Intercom vs Tawk.to Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Intercom (intercom.com) has a significantly larger keyword portfolio (31,497 keywords) and higher estimated organic traffic (116,080) and traffic value ($1.36M) compared to Tawk.to (tawk.to), which has 5,376 keywords, 42,328 in traffic, and a traffic value of $351K. This indicates that Intercom is investing heavily in broad content coverage, ranking for a wide range of both branded and non-branded terms, and likely targeting multiple stages of the customer journey. Tawk.to, while smaller in scale, still captures substantial traffic, but its keyword set is more focused, likely prioritizing high-intent, product-related queries and branded terms.
LiveChat vs Intercom Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
LiveChat (livechat.com) and Intercom (intercom.com) both have strong keyword portfolios, but their quantitative profiles differ significantly. LiveChat ranks for 19,839 keywords, generating an estimated 772,844 monthly visits and a traffic value of $1.62M. Intercom, meanwhile, targets a broader set of 31,497 keywords but receives less organic traffic at 116,080 visits, with a slightly lower traffic value of $1.36M. This suggests LiveChat is more efficient at converting keywords into high-value traffic, likely due to stronger rankings on high-intent, high-conversion terms, while Intercom’s broader approach may be more exploratory or brand-focused.
Intercom vs ChatBot Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Intercom (intercom.com) has a significantly larger keyword portfolio, ranking for 31,497 keywords and generating an estimated 116,080 monthly organic visits, with a traffic value of $1.36M. ChatBot (chatbot.com), while ranking for fewer keywords (5,070), achieves a comparable organic traffic level (103,451 visits) and a higher traffic value ($1.66M). This suggests that ChatBot is more efficient in capturing high-value, high-converting keywords, likely focusing on highly commercial and transactional terms. Intercom’s broader keyword set indicates a strategy that covers a wider range of topics, including branded, informational, and long-tail queries, which helps build authority and capture users at various stages of the funnel.
Intercom vs Kustomer Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Intercom (intercom.com) has a significantly larger keyword portfolio than Kustomer (kustomer.com), with 31,497 total keywords compared to Kustomer’s 3,767. This breadth translates into much higher estimated organic traffic (116,080 vs. 13,670) and a greater traffic value ($1.36M vs. $462K). Intercom’s strategy is clearly focused on dominating a wide range of both branded and non-branded keywords, including high-value, high-volume terms and long-tail queries. Kustomer, on the other hand, is more focused, with a smaller set of keywords but a relatively high traffic value per keyword, indicating a targeted approach toward high-intent, competitive terms, especially in the customer service and CRM software space.
Intercom vs Crisp Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Intercom (intercom.com) has a significantly larger keyword portfolio (31,497 keywords) and organic reach (116,080 monthly traffic, $1.36M traffic value) compared to Crisp (crisp.chat), which targets 6,860 keywords, 36,857 monthly traffic, and $166K in traffic value. Intercom’s strategy is broad, targeting both high-volume generic terms (e.g., “chatbot,” “live chat,” “ai chatbot”) and a wide range of branded, product, and long-tail queries. This breadth is reflected in their strong rankings for high-intent, branded, and feature-specific keywords, often holding top positions and capturing substantial clickstream traffic. Crisp, while smaller in scale, focuses on core product and competitive terms, with a notable emphasis on commercial and navigational intent, but generally ranks lower and captures less traffic per keyword, especially for high-competition terms.
Intercom vs Front Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Intercom (intercom.com) demonstrates a significantly broader and more valuable keyword portfolio compared to Front (front.com), with 31,497 total keywords, estimated monthly organic traffic of 116,080, and a traffic value of $1.36M. In contrast, Front targets 12,689 keywords, draws 36,673 monthly visits, and has a traffic value of $711K. Intercom’s higher keyword count and traffic value indicate a more aggressive and diversified SEO strategy, likely targeting a mix of high-volume, high-intent, and long-tail keywords across both branded and non-branded terms. Front, while strong in its niche, appears to focus more narrowly, with a heavier reliance on branded and product-specific queries, as seen in its top-performing keywords.
Intercom vs Olark Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Intercom demonstrates a dominant SEO presence with 31,497 ranking keywords, driving an estimated 116,080 monthly organic visits and a traffic value exceeding $1.36M. In contrast, Olark ranks for 1,369 keywords, with about 10,679 monthly visits and a traffic value of $46.7K. Intercom’s keyword portfolio is not only much larger, but also delivers significantly higher traffic and value, indicating a broad and deep content strategy targeting both high-volume and high-intent queries. Intercom consistently ranks in top positions for branded, product, and industry terms, while Olark’s visibility is more limited, with a focus on core product and brand-related keywords.
Intercom vs Help Scout Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Intercom (intercom.com) and Help Scout (helpscout.com) are both strong players in the customer service software space, but their quantitative SEO profiles show some key differences. Intercom ranks for 31,497 keywords, generating an estimated 116,080 monthly visits and a traffic value of $1.36M. Help Scout, meanwhile, ranks for 42,379 keywords, with 72,515 monthly visits but a much higher traffic value of $3.5M. This suggests that while Intercom has a higher volume of organic traffic, Help Scout’s keyword portfolio is more commercially valuable, likely due to higher-value keywords and better conversion potential. Help Scout also consistently outranks Intercom on high-intent, high-value keywords like "customer service software," "customer support," and "customer feedback," often holding top 3 positions, while Intercom typically ranks lower on page one or two.
Intercom vs Tidio Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Intercom and Tidio are both strong players in the customer communication and chatbot space, with Intercom ranking for 31,497 keywords and Tidio for 32,431. Intercom leads in estimated organic traffic (116,080 vs. 103,680) and has a much higher traffic value ($1.36M vs. $538K), indicating a stronger presence in high-value, commercial-intent keywords. Both companies have a similar breadth of keyword coverage, but Intercom’s higher traffic value suggests a more effective focus on keywords that drive business results, likely due to better rankings on high-converting terms and a more established brand presence.
Intercom vs HelpCrunch Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Intercom (intercom.com) has a significantly larger keyword portfolio (31,497 keywords) and organic reach (116,080 monthly traffic, $1.36M traffic value) compared to HelpCrunch (helpcrunch.com), which has 6,748 keywords, 6,799 monthly traffic, and $90K in traffic value. Intercom’s dominance is evident in both branded and high-intent commercial keywords, where it consistently ranks in top positions and captures the lion’s share of traffic. HelpCrunch, while much smaller, is actively targeting many of the same high-value, high-intent keywords, but generally ranks lower and receives a fraction of the traffic. This gap is especially pronounced for branded and product-related queries, where Intercom’s authority and relevance are clear.
