Content editor
You are updating old articles and need to find links that lead readers to missing pages or outdated destinations.
Use the broken URL list to replace, remove, or redirect references before publishing the next revision.
How the Screaming Frog broken link checker workflow works
Screaming Frog is a desktop crawler that discovers pages, follows internal links, and reports response problems. This guide shows where that workflow fits and when a simpler check is enough.
Choose the route that fits the job
Different link-checking routes suit different sites, access levels, and reporting needs.
- ahrefs broken link checker An Ahrefs-focused route is useful when backlink discovery and external referring pages matter alongside broken URLs.
- dead link checker A dead link checker centers on identifying destinations that no longer return a usable response.
- how to check broken links in a website This practical walkthrough explains a repeatable process for checking links across a live website.
Three ways to use the crawl results
The same crawl can support different jobs, from a quick content cleanup to a structured technical review.
SEO specialist
You want to separate true missing pages from redirects, blocked resources, and temporary response errors.
Filter by response type, inspect the source page, and prioritize links that affect important landing pages.
Site owner
You manage a small site and need a clear first pass without learning every crawler setting.
Start with the highest-value sections, review the source URLs, and fix issues in a controlled batch.
Developer
You are preparing a release and want to catch internal links that point to removed routes or incorrect paths.
Run the crawl against the relevant environment, export findings, and verify each fix with a fresh request.
Run a focused crawl from start to finish
A reliable check is less about pressing Scan and more about defining the scope, reading the response evidence, and verifying repairs.
-
1
Set the crawl scope
Enter the starting URL and decide whether the check should stay within the domain, include subdomains, or cover only a selected directory. Narrow scope reduces noise and makes the result easier to act on.
-
2
Review source and response data
Inspect each flagged destination alongside the page that links to it. Separate a genuine missing page from a redirect chain, blocked request, timeout, or URL that only fails under a particular access condition.
-
3
Fix, then verify again
Update the source content, restore the destination, or add the appropriate redirect. Re-run the relevant scope and confirm that the response and referring page now agree.
Read the response signals correctly
Status codes are clues, not complete diagnoses. Always connect the response with the source page and the context in which the request was made.
- The destination returned a successful response to the request.
- 200 OK
- The destination permanently points elsewhere and may need review for relevance.
- 301 redirect
- The requested resource was not found at that URL.
- 404 not found
- The server reported an error that may require a later recheck.
- 5xx server error
Limits and edges to keep in mind
A crawler can expose many link problems, but it cannot decide every fix or guarantee that a URL behaves identically for every visitor.
1
It does not judge editorial relevance
A page can return 200 while being outdated, misleading, or unrelated to the anchor text that points to it.
What to do instead
Review important links in their surrounding copy and confirm that the destination still serves the intended purpose.
2
It may not see every protected route
Login walls, firewalls, robots rules, rate limits, and private environments can prevent a crawler from reaching content.
What to do instead
Use an approved test environment or coordinate access before treating an absent result as proof that a route is broken.
3
A response code is not the whole story
Timeouts, intermittent failures, client-side navigation, and redirects can create different experiences than a single crawl records.
What to do instead
Repeat questionable requests and test them from the same environment your visitors or monitoring system uses.
4
It does not repair links automatically
The report identifies candidates, but changing URLs can affect navigation, analytics, redirects, and search visibility.
What to do instead
Apply fixes deliberately, preserve useful redirects, and verify the affected pages after deployment.
Screaming Frog versus a focused link check
The right choice depends on whether you need a broad technical crawl or a fast answer about link health.
| Screaming Frog workflow | Focused online check | |
|---|---|---|
| Primary purpose | Broad site crawling with detailed technical inspection | Quickly identify broken and questionable destinations |
| Setup | Desktop installation and crawl configuration | Open the checker and provide the site or scope |
| Best for | Large audits, technical SEO, and repeatable crawl analysis | Small sites, first-pass checks, and targeted verification |
| Control | Fine-grained crawl settings, filters, and extraction options | A simpler workflow with fewer configuration decisions |
| Output context | Links can be examined alongside crawl URLs and page attributes | Results focus on link status and practical next actions |
| Maintenance | Useful when a team already has a crawler-based process | Useful when the goal is a lightweight check without maintaining a desktop workflow |
| Main trade-off | More setup and interpretation for broader coverage | Less depth for advanced crawl analysis and custom extraction |
Use a focused check to identify the URLs that deserve attention, then verify each repair in context. When the issue needs a wider audit, carry the findings into your existing crawl workflow.
Turn link findings into clear fixes
- Find missing destinations
- Separate redirects from errors
- Verify fixes with a second pass
Screaming Frog link-checking questions
These answers clarify how the workflow differs from a lightweight broken-link scan.
Screaming Frog crawls the pages within its configured scope and records links that lead to responses such as 404 errors, server errors, redirects, or failed requests. It also helps you identify the source page that contains each link.
It is better when you need detailed crawl controls, technical filters, and broader site diagnostics. An online check can be more practical for a quick first pass, a small site, or a user who does not need a full desktop crawl.
It can discover external links during a crawl, but the depth and reliability of external checking depend on the crawl settings, request behavior, and restrictions imposed by other websites. Important external failures should be verified separately before removal.
The server may treat crawler requests differently because of rate limits, user-agent rules, authentication, geography, or temporary failures. Repeat the request, inspect the response details, and test from the environment that matters to your visitors.
No. It reports URLs and their crawl context, but a person must decide whether to edit the source page, restore the destination, or create a redirect. After making a change, run another check to confirm the result.