SEO audit report sample

    Updated
    LemAudit Editorial
    By LemAudit Editorial · Research teamLast reviewed

    This is a complete SEO audit report for a real website, published in full and free to download as a PDF, Excel workbook, Word document, CSV or Markdown file. The site audited is pearllemon.com, which scored 72/100 across six weighted pillars, with 3 critical issues and 7 warnings.

    Download this SEO audit report

    The full audit of pearllemon.com below, in whichever format you work in. No email, no signup — the file is generated in your browser when you click.

    Want this for your own site instead of ours? Run a free audit and export the same formats, with your agency's branding on them.

    Looking for one specific format?

    Prefer a blank SEO audit report template?

    The same structure with the data stripped out: six weighted pillars, severity ranking, an evidence line under each finding and a client summary section. Markdown, no email required.

    Download the template (Markdown)

    Why this sample uses a real site

    Pearl Lemon is our own group site. We publish its audit in full — including the parts it fails — rather than a flattering invented example.

    Most published "SEO audit report examples" are mock-ups. They show a tidy site with three cosmetic problems, because nobody wants to publish a client's real failures and nobody wants to publish their own. The result is a sample that tells you nothing about what an audit finds in practice or how to write up bad news. pearllemon.com is a WordPress-based agency site we own, so we can publish everything — including a security pillar scoring 48/100 and an authoritativeness sub-score of 10/100.

    Score breakdown

    pearllemon.com scored 72/100 when we audited it on . The overall figure is a weighted average of six pillars, so you can always reconstruct it by hand. The benchmark column is the average across 126 sites we have audited.

    Performance76/100 · weight 25% · benchmark 78 (-2)
    Technical SEO88/100 · weight 20% · benchmark 80 (+8)
    Content68/100 · weight 15% · benchmark 31 (+37)
    Security48/100 · weight 15% · benchmark 54 (-6)
    AI & E-E-A-T readiness54/100 · weight 15% · benchmark 51 (+3)
    Accessibility94/100 · weight 10% · benchmark 94 (+0)

    Every finding, in full

    3 critical issues, 7 warnings and 4 passed checks. Each one records what was measured, not just a verdict — that evidence line is what makes an audit defensible when a client pushes back.

    Critical (3)

    No agent interfaces published

    AI & E-E-A-T readiness

    What we measured:
    Agent-interface score 5/100. No /.well-known/agents.json, no WebMCP script tags, no AGENTS.md.
    Recommendation:
    Publish agents.json declaring your key user flows, add AGENTS.md, and expose WebMCP tools so AI agents can act without scraping the DOM.

    Authorship and dates are invisible to machines

    AI & E-E-A-T readiness

    What we measured:
    Authoritativeness score 10/100. No schema.author, no machine-readable <time datetime=…>, 0 authoritative outbound citations.
    Recommendation:
    Add a visible author byline wired to schema.author, surface a publish/updated date in <time>, and cite two to three .gov/.edu/.org sources.

    Security header coverage is incomplete

    Security

    What we measured:
    Security pillar scored 48/100 against the header and transport checks.
    Recommendation:
    Add Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, Referrer-Policy and Permissions-Policy at the edge.

    Warning (7)

    33 render-blocking scripts and 45 external stylesheets

    Performance

    What we measured:
    111 external resources in total; HTML document weighs 688 KB before assets.
    Recommendation:
    Defer non-critical JavaScript, combine and inline critical CSS, and drop unused plugin stylesheets. This is the single biggest lever on LCP here.

    No images are lazy-loaded

    Performance

    What we measured:
    0% of 58 images use loading="lazy"; only 41% use a modern format.
    Recommendation:
    Add loading="lazy" below the fold and serve WebP/AVIF for the remaining 59% of images.

    16 form inputs have no associated label

    Accessibility

    What we measured:
    16 unlabelled inputs, 14 links with no discernible text, no <main> landmark.
    Recommendation:
    Associate every input with a <label>, give icon-only links accessible names, and wrap the primary content in <main>.

    Only one question-style H2

    Content

    What we measured:
    AI citation score 55/100; one question-format heading across 14 H2s. Answer-first opening paragraph was detected.
    Recommendation:
    Convert two to three H2s into the questions people actually search ("What is…", "How do I…") — this is what answer engines quote.

    Primary call to action sits far below the fold

    Content

    What we measured:
    First CTA appears 7,268 px down the page. Conversion-readiness grade 88/100 otherwise.
    Recommendation:
    Move a primary CTA into the first viewport.

    Inconsistent NAP formatting

    Technical SEO

    What we measured:
    Two different phone-number formats detected across the page and schema.
    Recommendation:
    Normalise every phone number to a single E.164 format in both copy and LocalBusiness schema.

    No web app manifest

    Technical SEO

    What we measured:
    PWA score 3. Favicon and apple-touch-icon present; manifest and theme-color absent.
    Recommendation:
    Add a manifest.json with icons and a theme colour.

