestic for backlink data. Ahrefs, by contrast, runs one of the largest third-party backlink indexes in the industry. If backlink analysis is a core workflow, Ahrefs is the relevant tool.
Lumar's Monitor module is explicitly designed for watching multiple domains in one place, with customizable dashboards, segmentation, and alerts for structural changes. Ahrefs supports multiple projects across its plans (5 on Lite, more on higher tiers) but is not primarily built for ongoing change detection and alerting across a large site portfolio. For multi-domain monitoring at enterprise scale, Lumar is the more purpose-built option.
Yes. Lumar Protect is specifically designed to run automated SEO, accessibility, and site quality tests inside CI/CD pipelines, surfacing regressions before they reach the live site. Ahrefs has no equivalent capability. This makes Lumar uniquely relevant for engineering-adjacent SEO teams at organizations with frequent deployment cycles.
Lumar lists Google Search Console as an integration alongside Google Analytics and Majestic. Ahrefs also offers a GSC import. Neither tool is primarily built around GSC performance data as its core analytical layer — both use their own proprietary crawl or index data as the foundation, with GSC available as a supplementary data source.
Almost certainly not at this stage. Lumar requires a sales conversation before any pricing is disclosed, has no self-serve entry point, no free tier, and no documented starter plan. Its customer testimonials feature enterprise brands, and its modular packaging implies a procurement process suited to larger organizations. Ahrefs Lite at $129/month, while not cheap, is the accessible self-serve option between these two.