Lumar (formerly Deepcrawl) and Screaming Frog SEO Spider: side-by-side
A side-by-side comparison of Lumar (formerly Deepcrawl) and Screaming Frog SEO Spider — features, pricing, strengths, and where each tool falls short.
Lumar (formerly Deepcrawl) and Screaming Frog SEO Spider are both site crawlers built for technical SEO, but they occupy opposite ends of the deployment and pricing spectrum. Screaming Frog is a locally installed desktop application priced at £199 per user per year — transparent, self-serve, and immediately accessible via a permanent free tier capped at 500 URLs. Lumar is a cloud-based enterprise platform with no published price, no free tier, and no self-serve signup. The gap between them is not just cost; it is the entire procurement and operational model.
The realistic buyer choosing between these two tools is either a technical SEO or agency practitioner who wants hands-on, affordable crawl control on their own machine, or an enterprise team that needs always-on cloud crawling, CI/CD pipeline integration, multi-domain monitoring dashboards, and formal procurement through a sales process. Very few buyers genuinely sit on the fence — the decision almost always comes down to scale of operation, need for continuous automated monitoring versus on-demand manual auditing, and whether a team can justify an enterprise contract versus a flat annual licence.
Where the tools overlap is meaningful: both crawl JavaScript-rendered pages, both integrate with Google Search Console and Majestic for external data, and neither provides a native keyword research database or proprietary backlink index. The divergence is sharpest in deployment model (cloud vs. desktop), monitoring capability (Lumar's continuous alerting vs. Screaming Frog's manual crawl runs), and the availability of CI/CD pipeline testing, which Lumar offers through its Protect module and Screaming Frog does not address at all.
What each tool is
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.
Screaming Frog SEO Spider
Screaming Frog SEO Spider is a locally installed website crawling tool built and sold by Screaming Frog Ltd. It crawls sites to surface over 300 SEO issues covering broken links, redirects, duplicate content, metadata, structured data, hreflang, JavaScript rendering, and more. It integrates with Google Analytics, Google Search Console, PageSpeed Insights, Majestic, Ahrefs, Moz, and AI providers including OpenAI, Gemini, Ollama, and Anthropic. The tool runs as a desktop application on Windows, macOS, and Linux, with an optional cloud-based deployment documented in the user guide. It is sold on a per-user, per-year licence model.
At a glance
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.
Screaming Frog SEO Spider
Site Crawler / Technical SEO
A desktop website crawler for Windows, macOS, and Linux, widely used by SEOs and agencies for technical site audits.
Paid Licence (1–4 seats)
- •Free version available — permanently limited to 500 URLs per crawl; most advanced features restricted
- •5–9 licences: £189 per licence per year
- •10–19 licences: £179 per licence per year
- •20+ licences: £169 per licence per year
- •Licences are per user; bulk discounts apply at 5 or more licences purchased at once
Feature comparison
Side-by-side feature breakdown across pricing, data, workflows, and collaboration.
| Feature | Lumar (formerly Deepcrawl) | Screaming Frog SEO Spider |
|---|---|---|
| Data & coverage | ||
| Native Google Search Console integration | Yes | Yes |
| Keyword research database | No | No |
| Backlink index | No | No |
| SERP feature tracking | Not publicly documented | No |
| Workflows built for you | ||
| Quick wins (pages 1 click from page 1) | No | No |
| Content decay detection | No | No |
| Weak & dead URL identification | Yes | Yes |
| AI content briefs | No | No |
| Collaboration & sharing | ||
| Magic-link read-only sharing | Not publicly documented | No |
| Multi-property dashboards | Yes | No |
| Seats included on entry plan | Not publicly documented | 1 user |
| Pricing & value | ||
| Entry plan price | Not publicly documented | £199/year |
| Free tier | No | Yes |
| Crawling | ||
| JavaScript rendering | Yes | Yes |
| Crawl limit on entry plan | Not publicly documented | Unlimited* |
| Scheduled / cloud crawling | Yes | Scheduled (local); cloud via manual setup |
| Log file analysis | Not publicly documented | No |
| Runs locally (desktop) or in the cloud | Cloud only | Desktop (Windows, macOS, Linux) |
The differences that actually matter
Pricing transparency and accessibility
Screaming Frog publishes every price publicly: £199 per user per year for 1–4 licences, dropping to £169 per user at 20+ licences, with a permanent free tier that crawls up to 500 URLs. There is no sales process and no form to fill out before getting access. Lumar lists no prices anywhere on its website — a prospect must submit a contact form and engage with sales before any figures are discussed. For teams with limited budgets or those who need to act quickly, this distinction is decisive.
