In a growing controversy highlighted by Irving Weekly, a website owner has raised serious concerns about the SEO software provider Ahrefs, alleging that the company’s platform significantly underreports organic website traffic while employing questionable tactics to pressure users into purchasing costly upgrades.
The issue came to light when the site owner compared their organic traffic numbers from Ahrefs with those recorded by Google Analytics, the industry standard for tracking actual site visitors. Ahrefs reported only 531 monthly organic visitors for the website, whereas Google Analytics showed a far higher figure of 7,301 for the same time frame—a discrepancy of over 92%. This means Ahrefs’ reported traffic represented just about 7.27% of the actual visitor count.
“This isn’t a small margin of error — it’s a complete misrepresentation of reality,” the owner told Irving Weekly. “When potential clients or advertisers rely on Ahrefs data, it can cost me real income by making my site appear far less popular than it really is.”
Ahrefs, like other SEO platforms, estimates traffic using proprietary algorithms based on keywords a site ranks for, estimated search volumes, and modeled click-through rates. However, its terms of service clearly state these figures are only estimates, which can lead to substantial differences compared to direct tracking tools like Google Analytics or server logs.
Beyond the traffic underreporting, the site owner highlighted another source of frustration: repeated emails warning that the “Site Audit crawl failed.” According to the owner, these alerts are framed as technical issues on the user’s end but are effectively paywall tactics designed to push users toward paid plans. The audits in question require higher-tier subscriptions to run full site crawls, limiting users on free or lower-level plans.
“It’s marketed like a problem with my website, but it’s really just a sales ploy,” the owner said. “They’re disguising a paywall as a technical error to pressure users into buying more expensive subscriptions.”
Compounding the controversy, Ahrefs offers users the option to link their Google Analytics accounts, which provide precise traffic data directly from the source. Yet despite having access to exact figures, Ahrefs continues to display its own algorithm-based estimates, which the site owner argues misleads advertisers and clients by underrepresenting a website’s true traffic unless the user pays for premium services.
“My opinion is that this entire system is a scam,” the owner stated. “They have the data to be accurate, but they choose not to show it publicly. Instead, they push inaccurate estimates that hurt businesses unless you pay for upgrades.”
Irving Weekly contacted Ahrefs for comment. The company reiterated its stance in a prepared statement, emphasizing that traffic numbers are estimates meant for relative comparison, not absolute accuracy. The response read:
“We understand concerns about our traffic estimates. Our organic traffic numbers are estimations based on the keywords a website ranks for, search volumes, and estimated click-through rates. Discrepancies with Google Analytics are normal due to factors such as not tracking all keywords and using estimated search volumes. Our estimates are best used for comparing sites and spotting trends, rather than exact figures. We recommend Google Analytics or Search Console for the most accurate data. We continuously work to improve our accuracy and are happy to discuss further.”
The statement does not address accusations of aggressive upselling tied to site audit limitations or the alleged impact of misleading traffic data on business revenue.
As more website owners voice frustration with SEO tools that rely on estimated rather than exact data, this case underscores the importance of transparency and honesty in digital marketing platforms—especially when such data influence critical business decisions and advertising budgets.
Also Read-Revolutionizing Digital Content with AI Video Face Swap Technology
