Show a client exactly where they stand
A single local score tells a client nothing to do. Dorqa shows the four parts the score is made of and what each one earned, so a comfortable-looking total that contains a zero is visible rather than averaged away.
Every number on this page came from a real run.
The second and third figures are the point. A score you can decompose and an average that refuses to count a missing thing as zero are both harder to produce than a single number, and both are what makes the first figure usable.
Four components, and what each one earned
The local score is not a mood. Each component carries a stated weight and an earned figure out of that weight, and the four add up to the headline exactly. A total that looks comfortable stops looking comfortable once you can see which part of it is empty.
- Ranking 35 of 35, reviews 29 of 29, rating 6 of 12, keywords 0 of 24
- Weights printed: 35, 29, 24 and 12 per cent
- 35 + 29 + 0 + 6 = 70, so the arithmetic is checkable
- Authority and backlinks are marked informational and not scored
70, labelled Strong. Ranking and reviews are both maxed. Keywords earns 0 of 24 — the third-heaviest weight in the score, contributing nothing.
Two maxed components are carrying the number. That is the sentence a client needs, and no single score can say it.
1 of 5
the other four are excluded, not zeroedA business with no website is not a business with no links
Four of the five competitors in this run have no website of their own; they rely on aggregator listings. The backlink comparison excludes them from the average and says so, instead of entering them as zero and reporting a gap that would be an artefact of the arithmetic.
- Businesses with no site are excluded, never counted as zero
- The exclusion is stated on the panel, with the businesses named
- Your own referring domains read N/A, not 0, when there is no site
- So the average is over the businesses actually comparable
Eight views on one local run
One analysis of a business and its market fans out into the competitor set, the keyword coverage, the gap list, the backlink picture, a prioritised opportunity list and rank tracking, all on the same project as the rest of the stack.
- Competitor threat, visibility and keyword overlap per rival
- Per-keyword SERP feature coverage across maps pack, organic and PAA
- Opportunities carrying effort and confidence, not just a list
- Rank history per keyword with the number of checks behind it
- OverviewScore composition, competitor gaps and GBP completeness
- CompetitorsThreat, visibility and keyword overlap per rival
- KeywordsLocal coverage and SERP features, keyword by keyword
- Keyword GapTerms the market ranks for that you do not
- BacklinksReferring domains, with no-site businesses excluded
- OpportunitiesPrioritised gaps carrying effort and confidence
- ActionsThe same gaps as a numbered task list
- TrackingRank history per keyword, with the check count
What this actually means
A local competitive gap is the per-metric distance between a business and the businesses ranking near it, stated as an amount rather than a rank, and read alongside the components of the score itself. The same business can max out one component and earn nothing on another; only the second kind is work.
A score is a blend, and the blend can hide a zero
In the run shown the business scores 70 and the product labels that Strong. Underneath: ranking 35 of 35, reviews 29 of 29, rating 6 of 12, and keywords 0 of 24. Two maxed components carry a total that contains nothing at all on the third-heaviest weight. The score is right; on its own it is not a brief.
N/A is not zero
This business has no website linked to its Google Business Profile, and four of its five competitors have none either. The backlink comparison excludes those four from the average rather than counting them as zero, and prints that it has done so. A tool that scored them zero would report a flattering average built on businesses that were never in the comparison.
Complete is not the same as verified complete
The GBP profile reads 100%, and directly underneath it says two fields were not reported by the data source. Those are different claims. A tool that quietly counted unverifiable fields as complete would show the same 100% and mean less by it.
One of six layers
They share one project, one subscription and one set of credits. See what Dorqa replaces.
Before you start
Four weighted components: ranking at 35 per cent, reviews at 29, keywords at 24 and rating at 12. Each is shown with what it earned out of its weight, and the four add to the headline figure. Authority and backlinks are reported but deliberately not scored, and the panel says so.
Yes, and this page shows one. The run displayed scores 70 and is labelled Strong while earning nothing at all on keywords. That is exactly why the components are printed rather than summarised.
It is excluded from the backlink average and named as excluded, rather than entered as zero. Four of the five competitors in the run shown have no site of their own. Counting them as zero would produce a gap that is an artefact of the arithmetic.
That every field the data source could verify is filled in. Two fields were not reported at all in the run shown, and that count is printed alongside rather than counted as complete.
Five were analysed in the run shown here.
Be first. Not just found.
Free tier, no card. Run your first check in a few minutes.