Freshdesk vs Intercom Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Freshdesk (freshdesk.com) has a significantly larger keyword portfolio than Intercom (intercom.com), with 158,483 total keywords compared to Intercom’s 31,497. This breadth translates into higher estimated organic traffic (416,833 vs. 116,080) and a greater total traffic value ($1.99M vs. $1.36M). Freshdesk’s strategy appears to focus on broad visibility, likely targeting a mix of branded, long-tail, and support-related queries, which is typical for SaaS platforms with extensive help desk and customer support documentation. Intercom, while smaller in keyword count, still commands substantial traffic and value, indicating a more focused or niche approach, possibly prioritizing high-intent, product-centric, and competitive comparison keywords.
Intercom vs Drift Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Intercom (intercom.com) demonstrates a dominant SEO presence compared to Drift (drift.com), with 31,497 total ranking keywords, estimated monthly organic traffic of 116,080, and a traffic value exceeding $1.36 million. In contrast, Drift ranks for only 509 keywords, with 26,161 in monthly traffic and a traffic value of about $205,748. This quantitative gap highlights Intercom’s much broader keyword coverage and higher organic reach, likely due to a more aggressive and diversified content strategy, as well as a stronger brand presence in both branded and non-branded queries. Intercom’s keyword portfolio includes a mix of high-volume, high-difficulty terms (e.g., “live chat,” “ai chatbot,” “customer acquisition cost”) and long-tail, product-specific queries, while Drift’s keyword set is more concentrated around its own brand and direct product terms.
Zendesk vs Intercom Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Zendesk has a dominant SEO presence, with 865,281 ranking keywords, over 3.2 million in estimated monthly organic traffic, and a traffic value exceeding $48 million. This scale dwarfs Intercom, which ranks for 31,497 keywords, draws about 116,000 in monthly traffic, and has a traffic value of $1.36 million. Quantitatively, Zendesk’s keyword portfolio is nearly 27 times larger, and its organic traffic is about 28 times higher than Intercom’s. Zendesk also consistently holds top positions for high-value, high-volume keywords, especially those directly related to customer support, ticketing systems, and branded queries, while Intercom’s keyword set is more focused on product-specific and integration-related terms, with a heavier reliance on long-tail and niche queries.
Zapier vs MESA Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Zapier (zapier.com) demonstrates a dominant SEO presence with over 829,000 ranking keywords, driving an estimated 8.8 million monthly organic visits and a traffic value exceeding $160 million. Their keyword portfolio is broad, targeting high-volume, high-intent queries across SaaS, automation, productivity, and trending tech topics. Zapier consistently ranks for competitive, high-CPC keywords like "chatgpt," "hubspot," "mailchimp," and "free video editing software," often holding top 3 positions. In contrast, MESA (getmesa.com) has a much smaller footprint, with just 1,698 keywords, 2,269 monthly visits, and a traffic value of $16,168. MESA’s keyword focus is tightly aligned with Shopify automation, integration, and e-commerce support, targeting lower-volume, niche queries such as "shopify status," "zapier alternatives," and "is shopify down," where they can achieve visibility with less competition.
Zapier vs Tray.io Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Zapier (zapier.com) demonstrates a dominant SEO presence with 829,453 total keywords, driving an estimated 8.8 million monthly visits and a traffic value exceeding $160 million. Their keyword portfolio is broad, targeting high-volume, high-intent queries across productivity, automation, SaaS integrations, and trending tech topics (e.g., "chatgpt," "google sheets," "ai video generator"). Zapier ranks for both branded and non-branded terms, often securing top positions for competitive keywords with significant commercial value. In contrast, Tray.io (tray.io) has a much smaller keyword footprint, ranking for only 110 keywords, with a modest 770 monthly visits and a traffic value of just over $10,000. Tray.io’s keyword focus is almost exclusively on branded and navigational terms (e.g., "tray.io," "tray login," "tray ai"), with little evidence of broader content or non-branded keyword targeting.
Zapier vs Integrately Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Zapier (zapier.com) dominates the automation and integration space with a massive keyword portfolio of 829,453 keywords, driving an estimated 8.8 million monthly organic visits and a traffic value exceeding $160 million. Their keyword strategy is broad and deep, targeting both high-intent branded queries (e.g., "zapier login," "zapier pricing") and a wide range of integration- and productivity-related terms (e.g., "mailerlite," "pipedrive," "best ai chatbot," "google sheets templates"). Zapier consistently ranks in the top positions for high-volume, high-value keywords, leveraging both product/integration pages and high-quality blog content to capture traffic across the funnel. In contrast, Integrately (integrately.com) has a much smaller keyword footprint (10,834 keywords), with significantly lower organic traffic (25,949) and traffic value ($129,760). Integrately’s keyword strategy is more focused on direct competitors, comparison content, and long-tail integration queries, but their rankings and traffic for shared keywords are much lower, often appearing on page 5 or beyond for competitive terms.
Zapier vs Gumloop Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Zapier (zapier.com) demonstrates a dominant SEO presence with 829,453 ranking keywords, driving an estimated 8.8 million monthly visits and a staggering traffic value of over $160 million. Their keyword portfolio is broad, targeting high-volume, high-value, and high-intent queries across automation, SaaS integrations, and productivity niches. In contrast, Gumloop (gumloop.com) is a much smaller player, ranking for just 3,539 keywords, with about 18,339 monthly visits and a traffic value of $29,817. Gumloop’s keyword set is more niche, focusing on AI tools, web scraping, and branded queries, with a heavy reliance on their own brand and a handful of related solution keywords.
Zapier vs Pipedream Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Zapier (zapier.com) demonstrates a dominant SEO presence with 829,453 ranking keywords, driving an estimated 8.8 million monthly organic visits and a staggering $161M in traffic value. Their keyword portfolio is broad, targeting both high-volume, competitive terms (e.g., "chatgpt," "notion," "google forms") and long-tail, intent-driven queries (e.g., "best ai photo editor," "how to use chatgpt"). Zapier consistently ranks in top positions for branded and integration-related keywords, leveraging content marketing (blog posts, guides, app integrations) to capture informational, navigational, and commercial intent. In contrast, Pipedream (pipedream.com) has a much smaller footprint, with 18,021 keywords, 57,907 monthly visits, and $220K in traffic value. Pipedream’s keyword set is narrower, focusing on developer-centric and integration-specific terms, and their rankings for shared keywords are generally much lower (often outside the top 40), resulting in significantly less organic traffic.