Cloud monitoring vs. desktop-based auditing
Lumar is a cloud-native platform built around continuous operation — its Monitor module tracks technical changes across domains over time and fires customizable alerts when metrics shift. Screaming Frog runs on the user's own hardware (Windows, macOS, or Linux) and produces crawl results on demand; scheduled crawls are a paid feature that still runs locally. There is no managed cloud crawling service in Screaming Frog. For teams that need always-on technical surveillance across multiple properties, Lumar's architecture is fundamentally better suited.
CI/CD pipeline integration and pre-deployment QA
Lumar's Protect module is built specifically for integrating automated SEO and technical QA tests into CI/CD pipelines, catching regressions before code reaches the live site. This capability has no equivalent in Screaming Frog. The SEO Spider is a post-deployment audit tool — it crawls sites as they exist on production or staging but does not plug into a deployment pipeline. Development-integrated teams at enterprise scale will find Protect a meaningful differentiator; agency and freelance practitioners have no practical use for it.
Crawl scale and hardware constraints
Lumar's cloud infrastructure scales beyond what any individual machine can handle, making it appropriate for crawling millions of URLs without hardware bottlenecks. Screaming Frog's paid licence removes its 500 URL cap, but the actual crawl ceiling is constrained by the user's own RAM and disk storage — the tool explicitly notes this in its FAQ. For very large sites, Lumar's cloud architecture provides a real practical advantage, while Screaming Frog remains highly capable for sites within the hardware limits of a modern workstation.
Deployment model and platform scope
Beyond technical SEO, Lumar has expanded its platform to cover GEO/AEO (AI search visibility), web accessibility auditing, and site speed as distinct modules alongside its core crawl capabilities. Screaming Frog remains tightly focused on its core crawler mission — over 300 SEO issue checks, structured data validation, hreflang, and integrations. Lumar's expanding scope suits teams that want a single platform across multiple disciplines; Screaming Frog suits teams that want a best-in-class crawler without paying for modules they will never use.
Where each tool wins and falls short
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
Screaming Frog SEO Spider
Strengths
- Audits over 300 SEO issues in a single crawl including hreflang, AMP, structured data, and accessibility
- Native integrations with Google Search Console, Google Analytics, PageSpeed Insights, and third-party link metric APIs
- JavaScript rendering via integrated Chromium engine supports Angular, React, Vue.js, and other frameworks
- Very low annual cost relative to SaaS alternatives, with a functional permanent free tier
Weaknesses
- Runs locally — crawl speed and URL volume are constrained by the user's own hardware memory and storage
- No native keyword research database or backlink index; link metrics require a paid third-party API (Majestic, Ahrefs, or Moz)
- Licences are per user; teams require individual licences per seat, adding cost for larger groups
- No built-in SERP tracking, content decay detection, or quick-wins workflow based on ranking data
Who each tool fits
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
Screaming Frog SEO Spider
Best for
- •Technical SEOs and agencies running deep on-site audits across large or complex websites
- •Teams that need JavaScript rendering, custom extraction, and structured data validation in a single tool
- •SEOs who want a low-cost, locally run crawler with no monthly subscription
Not ideal for
- •Teams that need cloud-hosted, always-on scheduled crawling without manual desktop involvement
- •Marketers looking for rank tracking, keyword research, or backlink analysis within the same tool
- •Users who need multi-seat collaboration or shared dashboards without purchasing separate per-user licences
Which should you choose?
