Free SEO & Marketing Tools

Why we build free tools

Good tools do more than fill a page. They solve a real, repeated job — and the best way to show how we think about SEO and paid media is to hand you something useful, not a brochure.

Each tool here maps to a service we run: the schema generator, the AI readiness checker and the llms.txt generator sit alongside our AI-search work, the robots.txt generator, sitemap generator, meta tag generator, FAQ schema generator, slug generator and keyword density checker alongside technical and content SEO, the readability checker alongside content marketing, the engagement rate calculator alongside social media, the A/B test calculator alongside conversion work, and the UTM builder plus the CPM, CTR, CPC, conversion rate, ROAS, CAC and ad budget calculators alongside performance marketing. Use the tool yourself, and if you would rather it was done for you at scale, the matching service is one click away.

The three campaign calculators, and when each one applies

They look similar and they are not. Each answers a different question about the same campaign, in the order the money moves through it.

CPM comes first — it is what you pay to be seen, per thousand impressions. It tells you whether the buy itself was efficient, and it is the number you plan a budget against before a single click happens.

CTR comes second — of the people who saw the ad, what share clicked. That is a verdict on the creative and the targeting, not on the buy. It is also the number most often misread: two ads at 1.8% and 2.4% look decisively different and frequently are not, which is why our calculator runs the significance test instead of leaving you to eyeball it.

ROAS comes last — revenue back per rupee spent, and the only one of the three that speaks to profit. A campaign can have an excellent CPM, a strong CTR, and still lose money. That is why the ROAS calculator asks for your margin and shows the break-even ROAS you actually need, rather than just the number.

If you want the concepts rather than the arithmetic, each metric has a full explainer in the performance marketing guide.

The two budgeting calculators, and how they connect

CPM, CTR and ROAS judge a campaign that's already running. The CAC and ad budget calculators sit one step earlier — planning and sanity-checking the spend itself.

The ad budget calculator works forward — from a revenue goal, through your real funnel rates, to the budget that goal implies. It also hands back the implied cost per lead and implied CAC as a side effect of the same math.

The CAC calculator works from the other end — given what you actually spent and how many customers you actually got, is that acquisition cost sustainable against what a customer is worth? The two are designed to be used together: plan a budget with one, then check the resulting acquisition math with the other once real numbers come in.

The CPC and conversion-rate calculators, and how they extend the paid-media set

CPC and conversion rate are the two links between the campaign calculators above and revenue itself — cost per click on one side of the equation, what a click actually becomes on the other.

The CPC calculator solves in three directions — CPC from spend and clicks, clicks affordable from a budget, or budget required for a click target — the same solve-backwards pattern already proven on the CPM calculator, but for the metric advertisers actually bid on.

The conversion rate calculator picks up where CPC leaves off: once a click lands, did it convert? It solves conversion rate, conversions needed, or visitors needed — and its Compare mode runs the same two-proportion significance test built for the CTR calculator, so a landing-page A/B "winner" gets the same statistical scrutiny an ad-creative winner already does.

The three newest tools, and the jobs they cover

The set above is almost entirely about money moving through a campaign. These three cover jobs that happen earlier or elsewhere — naming a page, editing a draft, and reporting on organic social.

The URL slug generator is the smallest job on the list and the one most often done badly at scale. Free slug tools take one title; this one takes a whole content calendar's worth at once, strips accents, emoji and stop words, flags anything over 75 characters, and previews the full URL. It also carries the slug conventions this site follows, because the rules matter more than the tool: no dates, no stop words, three to five words, lowercase, hyphens, trailing slash. It will not tell you whether that slug already exists on your site — that part is still your job, and changing a live slug without a 301 costs you the rankings the old URL earned.

The readability checker gives you the Flesch numbers everyone quotes, but its useful half is the preview pane: every sentence over 25 words is highlighted where it sits, so an editor can fix the paragraph rather than stare at a score. It bundles a word counter and a character counter in the same page rather than spinning those out as two thin tools. It is also honest about what it is — the Flesch formulas are heuristics built for English prose, they cannot see whether writing is accurate or useful, and they penalise technical vocabulary your reader may understand perfectly well. A low score on a page written for specialists is not automatically a problem.

The engagement rate calculator exists because the same post can honestly be reported at three different engagement rates depending on the denominator — followers, reach, or impressions. It shows all three at once with each formula spelled out using your own numbers, across Instagram, LinkedIn, YouTube and X. What it deliberately does not do is tell you what a good engagement rate is. Published benchmarks disagree with each other wildly, shift with account size, niche and format, and usually never state which denominator they used, which makes them unusable for comparison. The comparisons that actually hold are your own account over time and your own competitors measured the same way — the metric context sits in marketing KPIs that actually matter and the social media marketing guide.

The five newest tools, and what they each refuse to do

These five shipped together, and they share a design decision: each one validates before it generates. A tool that hands you a perfectly formatted file full of the mistakes you made is not saving you any work.

The sitemap generator checks ten things about your URL list before it writes a line of XML — duplicates, URLs on a different host, mixed http and https, fragments that do not belong in a sitemap at all, trailing slashes that disagree with the rest of the set, and both protocol limits. What it will not do is crawl your site, and it says so in the hero rather than being vague about it: a browser cannot fetch another domain's pages, so this takes a list you already have and turns it into valid XML. If you need a crawl, the page names the tools that do that instead. The explainer sits in what an XML sitemap does and doesn't do.

The meta tag generator measures pixel width rather than counting characters, because that is how Google truncates — sixty wide characters can get cut where sixty-five narrow ones survive. It also refuses to write nine tags that other generators still emit, with a note on each explaining what it was for and why it is ignored now. It cannot see your page, so the one problem it cannot catch is the common one: duplicate tags already in your head from a theme, an SEO plugin and a page builder all writing the same thing.

The FAQ schema generator starts from an awkward fact — Google dropped FAQ rich results in 2026 and removed the documentation. So the tool generates the visible accordion first and labels that as the part that does the work, with the JSON-LD offered second and marked optional. It is the position this site takes on its own pages, which you can verify by viewing the source of any of them. The full argument is in is FAQ schema still worth it.

The A/B test calculator answers the question every other sample-size tool leaves out. Knowing you need 24,000 visitors per variation is useless on its own; knowing that is eleven weeks at your traffic is a decision. It also runs the calculation backwards — given your traffic and the longest you would let a test run, what is the smallest lift you could actually detect — which is usually the number that settles whether to test at all. It is a frequentist normal-approximation calculator and says so, with a hard floor below which it refuses to give a verdict.

The llms.txt generator is the one with a position. Almost every page ranking for that term implies the file helps you appear in AI search. Google's own guidance says Search does not use it, and no AI provider publishes documented support for it. So the page says that near the top, then generates the file properly anyway and gives the three honest reasons you might still want one. It also separates llms.txt from robots.txt, which is a real standard that does control AI crawlers — the two get confused constantly, and only one of them does anything.

Which one do you need?