Zapier vs UiPath Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Zapier (zapier.com) demonstrates a dominant SEO presence with 829,453 total keywords, driving an estimated 8.8 million monthly visits and a traffic value exceeding $160 million. Their keyword portfolio is broad, targeting high-volume, high-intent queries across automation, productivity, and trending tech topics. Zapier consistently ranks in top positions for both branded and non-branded keywords, leveraging content that addresses user needs (e.g., “how to remove duplicates in google sheets,” “best ai detector,” “ai website builder”) and integration-focused queries. In contrast, UiPath (uipath.com) has a more focused keyword set (125,000 keywords), with significantly lower traffic (274,646) and traffic value ($3.7 million). UiPath’s organic reach is concentrated around RPA, automation, and their own brand, with forum content ranking for long-tail and technical queries, but with lower average positions and less traffic per keyword.
Zapier vs Workato Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Zapier (zapier.com) demonstrates a dominant SEO presence with 829,453 ranking keywords, driving an estimated 8.8 million monthly visits and a traffic value exceeding $160 million. In contrast, Workato (workato.com) ranks for just 16,508 keywords, with about 37,000 monthly visits and a traffic value of $886,000. Quantitatively, Zapier’s keyword portfolio is 50x larger, and its organic traffic is over 200x higher than Workato’s. Zapier’s top keywords span both branded and high-volume non-branded queries, often ranking in the top positions for competitive terms like “integrations,” “webhook,” and “ai for work.” Workato, while present on some of the same keywords, generally ranks much lower (often outside the top 20), resulting in minimal traffic from those terms.
Zapier vs IFTTT Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Zapier (zapier.com) demonstrates a dominant SEO presence with 829,453 ranking keywords, driving an estimated 8.8 million monthly visits and a traffic value exceeding $160 million. In contrast, IFTTT (ifttt.com) ranks for 54,658 keywords, with about 228,000 monthly visits and a traffic value of $785,825. Quantitatively, Zapier’s keyword portfolio is over 15 times larger, and its organic traffic is nearly 39 times higher than IFTTT’s. Zapier also consistently ranks in top positions for high-volume, high-intent keywords, while IFTTT’s rankings are generally lower, resulting in significantly less organic traffic per keyword.
Zapier vs n8n Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Zapier (zapier.com) has a dominant SEO presence, with over 829,000 ranking keywords, estimated monthly organic traffic of 8.8 million, and a traffic value exceeding $160 million. This scale is an order of magnitude above n8n (n8n.io), which ranks for about 124,000 keywords, draws roughly 918,000 monthly visits, and has a traffic value of $1.4 million. Zapier’s keyword portfolio is broad, targeting high-volume, high-intent terms across automation, SaaS integrations, and productivity, and it consistently ranks in top positions for both branded and non-branded queries. n8n, while much smaller, is still strong for its brand and core automation topics, but its reach and authority are more niche and community-driven, with lower average keyword positions and less traffic per keyword.
Zapier vs Make Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Zapier (zapier.com) has a dominant SEO presence, with 829,453 ranking keywords, an estimated 8.8M monthly organic visits, and a massive traffic value of $161M. This scale is significantly higher than Make (make.com), which ranks for 130,288 keywords, draws about 1M monthly visits, and has a traffic value of $2.5M. Quantitatively, Zapier’s keyword portfolio is over 6x larger, and its organic traffic and value are 8-60x higher, indicating a much broader and deeper content and SEO strategy. Zapier’s top keywords span high-volume, high-intent terms (e.g., “google docs,” “google sheets,” “webhook,” “typeform,” “ai video generator”), and it consistently ranks in strong positions for both branded and non-branded queries. Make, while present on many of the same integration and automation-related keywords, generally ranks lower and receives less traffic per keyword, with its best-performing terms often being more niche or community-driven.
Intercom vs LiveAgent Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Intercom (intercom.com) and LiveAgent (liveagent.com) are both strong players in the customer support and live chat software space, but their keyword strategies show some notable differences. Intercom ranks for 31,635 keywords, generating an estimated 116,233 monthly visits and a traffic value of $1.38M, while LiveAgent targets a broader set of 42,963 keywords, with slightly less traffic at 102,025 visits but a higher traffic value of $1.81M. This suggests that LiveAgent is casting a wider net, possibly targeting more high-value or commercial-intent keywords, while Intercom is more focused, with a higher average traffic per keyword (3.67 vs. 2.37 for LiveAgent). Both brands are investing in high-value, competitive terms, but LiveAgent’s higher traffic value per visit ($17.74 vs. $11.89 for Intercom) indicates a focus on more lucrative or conversion-oriented queries.
Intercom vs Crisp Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Intercom (intercom.com) has a significantly larger keyword portfolio, ranking for 31,635 keywords and generating an estimated 116,233 monthly organic visits, with a traffic value of over $1.38M. This indicates a broad and mature SEO strategy, targeting both high-volume generic terms (like "chatbot," "live chat," and "ai chatbot") and a wide range of branded, product, and integration-related queries. Intercom also dominates for high-intent, branded keywords (e.g., "intercom login," "intercom ai," "intercom chatbot"), often ranking in the top positions, which drives substantial traffic and conversion potential. In contrast, Crisp (crisp.chat) ranks for 6,860 keywords, with 36,857 monthly visits and a traffic value of $166K, reflecting a more focused but less expansive approach. Crisp’s keyword set is narrower, with a strong emphasis on core product terms and direct brand queries (e.g., "crisp," "crisp chat," "crisp live chat"), and it generally ranks lower for competitive, high-volume industry terms.
Intercom vs Olark Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Intercom demonstrates a dominant SEO presence with 31,635 ranking keywords, generating an estimated 116,233 monthly visits and a traffic value of over $1.38M. In contrast, Olark ranks for just 1,369 keywords, with 10,679 monthly visits and a traffic value of $46.7K. Intercom’s keyword portfolio is not only much larger, but also more valuable, indicating a broader and deeper content strategy that targets both high-volume and high-intent queries. Intercom consistently ranks in top positions for branded, product, and industry terms, while Olark’s visibility is more limited and heavily reliant on its own brand and a handful of core industry terms.
Intercom vs Help Scout Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Intercom (intercom.com) and Help Scout (helpscout.com) are both strong players in the customer service software space, but their keyword strategies show some notable differences. Intercom ranks for 31,635 keywords, driving an estimated 116,233 monthly organic visits with a traffic value of $1.38M. Help Scout, meanwhile, ranks for 42,379 keywords, with 72,515 monthly visits but a much higher traffic value of $3.5M. This suggests that while Intercom has a broader keyword footprint and higher traffic, Help Scout’s keywords are more commercially valuable, likely due to better rankings on high-intent, high-CPC terms. Quantitatively, Help Scout’s average traffic value per visit is about $48, compared to Intercom’s $12, indicating a more targeted approach toward lucrative keywords.
