Large websites with multiple content writers and an organized SEO teamīoth of the above are “power users” of a sort.Not to mention that no one has compared the ROI of Ahrefs and other free alternatives for things like keyword research. However, for a website that makes a few hundred dollars a month, that’s over 20% of their entire income stream! And even then, it might take a lot of time before you begin to feel the difference.
The “ROI” ArgumentĪdvocates for Ahrefs will often tell you that any amount is worth paying if it brings in more revenue than it costs. It’s not a question of “How much can you afford”, but “How much is this worth to you?”.
I’m sorry, but I can’t justify this kind of expense. That’s less than half of what Ahrefs wants you to pay for their SEO tool. Ahrefs is asking you to pay 10 times more for its tool than you pay for web hosting! And if you’re thinking, “Well, that’s low-cost hosting, ” consider that NameHero’s managed VPS cloud renews at $40/m. If you host on NameHero’s starting plan, your entire hosting expense comes to less than $10/m in renewals. Paying $1200 yearly might not seem like a lot for large websites or SEO agencies that use Ahrefs as part of their workflow, but it’s a major expense for most other sites.įor comparison, consider the other expenses associated with running a website. The problem with any pricing model is that the same amount could be insignificant for some players but still represent a good chunk of expenditure for others. Simply Put, Ahrefs is Too ExpensiveĪhrefs costs $99/m. But like Screaming Frog, Ahrefs isn’t worth the cost for the overwhelming majority of websites. They’re both great products – the best in their class, in fact. I’m a website owner, and I’ve subscribed to Screaming Frog and Ahrefs. I’ve just finished writing an article on my I think a paid Screaming Frog subscription isn’t worth it, and now I’m saying that Ahrefs isn’t worth it either for most website owners! Am I just being a contrarian? Is it clickbait? If so, my opinion is, at the very least, genuine.
0 kommentar(er)
