Backlink Gap Analysis: A Practical Guide and Free Worksheet

A backlink gap analysis compares the sites linking to your competitors with those linking to you. The useful outcome is a shortlist of relevant pages where you have a credible contribution to make.

The comparison gives you candidates. Opening the source pages, understanding the existing links, and deciding what you can offer turns those candidates into a plan.

Download the free backlink gap worksheet (CSV). It opens in Excel or Google Sheets and requires no signup. The file contains column headings only, ready for your own research.

1. Choose competitors for one specific topic

Start with a topic or service you want to be found for. Look at the search results for the questions your customers ask and select a few sites that serve a similar audience.

Keep the comparison focused. An industry publisher, software vendor, and local service business can appear in the same results but earn links for different reasons. Record why each competitor belongs in your review.

If you have not mapped those competitors yet, use the SEO competitor analysis framework to organize the wider investigation. The competitor analysis feature page explains DataWise’s related research tools.

2. Compare exports using the same scope

Collect backlink or referring-domain data for your site and the selected competitors. Use the same provider, collection date, and scope wherever possible. A whole-domain export and a single-page export answer different questions.

If your provider offers a gap report, use it as the starting list. Otherwise, combine the referring-domain lists in a spreadsheet and mark domains present for a competitor but absent from your export.

Normalize domain names before comparing them: lowercase the hostnames and handle the same host’s www prefix consistently. Keep source URLs in separate columns so you can review individual pages.

An absent domain means it was absent from that export. It does not prove the publisher has never linked to you. Check the actual site before treating an opportunity as new.

3. Review the page behind each gap

Open the exact source URL, follow any redirect, and find the competitor’s link. Record the page you actually reviewed and the date.

Use these five checks in the worksheet:

Check	What to record	Decision it supports
Relevance	How the page’s topic and audience relate to your resource	Whether your contribution belongs
Live-page status	Live, redirected, unavailable, or not checked	Whether there is a current page to review
Link context	Resource list, citation, product mention, sponsorship, or another clear context	Why the existing link is there
Editorial feasibility	A plausible contribution and an identifiable publishing process, or unknown	Whether there is a practical next step
Status	Unreviewed, needs research, shortlisted, skipped, contacted, or closed	What has actually happened

A high domain metric cannot answer these questions for you. Keep any provider scores as supporting notes and explain the specific reason for your decision.

When several pages from one publisher appear in an export, group them together. Review the strongest relevant page first and avoid preparing duplicate approaches to the same publication.

4. Write down what you can contribute

Before shortlisting a page, complete this sentence: “This reader would benefit from our resource because…”

A useful contribution might be a maintained checklist, original research with a stated method, an accessible explanation, or a tool that solves the task discussed on the page. Add the specific resource URL to the worksheet. If the resource is unfinished, make creating or improving it the next action.

For example, imagine a fictional trade association page listing project-planning resources. It links to a competitor’s checklist. Your worksheet could record an updated, downloadable planning template as a possible contribution, provided that template exists and serves the same audience. The opportunity remains unconfirmed until you review the association’s editorial criteria.

Treat paid placements separately from editorial opportunities. Google identifies links bought to manipulate rankings as link spam and says advertising or sponsorship links should be qualified appropriately. Read Google’s link-spam guidance.

5. Prioritize and assign the next action

Use simple priorities instead of an unexplained score:

• Review first: relevant live page, useful resource ready, and a clear editorial route.
• Prepare: potentially relevant, but the resource or publishing criteria need more work.
• Skip: poor fit, an unavailable page, or no useful contribution you can identify.

Assign an owner and a concrete next action, such as “check submission criteria” or “add the missing example to our guide.” Keep rejected candidates with a brief reason so they are not repeatedly reconsidered.

Contacting a publisher is a separate step. Researching a gap does not establish permission to publish on that site, and a similar competitor link does not guarantee acceptance.

Keep the worksheet useful after the first review

When an opportunity changes, update its status and review date. Record a live placement only after checking the published page. Keep responses, placements, referral visits, and search performance as separate measures.

The worksheet organizes manual research; it does not fetch backlink data or send outreach. For DataWise’s available backlink research tools, visit the backlink analysis feature page, then use the blank worksheet to turn your findings into a reviewable shortlist.