Intercom vs Tidio Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Intercom and Tidio are both strong players in the customer communication and chatbot space, with Intercom ranking for 31,635 keywords and Tidio for 32,431. Intercom leads in estimated organic traffic (116,233 vs. 103,680) and has a much higher traffic value ($1.38M vs. $538K), indicating a stronger presence for high-value, commercial-intent keywords. Both companies have a broad keyword footprint, but Intercom’s higher traffic value suggests a focus on more lucrative, conversion-oriented terms, while Tidio’s slightly higher keyword count may reflect a broader, more top-of-funnel or informational content strategy.
Intercom vs HelpCrunch Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Intercom (intercom.com) has a significantly larger keyword portfolio (31,635 keywords) and organic reach (116,233 estimated monthly traffic, $1.38M traffic value) compared to HelpCrunch (helpcrunch.com), which ranks for 6,748 keywords, with 6,799 monthly traffic and $90K in traffic value. Intercom’s keyword set is broad, targeting both high-volume, high-intent commercial terms (e.g., “intercom pricing,” “live chat software,” “customer support software”) and a wide range of informational and branded queries. Intercom consistently holds top positions for its core branded and product-related keywords, often ranking #1, and captures substantial clickstream traffic for these terms. HelpCrunch, while present on many of the same SERPs, generally ranks lower (often outside the top 10 or even top 50), resulting in much lower traffic and value per keyword.
Freshdesk vs Intercom Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Freshdesk (freshdesk.com) has a significantly larger keyword portfolio than Intercom (intercom.com), with 158,483 total keywords compared to Intercom’s 31,635. This breadth translates into higher estimated organic traffic (416,833 vs. 116,233) and a greater total traffic value ($1.99M vs. $1.38M). Freshdesk’s strategy appears to focus on broad, high-volume, and long-tail keywords, likely leveraging its helpdesk and support portal subdomains to capture branded and third-party support queries (e.g., “noodletools,” “funpay,” “upstox login”). Intercom, on the other hand, concentrates its efforts on high-intent, product-centric, and competitive SaaS keywords (e.g., “intercom api,” “intercom chat,” “ai chatbot”), often ranking in top positions for its own branded and feature-related terms, which drives a higher traffic value per keyword.
Intercom vs Pendo Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Intercom (intercom.com) demonstrates a significantly broader and more valuable organic search presence compared to Pendo (pendo.io). Intercom ranks for 31,635 keywords, generating an estimated 116,233 monthly visits and a traffic value of $1.38M, while Pendo ranks for 11,885 keywords, with 37,864 monthly visits and a traffic value of $434.6K. This indicates that Intercom’s SEO strategy is both wider in scope and more effective at capturing high-value, high-intent traffic. Intercom’s keyword portfolio includes a mix of branded, product, and high-volume industry terms, and it consistently secures top positions for its core offerings. Pendo, while strong in its niche, has a more focused keyword set, with a heavier emphasis on branded and product-led growth terms, and less reach into broader industry or informational queries.
Intercom vs Front Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Intercom (intercom.com) demonstrates a significantly broader SEO footprint than Front (front.com), with 31,635 total keywords compared to Front’s 12,689. Intercom also outpaces Front in both estimated organic traffic (116,233 vs. 36,673) and traffic value ($1.38M vs. $712K), indicating a more mature and diversified organic search strategy. Intercom’s keyword portfolio includes a mix of high-volume, high-value commercial terms (e.g., “customer service software,” “customer support software,” “live chat”) and branded or product-specific queries, often ranking in top positions. Front, while smaller in scale, still targets many of the same core SaaS and customer support terms, but generally ranks lower and receives less traffic per keyword, suggesting either less content depth, weaker authority, or both.
Intercom vs Drift Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Intercom (intercom.com) demonstrates a dominant SEO presence compared to Drift (drift.com), with 31,635 total keywords, 116,233 estimated monthly organic visits, and a traffic value of $1.38M. In contrast, Drift ranks for only 509 keywords, with 26,161 monthly visits and a traffic value of $205K. Intercom’s keyword portfolio is not only much larger, but also more diversified, targeting a mix of branded, product, and high-intent commercial queries. Intercom consistently ranks in top positions for its core branded terms (e.g., “intercom login,” “intercom chat,” “intercom support”), and also captures significant traffic from broader industry and integration-related keywords. Drift, meanwhile, is heavily reliant on its own branded terms (e.g., “drift,” “drift chatbot,” “drift ai”), with less reach into generic or competitor-related queries, and a much smaller long-tail footprint.
Zendesk vs Intercom Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Zendesk has a dominant SEO presence, with 865,281 ranking keywords, over 3.2 million in estimated monthly organic traffic, and a traffic value exceeding $48 million. Intercom, by comparison, has 31,635 keywords, 116,233 in traffic, and a traffic value of about $1.38 million. This quantitative gap highlights Zendesk’s much broader reach and higher-value keyword portfolio, likely due to a more mature content strategy, greater brand authority, and a larger investment in SEO. Intercom’s keyword set is more focused and niche, with a significant portion of its traffic coming from branded and product-specific queries, while Zendesk captures a wider range of both branded and high-intent industry terms.
Intercom vs LiveAgent Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Intercom (intercom.com) and LiveAgent (liveagent.com) are both strong players in the customer support and live chat software space, but their keyword strategies show some notable differences. Intercom ranks for 31,635 keywords, generating an estimated 116,233 monthly visits and a traffic value of $1.38M, while LiveAgent targets a broader set of 42,963 keywords, with slightly less traffic at 102,025 visits but a higher traffic value of $1.81M. This suggests that LiveAgent is casting a wider net, possibly targeting more long-tail or informational queries, while Intercom is more focused on high-value, high-conversion keywords. Both brands have a healthy mix of branded and non-branded keywords, but Intercom’s top-performing keywords are more closely tied to its own brand and product features, whereas LiveAgent’s portfolio includes a significant number of third-party and support-related queries.