Screaming Frog wins for individual practitioners, agencies, and budget-conscious teams who need a powerful, low-cost crawler they can run immediately. Lumar wins for enterprise and mid-market organizations that require automated cloud monitoring, multi-domain dashboards, and pre-deployment QA integrated into development workflows — provided they can absorb a sales-gated procurement process and an undisclosed price.
Choose Lumar (formerly Deepcrawl) if…
- Your team manages multiple large domains and needs a single cloud dashboard that continuously monitors all of them for technical regressions without manual crawl runs.
- Your engineering and SEO teams share a CI/CD pipeline and you need automated technical QA — via Lumar Protect — that catches issues before they reach production.
- Your organization requires SOC 2 Type 2 certified infrastructure and formal enterprise procurement, including custom module selection across Analyze, Monitor, Protect, and Impact.
- You need to combine crawl data with Google Analytics, Google Search Console, and Majestic data in a single platform with stakeholder-facing reporting and benchmarking dashboards.
Choose Screaming Frog SEO Spider if…
- You need a fully functional crawler today — the free version crawls up to 500 URLs at no cost, and a single paid licence is £199 per year with no sales call required.
- Your audit work is project-based or client-by-client, making an on-demand desktop crawler more practical than a continuous cloud monitoring subscription.
- You want to connect crawl data with Google Search Console, PageSpeed Insights, and link metrics from Ahrefs, Majestic, or Moz in one crawl run using built-in integrations.
- Your team runs JavaScript-heavy audits and needs Chromium-rendered crawling with custom extraction, structured data validation, and hreflang checks all within a single £199/year tool.
Frequently asked questions
What buyers ask when weighing Lumar (formerly Deepcrawl) and Screaming Frog SEO Spider.
Yes, by a significant and knowable margin. Screaming Frog costs £199 per user per year — publicly stated, no negotiation required. Lumar does not publish any pricing; buyers must contact sales to receive a quote. Based on its enterprise positioning and clients like Cox Automotive and Compare the Market, Lumar contracts are expected to be substantially more expensive than a per-seat Screaming Frog licence.
Screaming Frog supports scheduled crawls as a paid feature, but they run locally on the user's own machine — the desktop app must be available and running. Lumar's Monitor module runs continuous cloud-based scheduled crawls with automated alerting, requiring no local machine involvement. For genuinely always-on automated monitoring, Lumar's cloud architecture is the materially stronger option.
No. Based on all available source material, Lumar does not offer a free trial or any free tier. Prospective customers are directed to submit a contact form to receive a quote and begin the procurement process. Screaming Frog, by contrast, offers a permanently free version that crawls up to 500 URLs per crawl with no time limit.
Both tools render JavaScript. Screaming Frog uses an integrated Chromium engine that supports Angular, React, Vue.js, and other frameworks as part of its standard paid licence. Lumar also documents JavaScript rendering as a platform capability. For most JS audit needs, Screaming Frog at £199/year is the more cost-efficient entry point; Lumar's advantage is handling very large-scale JS sites in the cloud without hardware constraints.
Neither tool includes a proprietary backlink index or keyword research database. Screaming Frog pulls link metrics via third-party API integrations with Majestic, Ahrefs, or Moz. Lumar integrates with Majestic. Both tools are crawlers first; keyword and backlink research require separate tooling in either case.
Yes — Lumar's Protect module is specifically designed for CI/CD pipeline integration, running automated technical SEO and QA tests before code is deployed to production. Screaming Frog has no equivalent capability. This is one of the sharpest functional distinctions between the two tools and is relevant primarily to enterprise engineering and SEO teams working in shared deployment pipelines.
It depends on the agency's scale and workflow. For agencies that run on-demand audits per client engagement, Screaming Frog at £199 per licence per year is hard to beat — bulk pricing drops to £169/licence at 20 or more seats. For agencies or in-house enterprise teams that need continuous multi-domain monitoring with shared dashboards and alerting, Lumar's Monitor module offers capabilities Screaming Frog does not have.
No. Log file analysis is a separate Screaming Frog product called Log File Analyser and is not part of the SEO Spider. Lumar's log file analysis capability is not documented in available source material either. If log file analysis is a core requirement, neither tool should be evaluated as the primary solution for that specific workflow.