WooRank vs SEOptimer pricing: what a white label audit report costs on each, and the 5x gap nobody mentions

WooRank and SEOptimer sell the same headline product, a branded SEO audit report you hand to a client, and they price it about five times apart. White labeling starts at $39 a month on SEOptimer and $199.99 on WooRank. Billed annually that is $351 a year against $1,599, a gap of $1,248 for output a client cannot tell apart.

That single line decides most of these comparisons, so it goes first. What follows is where the money actually goes, what WooRank gives you that SEOptimer does not, and the case where paying five times more is still the right call. Every figure was read off each vendor's own pricing page on 1 September 2026.

What white label reports cost on each

Start here, because it is the feature agencies are buying and it lands on a different rung of each ladder.

The last row is the one that turns a price difference into a structural one. WooRank Premium is capped at five projects. SEOptimer covers unlimited websites from $39 and meters something else entirely, which we come back to below. An agency with twelve clients is on WooRank Enterprise, quoted, and still on SEOptimer White Label at $39.

One clarification worth making, because it catches people. WooRank Pro at $89.99 does include unlimited PDF reports, and it is easy to read that as white labeling. WooRank's own pricing page describes the Pro reports as PDFs to share with your team, and puts customized branding and content on Premium. If you are buying Pro to send client-facing documents, check that line first.

The full published ladders, side by side

Both vendors discount annual billing and describe it differently. SEOptimer states a flat 25 percent off. WooRank frames it as four months free, which works out slightly deeper: $199.99 down to $133.25 is a third off. Neither publishes a permanently free tier, and both trials require you to start an account.

They cap completely different things, and that decides it

This is the part that gets missed when people line the prices up. WooRank meters projects and pages crawled. SEOptimer meters crawls per month and tracked keywords, and lets you attach as many websites as you like. Those are two different products wearing the same category label.

Work out which constraint binds for you:

• One large site, audited continuously. WooRank Pro crawls 2,500 pages for $53.25 billed yearly. SEOptimer DIY gives you four crawls a month at $21.75. If the site is big and you want depth rather than frequency, WooRank Pro is genuinely the better instrument, and it is not close.
• Fifteen client sites, audited once a month. That is fifteen crawls, so SEOptimer White Label and Embedding at $44.25 covers it with unlimited websites. WooRank would need Enterprise, because Premium stops at five projects. Here the gap is not five times, it is unquoted against $531 a year.
• Prospecting at volume. If you are running audits on companies who are not clients yet, WooRank Lite at $12.99 billed yearly gives you 100 page reviews and unlimited exports, which is the cheapest line in this entire comparison for that specific job.

That last case is worth a sentence more, because the branded audit is rarely the whole workflow. Agencies generally use the report as the opener rather than the deliverable: run the audit on a prospect, attach the PDF, and start a conversation about the three worst findings. The audit tool prices the report, but the volume comes from whatever researches each prospect and writes the sequence, and that is a separate line in the budget that people forget when they are comparing two audit subscriptions.

Where WooRank genuinely wins

We sell a competing tool, so it is worth being specific rather than vague about this. WooRank publishes several things SEOptimer does not publish at any tier:

• Core Web Vitals monitoring inside the product, on Pro and above.
• A page review API, metered per month, on Pro and Premium, with full API access on Enterprise.
• Competitor benchmarking against three competitors on both Pro and Premium.
• Uptime notifications that alert you when a monitored site goes down.
• Browser extensions for Chrome and Firefox that produce an instant review, unlimited on every tier including the $19.99 one. For anyone who audits sites while browsing, this is a real workflow advantage.
• An Index and Benchmarking Tool on Enterprise, which data mines its own corpus of website reviews. Nothing else in this price band offers that.

One caution on the numbers. WooRank's pricing page contradicts itself in two places: the Pro column lists 500 page review API calls in its feature summary and 2,500 in its detail section, and Premium lists 10,000 crawled pages in the summary against 10,500 in the detail. Neither figure is quoted as fact anywhere on this site for that reason. If the API allowance is what you are buying on, get it confirmed in writing before you commit to a year.

What a ten client agency pays on each

Take a concrete setup: three people, ten client sites, one white-labeled audit report per client per month, annual billing on both sides.

• SEOptimer: White Label at $29.25 a month covers unlimited websites, 100 keywords, 10 crawls a month and 3 users. Ten clients is exactly ten crawls, so it fits with nothing to spare. That is $351 a year. Moving to White Label and Embedding at $44.25 buys 50 crawls, 6 users and the lead-generation form, at $531 a year.
• WooRank: Premium at $133.25 a month is the cheapest plan with client-ready branding, and it covers 5 projects, so ten clients does not fit. Two subscriptions is $3,198 a year, and the honest answer is that WooRank expects you on Enterprise, which is quoted. Even at Premium's published rate the comparable line is $1,599 a year for half the roster.

So the realistic spread for that agency is $351 to $531 against $1,599 or a sales call. If the reason to consider WooRank is Core Web Vitals monitoring and the API, price those against buying them separately before accepting a fourfold difference on the reporting.

The thing neither of them does

Both tools end in the same place: a scored, prioritized list of what is wrong with a page. That is genuinely useful and it is where the category stops. Nobody writes the corrected title tag, nobody drafts the meta description, and nobody hands you the heading outline you should have used. For an agency, that gap is the actual cost, because the audit takes four minutes and the rewriting takes an afternoon per site.

That is the part we built, and it is why this comparison exists on a competitor's site rather than a neutral one. Seomake reads a live page against the keyword it should rank for and writes the corrected title, meta description, heading outline, opening paragraph and the keyword gaps as copy you can paste into the CMS. It does not crawl on a schedule, it does not track rankings and it runs no link index, so it does not replace either tool on this page. It replaces the afternoon.

If you are choosing a first paid tool rather than switching between these two, the wider price comparison for a small team is on our SEO software for small business page, which puts ten entry tiers side by side with the caps attached. The rest of the audit-first category, including Seobility and SE Ranking, is compared on the audit tool comparison, and if white-label reporting across many client sites is the whole job, the add-on arithmetic on SE Ranking alternative and pricing is the closest comparable. The full category roundup sits on the SEO tools comparison.

WooRank vs SEOptimer, question by question