Intercom vs Crisp Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Intercom (intercom.com) has a significantly larger keyword portfolio (31,635 keywords) and organic reach (116,233 estimated monthly visits) compared to Crisp (crisp.chat), which targets 6,860 keywords and receives about 36,857 monthly visits. Intercom’s estimated traffic value is also much higher ($1.38M vs. $166K), indicating a broader and more valuable organic presence. Intercom’s strategy is clearly focused on dominating both high-volume, high-intent industry terms (like “live chat,” “chatbot,” “ai chatbot”) and branded/navigational queries, often ranking in top positions for its own brand and product-related keywords. Crisp, while smaller in scale, is more focused on a core set of high-intent, product-specific keywords and branded terms, with a strong emphasis on its own brand (“crisp,” “crisp chat,” “crisp live chat”) and direct product comparisons.
Intercom vs Olark Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Intercom (intercom.com) demonstrates a dominant SEO presence in the customer communication and support software space, with 31,635 ranking keywords, estimated monthly organic traffic of 116,233, and a traffic value exceeding $1.38 million. In contrast, Olark (olark.com) has a much smaller keyword footprint, ranking for 1,369 keywords, with 10,679 in monthly traffic and a traffic value of about $46,736. Intercom’s keyword portfolio is broad and deep, targeting both high-volume, competitive industry terms (e.g., “live chat,” “best ai chatbot”) and a wide range of branded, product, and informational queries. Olark, while present on some core industry terms, is more focused on a narrower set of keywords, with a significant portion of its traffic coming from branded and high-intent navigational queries (e.g., “olark,” “olark chat,” “olark login”).
Intercom vs Help Scout Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Intercom (intercom.com) and Help Scout (helpscout.com) are both strong players in the customer service software space, but their keyword strategies show some notable differences. Intercom ranks for 31,635 keywords, driving an estimated 116,233 monthly organic visits with a traffic value of $1.38M. Help Scout, on the other hand, ranks for 42,379 keywords, with lower organic traffic at 72,515 but a much higher traffic value of $3.5M. This suggests that Help Scout is targeting more commercially valuable keywords, possibly with a greater focus on high-intent, high-conversion terms, and is also investing more in paid search (as seen in their top paid positions for competitive keywords like "customer service software").
Intercom vs Tidio Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Intercom and Tidio are both strong players in the customer communication and chatbot space, with Intercom ranking for 31,635 keywords and Tidio for 32,431. Intercom leads in estimated organic traffic (116,233 vs. 103,680) and has a much higher traffic value ($1.38M vs. $538K), indicating a stronger presence in high-value, commercial-intent keywords. Both companies have a broad keyword footprint, but Intercom’s higher traffic value suggests a more effective focus on keywords that drive conversions or are more competitive in paid search. Tidio, while matching Intercom in keyword breadth, appears to capture less value per visit, possibly due to a higher proportion of informational or lower-converting keywords.
Intercom vs HelpCrunch Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Intercom (intercom.com) demonstrates a dominant SEO presence in the customer communication and support software space, with 31,635 ranking keywords, estimated monthly organic traffic of 116,233, and a traffic value exceeding $1.38M. This is in stark contrast to HelpCrunch (helpcrunch.com), which ranks for 6,748 keywords, draws about 6,799 monthly visits, and has a traffic value of $90K. Intercom’s keyword portfolio is not only much larger, but it also captures significantly more high-value, high-intent traffic, as seen in their top positions for branded and high-commercial-intent terms like "intercom pricing," "intercom login," and "customer support software." HelpCrunch, while present on many of the same SERPs, typically ranks lower and receives a fraction of the traffic for shared keywords, indicating a more limited reach and lower authority in the space.
Intercom vs Pendo Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Intercom (intercom.com) demonstrates a significantly broader SEO footprint than Pendo (pendo.io), with 31,635 total keywords compared to Pendo’s 11,885. Intercom also commands much higher estimated organic traffic (116,233 vs. 37,864) and traffic value ($1.38M vs. $434K), indicating a more mature and diversified content and keyword strategy. Intercom’s keyword set covers a wide range of product, support, and industry terms, and it ranks well for high-value, high-volume queries, often holding top positions for branded and solution-specific keywords. Pendo, while smaller in scale, still maintains a focused presence on product management, user feedback, and SaaS-related terms, but with less breadth and lower average rankings, especially for competitive, high-intent queries.
Intercom vs Front Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Intercom (intercom.com) demonstrates a significantly broader and more valuable organic search presence compared to Front (front.com). Intercom ranks for 31,635 keywords, generating an estimated 116,233 monthly organic visits and a traffic value of $1.38M, while Front ranks for 12,689 keywords, with 36,673 monthly visits and a $711K traffic value. This indicates Intercom’s much larger content footprint and stronger SEO performance, likely due to a more aggressive content and keyword acquisition strategy, as well as higher authority in the customer service software space. Intercom also appears to dominate high-value, high-intent keywords, often ranking in the top positions for branded and product-related queries, which translates into higher clickstream traffic and conversion potential.
Freshdesk vs Intercom Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Freshdesk (freshdesk.com) has a significantly larger keyword portfolio than Intercom (intercom.com), with 158,483 total keywords compared to Intercom’s 31,635. This breadth translates into higher estimated organic traffic (416,833 vs. 116,233) and a greater total traffic value ($1.99M vs. $1.38M). Freshdesk’s strategy appears to focus on broad, high-volume, and long-tail keywords, likely leveraging its extensive helpdesk and support documentation, which attracts a wide range of branded and non-branded queries. Intercom, while smaller in keyword count, achieves a relatively high traffic value per keyword, indicating a focus on more commercially valuable, product-centric, and high-intent keywords, especially around its core offerings like chatbots, AI agents, and customer engagement tools.
Intercom vs Drift Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Intercom (intercom.com) demonstrates a dominant SEO presence with 31,635 ranking keywords, driving an estimated 116,233 monthly organic visits and a traffic value of over $1.38M. This breadth is reflected in their keyword portfolio, which covers a wide range of branded, product, integration, and industry terms, as well as high-value commercial and informational queries. Intercom’s top keywords include both high-volume branded terms (e.g., “intercom login,” “intercom pricing”) and competitive industry terms (e.g., “live chat,” “best ai chatbot”), often ranking in top positions. In contrast, Drift (drift.com) has a much smaller keyword footprint, with only 509 ranking keywords, 26,161 monthly visits, and a traffic value of $205K. Drift’s organic strategy is heavily focused on branded terms (e.g., “drift,” “drift ai,” “drift chatbot”), with less coverage of broader industry or integration-related queries.
