Free tool · AI visibility
To find out why a page is not in Google, check what is preventing it: the HTTP status and redirect chain, the robots meta tag, the X-Robots-Tag header, robots.txt, the canonical, your sitemap and soft-404 signals. This reads all of them. It cannot tell you whether the page is in the index, because no public tool can for a property you do not own.
Free and unlimited. The indexability audit needs no account; the site: search check needs a free sign-in and is limited to one run a month, because it costs us money.
AEO depth layer
The site: search check is computed from your own page and costs nothing to run. We ask for a free account because the expensive tools on this shelf stay free, and because it lets us tell you when your result changes. No card, no trial clock.
Signing in saves the details you entered above so we can follow up about your results. See our privacy policy for what we keep and why. The Google Index Checker result you already have stays free either way. Privacy policy.
This table is the reason this tool is shaped the way it is. The category is full of checkers that answer the second row with a green tick, and they cannot.
| Question | Knowable from outside? | How |
|---|---|---|
| Is anything blocking indexing? | Yes, definitively | Read the page, the headers and robots.txt. This tool, free. |
| Is this URL in Google's index? | No | Only URL Inspection in Search Console, on a property you own. |
| How many of my pages are indexed? | No | Only the Search Console Pages report. |
| Does Google know this URL exists? | Indicatively | A site: query, sampled and approximate. The signed-in layer here. |
| Is the page in my sitemap? | Yes | Read the sitemaps declared in robots.txt. This tool, free. |
| Was the page crawled, and when? | No | Only Search Console, or your own server logs. |
A blocker definitively prevents indexing and there is no ambiguity about it. A risk usually indicates a mistake but is sometimes exactly what you meant, so it is reported for you to judge rather than counted into a number.
| Check | Level | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| HTTP status | Blocker if not 200 | There is no page at this address to index. |
| Robots meta tag | Blocker if noindex | One word that removes the page from every index. Survives redesigns because nobody looks. |
| X-Robots-Tag header | Blocker if noindex | The same instruction from the server, invisible in the page source. |
| robots.txt | Blocker if Googlebot is disallowed | Prevents crawling, not indexing. A disallowed URL with links can still be listed, and a noindex on it can never be read. |
| Canonical | Risk | Missing splits the page across its variants. Pointing elsewhere hands the page to another, which is occasionally deliberate. |
| Redirect chain | Risk if any hops | Every hop is a place a crawler can stop. Link the final address. |
| Soft 404 | Risk | A 200 response that says the page does not exist. Only flagged under a hundred words. |
| Sitemap membership | Risk if absent | A page missing from your sitemap is reached only by following a link, which is why new pages sit uncrawled. |
| hreflang | Risk if it never names this page | An hreflang set without a self-referencing entry is invalid and is ignored wholesale. |
If the audit comes back clean and the page still is not appearing, the remaining causes are discovery and quality rather than permission. The on-page SEO checker covers the second, the AI crawlability checker reads your robots.txt bot by bot for the AI crawlers specifically, and connecting Search Console gets you the authoritative answer this tool is honest about not having.
Step 1
Not the homepage. The specific page that is missing, with the path, because most causes are page-level rather than site-level.
Step 2
If anything is listed there, nothing else on the page matters until it is changed. A noindex tag cannot be outweighed by a better sitemap.
Step 3
A canonical pointing elsewhere is usually a template mistake and is occasionally exactly what you meant. That is why they are separated rather than counted into a score.
Step 4
This tool tells you what is preventing indexing, which is the part you can fix. Whether the page is actually in the index is a question only URL Inspection on a property you own can answer.
When you outgrow this tool
Checking one URL is free and unlimited. Linkeddit is what you use when you need to know which of your pages are earning impressions and which are sitting uncrawled, across the whole site, every week.
FAQ
What is actually knowable about indexing from outside a property, and what every other free checker in this category is quietly guessing at.
No, and neither can anything else that does not own the property. There is no public API that reports the contents of Google's index, and the URL Inspection tool in Search Console is the only authority. What this tool does instead is answer the actionable half completely: whether anything on your page, in your response headers, or in your robots.txt is preventing indexing, and whether the page is discoverable from your own sitemap. Every one of those is a fact we can read directly and something you can change.
Because they are almost always running a site: query and presenting the result as an index listing. Google has said repeatedly that site: is sampled and approximate and should not be read that way. A URL missing from a site: result is routinely indexed, and the reverse happens too. We run that same query in the signed-in layer, and we label it indicative rather than dressing it up as a verdict, because the person who acts on a false yes will not blame the operator.
No, and this is the distinction almost every tool in this category gets wrong. Disallow prevents crawling, not indexing. A disallowed URL with inbound links can still be indexed and listed, usually with no description, because Google knows the URL exists but has never been allowed to read it. It also means a noindex tag on that page can never take effect, since the tag can only be seen by fetching the page. If you want a page out of the index, allow the crawl and add the noindex.
A page that returns HTTP 200 while telling the reader it does not exist. It asks search engines to index an error page, and once they work it out they trust the rest of the site's status codes less. We flag it only when the response is 200, the wording says the page was not found, and the page is under a hundred words, so an article about HTTP status codes is not caught by it.
We read the Sitemap directives from your robots.txt, which is where they belong, and fall back to /sitemap.xml if there are none. If the first one is a sitemap index we follow one level down, up to four sitemaps in total. The result always says how many were opened, so a page we could not find is reported as absent from the sitemaps we checked rather than absent from your sitemap.
One site: query run against Google for your exact URL, with what came back and a timestamp. It is the only check on this shelf that costs us money to run, so it is limited to one run per account per calendar month, and the free audit above is unlimited. It is labelled indicative on every path, including when it finds nothing, because a sampled operator returning no rows is a common result for pages that are indexed.
Because the free part costs us three cheap fetches of your own site and the paid part buys a search result from a provider. Metering the thing that is actually expensive, and leaving everything else open, seemed more honest than putting a limit on the whole tool to make the limit feel like a feature.
Every tool on the shelf is free, with no card and no trial. Most need no account at all. See all free tools.
Build the JSON-LD properties that make a page attributable rather than eligible for a rich result, with the reason each one matters.
Score a page on whether an assistant could actually answer with it, across four pillars worth a hundred points.
See the answer an engine can build from your page, with every sentence labelled by the element it came from.
Whether each answer engine can reach and quote one specific page, checked per engine against the bots it actually uses.