Building a Backlink Comparison Table by Hand

When you want to compare your backlink profile with a competitor's, the first reflex is often to open a tool subscription. The hard part of a comparison is rarely collecting the data. It is asking a precise question and putting two profiles on the same scale. Building a backlink comparison table fits on one spreadsheet tab, and this article walks through how to set that tab up. Akua Adforce does not offer a backlink comparison tool and does not run competitor analysis; what follows is your own worksheet. Every number in the tables is invented purely to illustrate the layout.

Building a Backlink Comparison Table: What Can You Do Without a Tool?

What a manual table covers

A hand-built table does not replace a dashboard. It makes a dashboard's output easier to read. If you have an export of your own link data and one export for a competitor from a single source, putting them side by side takes no formula skills at all. The purpose of the sheet is not to imitate the competitor. It is to see where the gap between two profiles gathers. For the collection steps, see this walkthrough of competitor backlink analysis; this article does not repeat gathering and starts from data you already hold.

The question to ask before shopping for a tool

Before you look at any backlink comparison tool, ask which decision the comparison is meant to inform. If the answer is "see how many links we have," a single total will do. If it is "decide which page type to invest in," a total is not enough and you need a page-type column. Tools bought before the question is clear tend to add columns and noise. A manual table acts as a brake here: adding a column costs effort, so only columns that serve your question survive.

Where the manual approach stops

The method suits a few dozen sources and a few hundred rows of export. For a profile with thousands of rows, reading by hand gives way to sampling, which is a separate piece of work. A manual table also cannot repair missing data: it shows exactly as much as your export contained. Saying so in the top row of the sheet keeps the reader from drawing the wrong conclusion.

Defining the Comparison Question

One sentence that sets the columns

Write a single sentence before you build anything: "Which topics do our blog links and Site A's blog links come from, and where does the gap sit?" That sentence dictates the columns. A topic question needs a topic column, a freshness question needs a date column, a context question needs a link-context column. Tables opened without such a sentence usually put everything side by side and answer nothing. Limit the number of competitors at this stage too; two or three give a readable layout for most questions.

Knowing who will read the sheet

The reader decides the level of detail. For your own notes, abbreviations are fine. For a client or a manager, add a one-line explanation under each column header. The guide on reading a backlink profile with link checkers explains the basic vocabulary, so if your reader is new to it, a short glossary row under the table is enough.

Rows and Columns: Sites, Criteria and Date

Criteria down the side, sites across the top

The classic layout puts criteria in rows and sites in columns: the first column holds the criterion name, the second your site, and the rest your competitors. The eye then travels left to right across one criterion for three sites. The reverse layout, with one row per site, reads better when the criteria are numerous. Whichever you choose, use only one layout on a sheet and do not flip it halfway.

How long the criteria list can be

Eight criteria is already generous for a first pass. Referring domain count, total links, target page-type split, source topic fit and link context give five or six rows, which is a usable first cut. Next to each criterion, write which question it serves. If no question can be named, delete the row; a short table says more than a long one.

The date row and the source row

Place two fixed rows above the table: the date the data was pulled and the source it came from. A sheet without them becomes a record in which nobody can say which number belongs to which day. Adding the export's file name to the source row lets you return to the same data later. Link and domain counts describe what one tool measured, not what Google holds; one sentence under the table saying so is enough.

Taking Data From the Same Source on the Same Date

The single-source rule

It is tempting to pull your own profile from Search Console and a competitor's from elsewhere, because your own data is complete there. But two sources answer two different questions. The Links report in Search Console is only available for properties you own, so it cannot be used for a competitor. If a competitor comparison is needed, use an export from the same third-party source for every site. Keep your Search Console data on a separate tab as a cross-check, not in the main table.

What the Search Console report does and does not show

According to Google's help page, the report presents external links as top linking sites, top linked pages and top linking text. Repeated links from the same source to the same target are merged, and data is grouped by root domain. Tables are capped at 1,000 rows, the report is a sample rather than a complete list, and it does not show whether a link is nofollow. Those behaviors describe that report only. If you put such data in the table, note these limits in the source row.