Zendesk vs Intercom Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Zendesk has a dominant SEO presence, with 865,281 ranking keywords, over 3.2 million in estimated monthly organic traffic, and a traffic value exceeding $48 million. In contrast, Intercom has a much smaller keyword footprint (31,635 keywords), with about 116,000 in monthly traffic and a traffic value of $1.38 million. This quantitative gap highlights Zendesk’s broad content strategy and strong domain authority, allowing it to capture a much larger share of both branded and non-branded search demand. Intercom, while significantly smaller in reach, appears to focus on more targeted, product-specific, and integration-related keywords, often ranking well for its own branded terms and niche solution queries.
Intercom vs Crisp Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Intercom (intercom.com) has a significantly larger keyword portfolio (31,635 keywords) and drives much higher organic traffic (116,233 monthly visits) and traffic value ($1.38M) compared to Crisp (crisp.chat), which ranks for 6,860 keywords, with 36,857 monthly visits and a traffic value of $166K. Intercom’s strategy is broad and deep, targeting both high-volume, competitive industry terms (e.g., “chatbot,” “live chat,” “ai chatbot”) and a wide array of branded, product, and long-tail queries. This breadth is reflected in their strong rankings for high-intent, branded, and feature-specific keywords, often holding top positions and capturing substantial clickstream traffic. Crisp, while smaller in scale, focuses on core product and industry terms, with a notable emphasis on their own brand and direct product comparisons, but generally ranks lower and captures less traffic for shared industry terms.
Intercom vs Help Scout Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Intercom (intercom.com) and Help Scout (helpscout.com) are both strong players in the customer service software space, but their keyword strategies show some notable differences. Intercom ranks for 31,635 keywords, generating an estimated 116,233 monthly visits and a traffic value of $1.38M. Help Scout, on the other hand, ranks for 42,379 keywords, with 72,515 monthly visits but a much higher traffic value of $3.5M. This suggests that while Intercom has a broader keyword footprint and higher traffic, Help Scout’s keywords are more commercially valuable, likely due to better rankings on high-intent, high-CPC terms. Quantitatively, Help Scout’s average traffic value per visit is about $48, compared to Intercom’s $12, indicating a more targeted approach toward lucrative keywords.
Intercom vs HelpCrunch Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Intercom (intercom.com) demonstrates a dominant SEO presence in the customer communication and support software space, with 31,635 ranking keywords, estimated monthly organic traffic of 116,233, and a traffic value exceeding $1.38M. Their keyword portfolio is broad, targeting both high-intent commercial queries (e.g., "intercom pricing," "customer support software") and a wide range of informational and navigational terms. Intercom consistently ranks in the top positions for branded and product-related keywords, capturing significant clickstream traffic (e.g., "intercom pricing" at position 1 with 1,494 monthly visits). In contrast, HelpCrunch (helpcrunch.com) has a much smaller keyword footprint (6,748 keywords), lower organic traffic (6,799), and a traffic value of about $90K. HelpCrunch’s strategy is more focused on comparison, alternative, and review content, often targeting competitor brand terms (e.g., "intercom pricing," "zendesk pricing") and long-tail informational queries, but with lower average rankings and traffic per keyword.
Intercom vs Front Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Intercom (intercom.com) demonstrates a robust SEO presence with 31,635 ranking keywords, estimated monthly organic traffic of 116,233, and a traffic value of $1.38M. This indicates a broad and high-value keyword portfolio, likely driven by a mix of branded, product, and high-intent commercial terms. In contrast, Front (front.com) ranks for 12,689 keywords, with 36,673 in monthly traffic and a traffic value of $711K. While Front’s keyword count and traffic are significantly lower, its traffic value per keyword is relatively high, suggesting a focus on more competitive, higher-converting terms. Quantitatively, Intercom’s keyword coverage is 2.5x that of Front, and its traffic value is nearly double, reflecting a more aggressive and diversified organic acquisition strategy.
Intercom vs Tidio Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Intercom and Tidio are both strong players in the conversational support and chatbot space, with Intercom ranking for 31,635 keywords and generating an estimated 116,233 monthly organic visits, valued at over $1.38M in traffic value. Tidio, meanwhile, ranks for 32,431 keywords, with 103,680 monthly visits and a traffic value of $537K. While Tidio has a slightly higher keyword count, Intercom’s organic traffic and traffic value are significantly higher, indicating stronger rankings for higher-value and higher-volume keywords. Both companies have a broad keyword footprint, but Intercom’s content and SEO strategy appear to be more effective at capturing valuable, high-intent traffic.
Freshdesk vs Intercom Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Freshdesk (freshdesk.com) has a significantly larger keyword portfolio than Intercom (intercom.com), with 158,483 total keywords compared to Intercom’s 31,635. This breadth translates into higher estimated organic traffic (416,833 vs. 116,233) and a greater total traffic value ($1.99M vs. $1.38M). Quantitatively, Freshdesk’s strategy appears to focus on broad coverage, likely targeting a mix of branded, long-tail, and support-related queries, which is typical for SaaS platforms with extensive help desk and customer support documentation. Intercom, while smaller in keyword count, still commands substantial traffic and value, indicating a more focused or high-intent keyword approach, possibly prioritizing product, feature, and competitive comparison terms.
Intercom vs Drift Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Intercom (intercom.com) demonstrates a dominant SEO presence compared to Drift (drift.com), with 31,635 total ranking keywords, 116,233 estimated monthly organic visits, and a traffic value exceeding $1.38M. In contrast, Drift ranks for only 509 keywords, with 26,161 monthly visits and a traffic value of about $205K. Quantitatively, Intercom’s keyword portfolio is over 60 times larger, and its organic traffic is more than four times higher, indicating a much broader reach and stronger organic visibility. Intercom’s keyword set covers a wide range of branded, product, and industry terms, while Drift’s is more concentrated around its brand and core product offerings.
Zendesk vs Intercom Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
Zendesk has a dominant SEO presence, with 865,281 ranking keywords, over 3.2 million estimated monthly organic visits, and a traffic value exceeding $48 million. Intercom, by comparison, ranks for 31,635 keywords, draws about 116,000 monthly visits, and has a traffic value of $1.38 million. This quantitative gap highlights Zendesk’s much broader content footprint and stronger organic visibility, likely due to a more mature content strategy, higher domain authority, and a larger investment in SEO. Zendesk’s keyword portfolio is not only larger but also more valuable, indicating a focus on high-intent, high-conversion terms, while Intercom’s strategy appears more niche and product-focused.
