Backlink checker comparison: why do the exports disagree?

Two backlink checkers can report different source lists for the same destination. Before comparing their totals, I would inspect what each export actually represents.

For a small comparison exercise, choose the same destination and check date, keep the original exports, normalise the obvious duplicate rows and inspect a sample of disagreements on the live source pages. Record inaccessible pages as unverified, rather than automatically deciding one tool is wrong.

If you recommend a checker, describe the task and the result you tested. A larger reported total can be interesting, but the workflow also needs accurate, usable records and a clear explanation of uncertain observations.

I would compare source-page URLs separately from domain totals. Several references from one site answer a different question from references across several sites.

For disagreements, note whether the live link is present and whether it points to the intended destination or an intermediate URL.

Keep the comparison date attached to each export. Data collected at different times may describe real changes rather than a difference in tool quality.

The report should include the sampling method so another reviewer can understand how much of the disagreement was actually checked.

The comparison sheet would show unique sources, checked disagreements and unresolved observations, with raw exports retained.

That gives a useful basis for choosing a tool for an audit. It avoids assuming the biggest number is automatically the most reliable evidence.