The same-day rule

Tools refresh their data on their own crawl schedules, so exports taken two days apart may disagree about links gained or lost in between. When you compare three sites, pull all three exports on one day. If you could not, write a separate date above each column and mention that the comparison may be affected by the gap.

Normalizing Metrics Before Putting Them Side by Side

Why raw counts do not compare

Comparing 4,000 links on a site that has operated for five years with 600 links on a site launched last year is not fair. Normalization means bringing the figures to a common scale: links acquired per year, linking domains per page, or the split expressed as a share of the total. The table at the end of this article is invented to demonstrate the logic and describes no real site.

Why authority scores should not share a row

Scores from different tools come from different scales. Someone who reads about Domain Authority versus Domain Rating quickly sees why two such numbers cannot sit on one row, and the reading of Page Authority is a separate page-level exercise. These scores describe what one tool measured, not what Google holds. If you use them, take them from one tool and one version, and compare only within that tool. Never add or average scores from different tools.

Qualitative Columns: Topical Fit and Link Context

Numbers do not carry context

Two sites can have the same number of linking domains while one gets its links from relevant publications and the other from unrelated directories. That difference only appears in qualitative columns. Keep the topical fit column to three levels: close, adjacent, distant. Write what each level means under the table and apply the same rule while filling it in.

The link-context column

Whether a link sits inside an article, in a sidebar or in a comment also matters. How context gets built is covered separately in the piece on contextual backlinks and link context. For the table, three or four labels such as "in-text," "sidebar" and "footer" are enough. Sample instead of labeling every row: read the first fifty rows by hand and note the share. Because these labels rest on judgment, add a side column showing who set each label and on which day. When two people label the same row differently, you can then trace which part of the table rests on interpretation and which on the export itself.

Three Questions to Draw From the Table

Where does the gap gather?

The first question is which column holds the difference. Is it the total of linking domains, blog-based links, or one page type? A table whose gap gathers in a single place is directional; a table with small differences in every column usually says nothing. Do not invent a threshold here: the gap is read by its relative size within the table itself.

Which part of the gap is closable?

After finding a gap, ask whether it is something you can act on. Links that come from a competitor's long-running partnership are not a work item for your plan. A gap in a page type you lack is a possible work item. The table helps you separate the first group from the second, but it does not make the separation; you do.

Which gap may not matter at all?

The third question filters noise: deliberately note the gaps that do not serve your goals and move on. A gap in links from foreign-language sources can sit in the background if you serve only a local market. This note also goes in the table, so the same topic is not reopened two months later.

When the Table Misleads

Sample size and timing

A small site with a handful of links produces wild shares against a competitor with hundreds: one link out of three is thirty-three percent, and one more link next month makes it fifty. Timing misleads in a similar way, since newly published links may not have reached the data source yet. Record freshness per column when you compare.

Inflated metrics and outlier rows

An unusually high figure in a competitor's profile may not be a natural achievement. The cues in recognizing padded traffic figures and overstated SEO numbers help you tag a suspicious row. Do not build an accusation from one row, though; a label such as "suspicious, unverified" is sufficient.

The causation trap

A competitor having more links does not explain why that competitor ranks higher. The same table hides factors that are not in it, such as content quality, brand awareness or site age. A table shows a difference; it does not show its cause.

Turning the Table Into a Decision Note

A three-line note

The table is not finished until a note exists. Give the note three lines: what we saw, what it might mean, what we will do. "What we saw" reads directly from the table. "What it might mean" is an assumption and is labeled as one. "What we will do" is a single work item and its owner.

Linking findings to diversification

Findings from the table often concern the balance of a profile: a distribution leaning on one source type, or links piled onto one page. The article on diversifying a backlink profile discusses that balance, and using its terms in the decision note helps the team speak one language. Do not write diversification as an outcome promise; "observing the balance" is enough.

Writing down rejected findings

If you deliberately left a gap unaddressed, write it in the note with the reason: "arises from a partnership we cannot copy." Then nobody rediscovers the same finding next month. A list of rejected findings often saves more time than the list of accepted ones.