ElevenLabs vs Google Text-to-Speech Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
ElevenLabs (elevenlabs.io) demonstrates a dominant organic search presence in the text-to-speech and AI voice generation space, with a massive total keyword count of 95,557 and estimated monthly organic traffic exceeding 2.8 million. Their traffic value is also notably high at nearly $2.5 million, indicating strong commercial intent and high-value keyword targeting. In contrast, Google Text-to-Speech (cloud.google.com/text-to-speech) has a much smaller keyword footprint (15,781 keywords) and lower organic traffic (438,237), though its traffic value remains substantial at over $1 million, reflecting the strength of the Google brand and the value of its core product keywords. Quantitatively, ElevenLabs is capturing a broader and deeper range of search queries, especially in high-volume, high-intent, and long-tail keyword segments, while Google’s strategy is more focused and brand-driven.
ElevenLabs vs SoundHound Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
ElevenLabs (elevenlabs.io) demonstrates a dominant SEO presence in the AI voice and audio space, with a massive total keyword count of 95,557, driving over 2.8 million in estimated monthly organic traffic and a traffic value of nearly $2.46 million. Their keyword portfolio is broad and deep, targeting both high-volume generic terms (like "text to speech," "ai voice generator," and "voice changer") and a wide array of long-tail, branded, and product-specific queries. ElevenLabs consistently ranks in top positions for many high-intent, commercial keywords, often capturing significant clickstream traffic and maintaining strong visibility across both navigational and transactional search intents. In contrast, SoundHound (soundhound.com) has a much smaller keyword footprint (11,132 keywords), with lower total traffic (121,677) but a relatively high traffic value ($1.2 million), indicating a focus on more commercially valuable or niche terms, particularly around music identification and branded queries.
ElevenLabs vs Amazon Polly Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
ElevenLabs (elevenlabs.io) demonstrates a dominant SEO presence in the AI voice and text-to-speech space, with a massive total keyword count of 95,557 and estimated monthly organic traffic exceeding 2.8 million, valued at nearly $2.46 million. Their keyword portfolio is broad and deep, targeting high-volume, high-intent terms such as "text to speech," "ai voice generator," "voice cloning," and a wide array of long-tail and branded queries. ElevenLabs consistently ranks in the top positions for both generic and branded keywords, often capturing featured snippets and leveraging both organic and paid placements for maximum visibility. In contrast, Amazon Polly (aws.amazon.com/polly) has a much smaller keyword footprint (12,227 keywords), with significantly lower traffic (67,281) and traffic value ($282,085). Polly’s rankings are generally lower (often outside the top 10), and while it covers many of the same core terms, its organic reach and click-through potential are much more limited.
ElevenLabs vs Deepgram Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
ElevenLabs (elevenlabs.io) demonstrates a dominant SEO presence in the AI voice and speech technology space, with a massive total keyword count of 95,557 and estimated monthly organic traffic exceeding 2.8 million. Their traffic value is also notably high at nearly $2.5 million, indicating strong rankings for high-commercial-intent keywords. In contrast, Deepgram (deepgram.com) has a smaller keyword portfolio (35,217 keywords) and significantly less organic traffic (530,380), with a traffic value of about $595,691. Quantitatively, ElevenLabs outpaces Deepgram by a factor of 2.7x in keyword coverage and over 5x in traffic, suggesting a broader and more effective content and keyword acquisition strategy.
ElevenLabs vs Artlist Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
ElevenLabs (elevenlabs.io) demonstrates a dominant SEO presence in the AI voice and sound generation space, with 95,557 ranking keywords, estimated monthly organic traffic of over 2.8 million, and a traffic value of nearly $2.46 million. In comparison, Artlist (artlist.io) has a similar keyword footprint (92,110 keywords) but significantly less organic traffic (about 504,000) and a lower traffic value ($1.68 million). Quantitatively, ElevenLabs outperforms Artlist in both reach and value, indicating stronger organic visibility and likely better conversion potential for high-value keywords. ElevenLabs consistently ranks in the top positions for high-volume, high-intent keywords like "ai voice generator," "text to speech," and "ai voice," while Artlist, despite strong brand and niche keywords (e.g., "royalty free music," "stock footage"), generally ranks lower for AI voice-related terms and captures less traffic from these queries.
ElevenLabs vs HeyGen Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
ElevenLabs (elevenlabs.io) demonstrates a dominant SEO presence in the AI voice and video technology space, with a massive total keyword count of 95,557, estimated monthly organic traffic of over 2.8 million, and a traffic value approaching $2.5 million. This breadth is reflected in their high rankings for both branded and non-branded keywords, especially in high-volume, high-intent queries like "ai voice generator," "ai voice cloning," and "ai video translator." Their keyword portfolio is diversified, targeting both transactional and informational search intents, and they consistently hold top positions for core industry terms, which translates into significant clickstream traffic and brand visibility. In contrast, HeyGen (heygen.com) has a more focused but narrower keyword footprint, with 30,553 keywords, 378,152 monthly visits, and a traffic value of $469,111. HeyGen’s strategy is more concentrated on video translation and avatar-related queries, and while they achieve strong rankings for some high-intent keywords (e.g., "ai video translator"), their overall reach and traffic are considerably lower than ElevenLabs.
ElevenLabs vs Twelve Labs Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
ElevenLabs (elevenlabs.io) demonstrates a dominant SEO presence with 95,557 total keywords, driving over 2.8 million in estimated monthly traffic and a traffic value of nearly $2.46 million. Their keyword portfolio is broad and deep, targeting high-volume, high-intent terms in the AI voice, text-to-speech, and audio technology space. They consistently rank in top positions for both branded and non-branded keywords, including highly competitive commercial queries like "ai voice generator," "text to speech," and "voice changer ai." In contrast, Twelve Labs (twelvelabs.io) has a much smaller keyword footprint, with only 1,196 keywords, 7,147 in monthly traffic, and a traffic value of just over $6,000. Their rankings are primarily for branded terms and a handful of niche AI video and analysis-related queries, with far less reach into the broader AI audio or voice market.
ElevenLabs vs Revoicer Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
ElevenLabs (elevenlabs.io) demonstrates a dominant SEO presence in the AI voice generation space, with 95,557 ranking keywords, estimated monthly organic traffic of over 2.8 million, and a traffic value approaching $2.5 million. Their keyword portfolio is broad and deep, targeting high-volume, high-intent terms such as "ai voice generator," "free ai voice generator," and "ai voice over," where they consistently rank in the top positions. This breadth is reflected in their ability to capture significant clickstream traffic across both branded and non-branded queries, and their use of both organic and paid listings for competitive terms. In contrast, Revoicer (revoicer.com) has a much smaller keyword footprint (8,961 keywords), with monthly organic traffic of just over 33,800 and a traffic value of about $50,700. Revoicer targets many of the same core industry terms but generally ranks much lower (often outside the top 10 or even top 20), resulting in far less traffic and visibility.
