The On-Page SEO Audit is the narrower sibling of the full audit: same page, but only the things that live in the HTML you control. No crawling, no site-wide inference, no external signals. That focus is what makes it useful as a working checklist rather than a diagnosis — everything it reports is something you can change in the page source and re-run in a minute.

Here is where that sits. The median is 82/100, which ranks it 4 of the 25 measures in this dataset. The middle half of results falls between 72 and 90 — a band 18 points wide. That is wide: sites genuinely diverge here, which is to say getting ahead is still possible.

How the scores are distributed

An average on its own misleads. The chart below splits all 2,550 scans into five score bands, totalling 100%. A large group clears the top band while a real tail is left behind, so the median understates how well the leading pages do.

  • 0–19
  • 20–39
  • 40–59
  • 60–79
  • 80–100
On-Page SEO Auditn = 2,550
On-Page SEO Audit score distribution: how 2,550 scans spread across five score bands, median 82/100
On-Page SEO Audit — score distribution, 8 August 2026 – 31 August 2026. Free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 with attribution.
Score bandOn-Page Audit
0–190% · 0
20–391% · 29
40–5913% · 320
60–7927% · 696
80–10059% · 1,505
Total runs2,550

The grade mix

The same data as letters: A+ 95–100, A 85–94, B 75–84, C 65–74, D 50–64 and F below 50.

Where your score stands

Read this score as "how much of the page did I actually fill in". It rewards completeness over cleverness: a plain page with a good title, one H1, real headings, ALT text and a description scores well, while an elaborate page missing three of those does not. The upper quartile is reachable by anybody willing to go through the list once.

On-Page SEO Auditmedian 82
0255075100
Tool10th25thMedian75th90thMeanLowestHighest
On-Page Audit527282909478.630100

How to read it: 72 is bottom-quartile, 82 is a typical page, 90 starts the upper quartile and 94 or above is the top 10%. These thresholds apply to this tool only.

The checks that fail most

What fails here is overwhelmingly the writing rather than the engineering. Titles outside their range, headings that skip a level, images without ALT text, descriptions that were never written — none of it requires a developer, and all of it requires somebody to care about a page after it has been published.

Healthy text-to-HTML ratio78%
Content-Security-Policy47%
All images have ALT text45%
Title length optimal (30–60)41%
Limited inline styles39%
Structured data (Schema.org)37%
Meta description length (70–160)37%
No broken links36%
Open Graph tags35%
X-Content-Type-Options35%
Exactly one H133%
Clickjacking protection32%
The checks that fail most often on the On-Page SEO Audit, with each failure rate; “Healthy text-to-HTML ratio” leads at 78%
On-Page SEO Audit — failed checks by rate, from 2,550 scans.
CheckDid not passWeight
Healthy text-to-HTML ratio78%Partial
Content-Security-Policy47%Partial
All images have ALT text45%Partial
Title length optimal (30–60)41%Partial
Limited inline styles39%Partial
Structured data (Schema.org)37%Partial
Meta description length (70–160)37%Partial
No broken links36%Hard fail
Open Graph tags35%Partial
X-Content-Type-Options35%Partial
Exactly one H133%Partial
Clickjacking protection32%Partial

“Hard fail” means the check’s full weighting is lost; “partial” means only part of the score is. Rates are the share of scans in which the check ran and did not pass.

The weakest areas

This tool groups its checks into categories. The chart below shows how often each category was the lowest-scoring one in a scan — which area is most often the weak link. It is not the average score in that category; it is how often it came last.

Social & structured data33%
Links & Media28%
Security15%
Performance14%
Meta & Content9%
Technical & Indexability0%

“Social & structured data” was the weakest area in 33% of scans.

What to fix first

Work down the list by weight, not by order, and do the headings before the meta. Heading structure is the thing everything else hangs off: it tells a crawler and a language model how the page is organised, and fixing it usually surfaces content problems the meta tags were papering over.

The hard fails on this tool. Each of these 1 checks costs its entire weighting when it does not pass, where everything else on the list costs only part of the score. The most common is “No broken links”, unmet in 36% of scans.

A typical scan passes 27.7 of 36 checks and leaves 8.3 open items behind. What drags a score down is usually not one catastrophe but accumulated small omissions.

Run the On-Page SEO Audit on your own page

Month by month

The figures on this page are replaced at every refresh. At the end of each month a permanent edition is published for that month and never edited again — which is the only reason this series can be compared at all. One edition has been published so far; when the second lands this section will set the two months side by side.

EditionMedianvs. previousScored 80+Issues/runRuns
August 202682baseline59%8.32,550

Frequently asked questions

How is this different from the All-in-One audit?

The All-in-One audit adds the technical and delivery layers — security headers, redirects, compression, mobile layout, AI readiness — and produces one combined score. This one stays inside on-page SEO: what is in the HTML, how it is structured, and whether the writing is complete. Use this when you are editing a page and the other when you are assessing it.

Should every page have exactly one H1?

Yes in practice, even though HTML5 technically permits more. One H1 states unambiguously what the page is about; several make a crawler guess, and guessing is not in your favour. The common failure is a theme that renders the site logo as an H1 on every page, which quietly turns your brand name into every page's topic.

How much content does a page need to pass?

There is no threshold that guarantees anything, but pages under a few hundred words rarely have room to answer a question completely, and the check flags them for that reason rather than because length is a ranking factor. Depth is what is really being measured; word count is just the proxy that can be measured automatically.

What is a good score on the On-Page SEO Audit?

In this dataset the median is 82/100, so scoring 82 puts you exactly in the middle. 90 is the start of the upper quartile and 94 or above is the top 10%; below 72 is the bottom quarter. Those thresholds are specific to this tool — the 25 measures in this dataset have very different medians, so 70 here and 70 elsewhere do not mean the same thing.

Which check fails most often on the On-Page SEO Audit?

“Healthy text-to-HTML ratio”, which did not pass in 78% of scans. The costliest failures, though, are the ones scored as hard fails — this tool has 1, the most common being “No broken links” at 36%.

Questions that govern the whole series — how the sample is collected, how sites are anonymized, how often the figures are refreshed — are answered in the methodology on the hub.

Using this data

The figures, tables and charts on this page are free to reuse under CC BY 4.0; the only condition is a link back to this page. Suggested citation: SeoMods — On-Page SEO Audit benchmarks, 2 September 2026, https://seomods.com/seo-score-benchmarks/seo-audit. If you need to cite by date, use the August 2026 edition instead: this page changes at every refresh and that one never does.