A CheckMoz alternative, tested on CheckMoz itself

Every notebook needs a question. Mine is plain: if you came to CheckMoz for a DA and PA number and you now want something you can call from a script, what changes? The fair way to find out is to use our own index on CheckMoz's own domain. That gives us real numbers to read instead of adjectives.

Before the numbers, a note on method, because you may want to repeat this. Everything below comes from three public calls on checkmoz.com: overview, refdomains and anchors. Our index is built from our web link data, so it is a sample of the public web and not a complete crawl. Treat each figure as a reading from one instrument, with the instrument's limits attached.

You can open the same report in the browser, without signing in, at the free explorer for checkmoz.com. If a number in this notebook looks wrong to you, check it there first.

The homepage is a green hero with the line “Free Bulk Moz Checker is a unique, free, user friendly and very reliable tool for checking domain authority (DA), page authority (PA) and moz rank.” Underneath is the form. Its result columns are Domain Authority, Page Authority, Moz Rank, Backlinks, Alexa Rank, IP Address and Google Index. For a first look that is a reasonable layout: one paste, one table.

Here is what I could not pin down from the site itself. The batch limit is stated twice and the two statements disagree: “up to 5 at once” in one spot, “up to 10 domain names at once” in the how-to. I would not guess which is current; paste a list and see what happens. There is no pricing page and no API page (both addresses return 404). The site does not say where its Moz numbers come from or how fresh they are, and it does not explain what signing up adds.

None of that is a criticism. A free form owes you a form. It does mean that if you need a guaranteed limit, a documented response format or a number you can reproduce next month, the page gives you nothing to hold on to.

The first thing I do with any domain is read its anchors. For checkmoz.com the top row is not “CheckMoz” or “DA checker”. It is “Twitter”: 1,448 links, 70.77% of the profile, 100% dofollow. All of it comes from one referring domain, cuongdc.co, which has DR 16 in our index and spreads the links over 506 pages.

My reading, and it is only a reading: this looks like a social or footer link that was labelled wrongly and repeated on every page, not an editorial mention. A person did not write 1,448 sentences about a Moz checker. But the link exists, our crawl saw it between 2025-08-07 and 2026-09-07, and any tool that counts raw backlinks will count it.

That is the lesson of the entry. A raw backlink total of 2,046 and a referring-domain total of 196 are two different stories. If you only quote the first, you are quoting a single site's template.

Experiment: subtract cuongdc.co. What is left is roughly 600 links from 195 domains. That is the part of the profile a human chose to make.

Two things stand out. First, the genuine links are tool lists and directories, which is exactly where a free checker would be listed. Second, hubspot.com (DR 72) links ten times with the anchor “Moz”. Together “Moz” and “MOZ” account for 39 links. Authoritative pages are saying “Moz” and pointing at checkmoz.com, which suggests those pages are citing Moz as a concept and linking to a Moz-metrics tool. If you read this site's anchors, expect that mix.

megri.com, whose name matches the company named on the about page, also links five times with the anchor “checkmoz.com”.

The most-linked pages gave me the tidiest observation in this notebook. http://www.checkmoz.com/ has 1,543 links. https://www.checkmoz.com/ has 284. A further 42 go to /en/, a language path that shows up in tool lists from around 2019. The site now sends https://checkmoz.com with a 301 to the www address, so visitors land in the right place. But link-checking scripts that match on exact URLs will see the old spelling as a separate target.

If you build anything on top of backlink data, normalise the target first. The toppages action returns the 50 most-linked pages, and it is the quickest way to spot this kind of split. Our index lists http and https as different rows, so a naive report would show the homepage with 284 links when most links go to the http spelling.

This is the entry I most want you to copy into your own notes. CheckMoz displays Moz's Domain Authority and Page Authority. We compute Domain Rating (DR), 0–100 and logarithmic, from referring-domain counts in our own graph. It is comparable in spirit to DA. It is not DA, and it is not Ahrefs DR. As a calibration point, ahrefs.com itself shows DR 67 in our index; that is a reading of our graph, and it tells you nothing about what Ahrefs shows for its own site.

Even inside our own metric the reading moves: checkmoz.com is DR 31 today, and a stored profile from an earlier snapshot says 27. Both are ours, taken at different dates, which is exactly what you expect when the index refreshes with each our web index release (roughly monthly, not real-time).

Practical rule: pick one metric per report, label it, and compare like with like. If a client's contract says “DA 30+”, a DR figure from us is context, not proof. If you are screening a list of prospects for relative strength, DR is a reasonable ruler, and you can apply it to every row the same way.

A notebook that only records wins for the home team is not a notebook. Here is where I would tell you to stay with CheckMoz.

• You need the Moz numbers themselves. If a client, a marketplace listing or an old spreadsheet is written in DA and PA, only a tool that shows those will do. We do not.
• You check a handful of URLs by hand. Open a page, paste five addresses, read the table. No key, no code, nothing to set up. For a one-off sanity check that is hard to beat.
• You want extra columns in the same view. MozRank, IP address and a Google index yes/no are shown beside DA and PA. We have none of those, and we have no keyword, traffic or audit data either.
• You want the bulk IP and Class C IP tools. The site lists them in its navigation. That is a different job from ours.

If that describes your week, bookmark CheckMoz and spend nothing. Reach for an API only when the form stops being the right shape for the work. For a wider look at the category, the domain rating tools hub covers more tools in this category.

Last experiment: reproduce the useful part of that form, a table of strength numbers for a list of sites, using our endpoints. The domain action is free and needs no key. The bulk_dr action returns DR and counts for up to 2,000 domains in one request, and compare puts up to 20 domains side by side.

Worked example, hypothetical: you have a list of 300 domains from a tool directory and want to rank them before outreach. One request to bulk_dr replaces sixty pastes of five. Sort by DR, then call refdomains on the top handful to see who links to them. Our refdomains action returns up to 100 top referring domains per target, with links, pages, dofollow counts and donor DR, and none of those columns appears in the CheckMoz form's result list.

Paid actions cost 1 credit for lookups and 2 for list calls, one credit being $0.0001, and new accounts get $100 of free credit on first sign-in with Google. The details of every action are in the API documentation. What you will not get is a Moz number, a Google index check or a result that updates the moment a link appears.

Three things stayed open. I did not run the CheckMoz form, so I cannot say what its Alexa Rank column returns today. The site still advertises that column and a bulk Alexa checker, and I would test it before relying on it. I also could not find where its Moz values come from. And I do not know the real batch limit.

On our side, remember the limits: the index is a sample of the public web, a new link can take weeks to appear, and there is no alerting, no history chart and no spam score. If you want to compare a sibling in this category, the DA PA Checker notes cover another DA/PA checker.