ElevenLabs vs Descript Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
ElevenLabs (elevenlabs.io) and Descript (descript.com) are both major players in the AI voice and audio technology space, but their keyword strategies and organic performance differ significantly. ElevenLabs ranks for 95,557 keywords, driving an estimated 2.8 million monthly organic visits and a traffic value of ~$2.46M. Descript, while ranking for more keywords (153,050), receives less organic traffic (813K) but has a slightly higher traffic value at ~$2.6M, indicating a focus on higher-value, possibly more commercial or competitive terms. ElevenLabs dominates high-volume, high-intent keywords like "ai voice generator," "text to speech," and "ai voice," often ranking in the top 3 positions and capturing substantial clickstream traffic. Descript, on the other hand, appears to spread its reach across a broader set of keywords, including many long-tail and tool-specific queries, but often ranks lower for the most competitive, high-volume terms.
ElevenLabs vs Vapi Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
ElevenLabs (elevenlabs.io) demonstrates a dominant SEO presence in the AI voice and speech technology space, with 95,557 ranking keywords, an estimated 2.8M monthly organic visits, and a traffic value of nearly $2.5M. Their keyword portfolio is broad and deep, targeting high-volume, high-intent terms like "ai voice generator," "text to speech," and "voice changer," where they consistently rank in the top positions. ElevenLabs also captures significant branded and product-specific queries, such as "elevenlabs api," "11labs," and "voice ai," often holding the #1 spot. In contrast, Vapi (vapi.ai) has a much smaller keyword footprint (3,363 keywords), with about 32K monthly visits and a traffic value of $49K. Vapi’s organic visibility is heavily reliant on branded terms like "vapi" and "vapi ai," and their rankings for competitive, non-branded industry terms are generally much lower (often outside the top 20), resulting in minimal traffic for those queries.
ElevenLabs vs PlayHT Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
ElevenLabs (elevenlabs.io) demonstrates a dominant SEO presence in the AI voice and text-to-speech space, with a massive total keyword count of 95,557, estimated monthly organic traffic of over 2.8 million, and a traffic value approaching $2.5 million. The company ranks in top positions for high-volume, high-intent keywords such as "ai voice generator," "text to speech," "ai voice cloning," and "voice changer," often holding the #1 or #2 organic spot. Their keyword portfolio is broad, covering both core product terms and a wide array of long-tail and competitor-related queries, and they also invest in paid search for strategic terms. In contrast, PlayHT (play.ht) has a smaller but still significant keyword footprint (24,012 keywords), with estimated traffic of 472,552 and a traffic value of $863,836. PlayHT also targets the main commercial and navigational keywords in the AI voice space, but generally ranks lower than ElevenLabs for the most competitive terms, and their traffic is more concentrated in branded and mid-tail queries.
ElevenLabs vs Murf Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
ElevenLabs (elevenlabs.io) demonstrates a dominant SEO presence in the AI voice and text-to-speech space, with a massive total keyword count of 95,557, estimated monthly organic traffic of over 2.8 million, and a traffic value approaching $2.46 million. Their keyword portfolio is broad and deep, targeting high-volume, high-intent terms like "ai voice generator," "text to speech," "ai voice," and "voice changer," where they often rank in the top 1-3 positions. ElevenLabs also covers a wide range of long-tail and branded queries, including "eleven labs ai," "elevenlabs login," and "voiceover ai," ensuring strong brand visibility and capturing both generic and product-specific demand. In contrast, Murf (murf.ai) has a smaller keyword footprint (39,908 keywords), with significantly lower traffic (482,020) and traffic value ($979,831), indicating a more limited reach and lower organic market share. Murf’s keyword strategy overlaps with ElevenLabs on core industry terms but generally ranks lower, resulting in less traffic per keyword and a lower share of voice in competitive SERPs.
ElevenLabs vs Cartesia Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
ElevenLabs (elevenlabs.io) demonstrates a dominant SEO presence in the AI voice and voice cloning space, with a massive total keyword count of 95,557, driving over 2.8 million in estimated monthly organic traffic and a traffic value exceeding $2.45 million. Their keyword portfolio is broad and deep, covering high-volume, high-intent terms like "ai voice generator," "voice cloning," and "text to speech ai," where they consistently rank in the top positions. ElevenLabs also captures significant branded and navigational queries, and their content strategy includes both product pages and educational resources, which helps them own both transactional and informational search intent. In contrast, Cartesia (cartesia.ai) has a much smaller keyword footprint (1,500 keywords), with only about 14,800 in monthly traffic and a traffic value of $23,453. Their rankings for core industry terms are generally much lower (often outside the top 40), and their traffic is more reliant on a handful of branded or alternative-related queries, with limited reach into high-volume generic terms.
OpenAI vs ElevenLabs Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
OpenAI (openai.com) has a dominant SEO presence with 764,080 ranking keywords, driving an estimated 68.1M monthly organic visits and a traffic value of $25.2M. ElevenLabs (elevenlabs.io), while much smaller in scale, still commands a strong niche with 95,557 keywords, 2.8M monthly visits, and a $2.46M traffic value. OpenAI’s keyword portfolio is broad, covering both branded and high-volume generic AI terms, while ElevenLabs is highly focused on voice AI, text-to-speech, and related long-tail queries. Quantitatively, OpenAI’s average traffic per keyword is about 89, while ElevenLabs achieves about 29, indicating OpenAI’s broader reach and higher authority, but also that ElevenLabs is efficiently capturing valuable, targeted traffic in its vertical.
ElevenLabs vs Speechify Who's Winning the SEO Battle?
ElevenLabs (elevenlabs.io) and Speechify (speechify.com) are both major players in the AI voice and text-to-speech space, but their quantitative SEO profiles show some key differences. ElevenLabs ranks for 95,557 keywords, driving an estimated 2.8 million monthly visits and a traffic value of $2.46M, while Speechify ranks for 113,164 keywords, with 830,334 monthly visits and a traffic value of $1.82M. Despite having fewer ranking keywords, ElevenLabs generates over 3x the organic traffic and a higher traffic value, indicating stronger rankings for high-volume, high-value keywords. ElevenLabs consistently holds top organic positions for core industry terms like "ai voice generator," "text to speech," and "voice cloning," often ranking #1–#3, and captures significant branded search volume (e.g., "elevenlabs," "11 labs," "elevenlabs ai"). Speechify, while ranking for more keywords, often appears lower on page one or even page two for many high-value generics, and relies more heavily on paid search for competitive terms.