    Passed (4)

    Crawlability is clean

    Technical SEO

    What we measured:
    robots.txt present, XML sitemap available, canonical declared, all 18 priority AI bots allowed.
    Recommendation:
    No action needed. Re-check after any hosting or CDN change.

    Structured data is well covered

    Technical SEO

    What we measured:
    Structured-grounding score 90/100: Organization, LocalBusiness, Article-class and FAQPage schema all present.
    Recommendation:
    No action needed. Keep FAQPage in sync with the visible copy.

    Trust and social proof are strong

    Content

    What we measured:
    Testimonials, case studies, client logos, trust badges and a Trustpilot profile all detected.
    Recommendation:
    No action needed.

    Image alt coverage is near complete

    Accessibility

    What we measured:
    57 of 58 images carry alt text; a skip link and <nav> landmark are present.
    Recommendation:
    Fix the single remaining image and this check is clean.

    Raw measurements

    The underlying numbers the scores were derived from. A report that shows only scores is impossible to check; a report that shows measurements can be re-run by anyone.

    Measurements recorded during the audit of pearllemon.com
    MetricValue
    Words of body copy2,780
    Heading structure1 × H1, 14 × H2, 13 × H3
    Internal links134
    External links15
    Images58 (1 missing alt text)
    Modern image formats41% of images
    Lazy-loaded images0% of images
    Render-blocking scripts33
    External CSS files45
    Total external resources111
    HTML document size688 KB
    Readability (Flesch)52 — grade 9.9, "difficult"
    AI crawlers allowed18 of 18 priority bots

    How 72/100 compares

    Every completed audit in the LemAudit database that carries a full pillar breakdown. Sites were submitted by agencies and prospects, so the sample skews towards small and mid-sized business websites rather than enterprise.

    The average site in that sample scores 65/100. Two patterns hold almost universally: accessibility and technical fundamentals are in decent shape, while content depth and machine-readable authorship are not. Content is the weakest pillar overall at 31/100.

    Most common worst-issue across 126 audited sites
    Most common worst issueSites affected
    No agent interfaces detected104 of 126
    Very thin content17 of 126
    No WebMCP tools exposed12 of 126
    Duplicate <title> tags5 of 126
    Missing H1 tag2 of 126
    robots.txt blocks all crawlers2 of 126

    How to reuse this structure

    If you are building your own client-facing audits, the four structural decisions in this report are the ones worth copying.

    1. One weighted score, shown as arithmetic. Six pillars, each with a published weight, averaging to the headline number. A client who disagrees with the score can see exactly which pillar to argue about, which turns a defensive conversation into a scoping conversation.
    2. Findings ranked by severity, not by category. Grouping by "technical / on-page / content" buries the two things that matter under the twelve that do not. Critical first, always.
    3. An evidence line under every finding. "Slow site" is an opinion. "33 render-blocking scripts, 45 external stylesheets, 111 external resources" is a fact, and it is also the scope of the work you are about to quote for.
    4. Passed checks left visible. An audit that lists only failures reads as a sales document. Showing that crawlability, structured data and image alt coverage are already clean is what makes the critical findings credible.

    The Word and Excel downloads keep all four of these intact, so the fastest path to your own report is to open the .docx, swap the data, and delete our footer. If you would rather not do that by hand for every prospect, running a free audit produces this same report for any domain in about a minute, and paid plans put your agency's branding on it instead of ours.

    Frequently asked questions

    Is this a real SEO audit report or a filled-in template?
    It is a real report. Every score, count and finding on this page came from an audit our engine ran against pearllemon.com on 2026-08-27. We publish our own group site rather than a client's, which is why we can show the failures as well as the passes.
    What formats can I download the sample SEO audit report in?
    PDF, Excel (.xlsx), Word (.docx), CSV and Markdown. The Word file opens directly in Google Docs and the Excel file opens in Google Sheets, so you can edit either without Microsoft Office. Every file is generated in your browser when you click, with no email required.
    Can I use this as a template for my own client reports?
    Yes. The structure — weighted pillar scores, severity-ranked findings, an evidence line under each issue, and raw measurements at the back — is the part worth copying. Download the Word or Excel version, replace the data with your own client's, and remove our footer.
    What should an SEO audit report actually contain?
    At minimum: one headline score you can defend, a breakdown showing how that score was reached, findings ranked by severity rather than by category, the measured evidence behind each finding, and a specific recommended fix. Reports that list issues without the measurement behind them cannot survive a client asking 'how do you know?'.
    How long should an SEO audit report be?
    Long enough to show the evidence and no longer. The sample here runs to four PDF pages covering 14 findings. Fifty-page audits are usually padded with screenshots and generic advice; what a client acts on is a ranked list of specific problems with specific fixes.
    Do I need to give my email to download this?
    No. Nothing on this page is gated. The files are built client-side from the data already rendered on the page.

    Run this report on your own site

    Same six pillars, same evidence lines, same export formats — for any domain, free.

    Run a free auditDownload the blank template