Hypothetical example: "Saw: Competitor A has more than three times our links from topically close sources, but most come from a long-running event partnership. Might mean: the gap stems from a relationship we cannot reproduce soon. Will do: draft a content plan for three close publications, owner content editor, due first week of next month." The note promises no outcome; it names the next task and its owner.

A Routine for Refreshing the Table

Choosing the refresh rhythm

Refreshing weekly produces noise, and refreshing yearly leaves a stale picture. For most projects a quarterly rhythm is a fair start; a fast-moving competitor may justify monthly. Keep the rhythm fixed and add a "next refresh date" row to the sheet.

Naming versions

Do not overwrite the old tab at each refresh. Name tabs with the period, for example "2026-Q4." When two versions open side by side you can see the change, and that is the table's most useful output. If tabs accumulate, move old ones into a separate file.

Changing the rules mid-stream

If you add or drop a criterion, write it in the refresh note; otherwise nobody can tell whether the difference between two periods came from real change or from a rule change. Where an old version cannot be refilled under the new rule, label that part "not comparable."

Some events call for a refresh regardless of the schedule: a competitor moving to a new domain, announcing a large restructure, or your own site migrating. These events shift link targets in bulk and the old table loses its meaning quickly. When you notice such a trigger, take a snapshot immediately and add the event to the tab name.

Example Template: A Backlink Comparison Table (Hypothetical)

Everything in the template below is made up: site names, figures and dates stand for no real data. It assumes one export, from one source, taken on one date. The numbers belong to whichever tool produced them, not to Google.

Steps for filling in the sheet:

1. Write the comparison question in one sentence and place it above the table.
2. Pull exports for all three sites on the same day from the same source.
3. Normalize raw counts into per-year figures or shares.
4. Fill the qualitative columns by reading the first fifty rows by hand.
5. Write the three-line decision note under the table.

Things that stay out of the decision note:

• An estimate of how many links it would take to pass the competitor.
• An accusation drawn from a single row.
• Scores from different tools added into one row.
• A ranking or traffic expectation.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do you build a backlink comparison table?

Write the comparison question in one sentence, then put sites in columns and criteria in rows. Pull the data from one source on one day, convert raw counts into per-year or share figures, and add qualitative columns such as topical fit and link context. Finish with a three-line decision note under the table.

Can you compare backlinks without a tool?

Yes, but you still need to get the data from somewhere. Search Console's Links report covers your own site, and a competitor needs an exported source that is publicly available to you. The manual method does not remove data collection; it turns collected data into a readable table. For thousands of rows, sample rather than read everything.

Can data from different tools share one table?

It is safer not to put them in one row. Tools can use different crawl data and different counting logic, and their scores and counts are tool-specific rather than Google values. If you use several, give each its own tab and compare only inside the same tool. Always write the source and date rows.

Which criteria belong in the table?

The ones that serve your question. Linking domain count, total links, target page-type split, topical fit and link context make a workable start. Next to each criterion, write the question it answers and delete rows with no answer. Take scores from a single tool and read them only within that tool.

Does the table show how to overtake a competitor?

No. The table shows a difference between two profiles, but it does not prove that the difference explains ranking, nor that closing it would bring a result. Content, brand and site age sit outside the table. Read what comes out of it as an assumption, not as a promised outcome.

How often should the table be refreshed?

A quarterly rhythm is a reasonable start for most projects, and a fast-changing competitor may justify monthly. Keep the old tab, named by period, at each refresh, and note any criterion change. That way you can tell whether a difference between two periods comes from real movement or from a rule change.

Conclusion and Next Step

The strength of a manual table is not that it removes tools. It makes the question sharper. One sheet holds your question, the date, the source, the normalized figures and the qualitative notes together, and it also shows what you did not measure, which is often the most useful finding.

If one of the notes from your table points to adding an inbound link to a relevant page, you can look at the options on the product side. Akua Adforce is not a comparison tool; it is a marketplace of listings. Once you add a listing to your cart and pay, the seller approves, a delivery notice follows, and a dispute can be opened if something goes wrong. Check the listing page for what is included, and do not expect a promised result, timing or publication. To see the options, visit backlink packages.