Bulk index checker that reports coverage across thousands of URLs

Crawled is not indexed, and a bulk checker should say which

The most common failure in a bulk report is a binary column: indexed, yes or no. It is technically correct and practically useless, because "no" covers at least four situations that need completely different responses. A page Google has not crawled yet needs discovery help. A page Google crawled and declined needs to be rewritten or consolidated. A page with an accidental noindex needs a one-line fix. A page that redirects is not a problem at all.

That is why the reason matters more than the status at scale. When 800 URLs come back not indexed, you do not have 800 problems. You usually have three or four: a template producing near-duplicates, a faceted navigation pattern spraying thin URLs, a migration that orphaned a section, a stray directive nobody noticed. Group by cause and the report stops being a wall and starts being a short list of decisions.

What to do with the list once you have it

Take the accidents first, because they are free. Any URL excluded by a noindex tag you did not intend, blocked in robots.txt, or pointing its canonical somewhere odd is a page you are excluding yourself. These fixes take minutes and often clear a large block of the report in one change. Worth knowing while you are in there: robots.txt blocks crawling, not indexing, so Google can still index a disallowed URL and show it without a snippet. Google also dropped support for noindex inside robots.txt back in September 2019, so if you inherited a file that relies on it, it has been doing nothing for years.

Next take discovery. Pages sitting in "discovered, currently not indexed" have been queued, not judged, and internal links from pages Googlebot already visits often are the cheapest accelerant available. Trim dead and duplicate URLs out of the sitemap so the crawl budget concentrates. Submit the ones that matter through official channels and ping IndexNow for Bing.

Leave the quality bucket for last, and be honest about it. Pages in "crawled, currently not indexed" have already been read and turned down, so resubmitting them unchanged is theatre. Either make them substantially better and more distinct, fold them into a stronger page, or accept that they are not going to be indexed and stop spending crawl budget on them. We report what we find and resubmit through official channels only. Google still makes the call, and any tool that tells you otherwise is describing something you would not want done to your domain.

What a bulk Google index checker should return in a single run

A bulk google index checker that only hands back a percentage has not finished the job. The number tells you something is wrong and nothing about what. What you need out of one run is a row per URL: the address, its current status, the date that status was established, and, for anything not indexed, the reason Google gave. Everything useful you do afterwards is a filter or a sort on that table.

The reason matters more than the status, because reasons sort into two piles with completely different economics. Some are yours to fix in minutes: a noindex left on by a template, a robots.txt rule, a canonical pointing at the wrong URL, a redirect nobody meant to leave in place. Others are Google declining to store the page, which is a content judgment that resubmission does not touch. A bulk index check that does not separate those two piles leaves you with a long list and no idea which half to work on.

The third thing a run should give you is a comparison against the last one. Status on its own is a snapshot, and a snapshot cannot tell you that 240 product pages dropped out since Tuesday. Google sends no notification when a page leaves the index, so the delta between runs is the only place that event is visible at all, and it is the single most valuable output of checking on a schedule instead of when you happen to wonder.

• A verdict per URL, not a site-wide percentage.
• A reason attached to every gap, so fixable and unfixable separate cleanly.
• A comparison against the previous run, which is where drops become visible.
• An export you can filter, because the point is deciding what to work on.

Bulk index check for your own pages, and bulk link index checking for backlinks

These look like the same task and they are not, so it is worth being explicit about which one you are doing. A bulk url index checker pointed at your own site works from a list you control, usually a sitemap or a crawl, and every gap it finds is something you can act on directly because you own the page. That is the case this tool is built around.

A bulk link index checker points at other people's pages, the ones carrying your backlinks, and asks whether Google holds them. The logic is sound: a link on a page Google has never indexed passes nothing, so knowing which of your placements are actually in the index tells you what your link building really bought. The catch is that you have no verified access to those domains, so the authoritative per-URL reason is unavailable to you. You can establish presence or absence, and that is the ceiling.

The other difference is what you do with the answer. An unindexed page of your own gets fixed and resubmitted. An unindexed page carrying your backlink cannot be fixed by you at all, so the honest response is to discount it when you value the placement and put effort somewhere else. Anyone selling you a service that promises to force third-party pages into the index is selling a crawl trigger, and we will not pretend otherwise.

Bulk indexing sites: checking more than one property at once

Agencies and anyone running a portfolio hit a specific version of this problem. The URL Inspection quota of 2,000 queries per day and 600 per minute is applied per property, not per account, which is genuinely good news when you manage twelve sites: they do not compete with each other for the same allowance. Each property gets its own budget, and a bulk indexing tool that handles multiple properties can run them in parallel.

What that does not solve is the per-property ceiling on any single large site. A 100,000-URL ecommerce catalog gets 2,000 authoritative checks a day regardless of how many other properties you own, which works out to a full pass roughly every seven weeks. At that scale, checking everything on a rota is the wrong instinct. Segment the catalog first, check the segments that earn revenue or change often at a real frequency, and sample the long tail rather than pretending to cover it.

The reporting side is where multi-property work usually breaks down, because a per-site view answers "how is this client doing" and nobody has time to open twelve of them. What you want is one view that surfaces the properties where something moved, so a site that quietly lost 400 indexed pages last week appears at the top rather than waiting to be found. That is a rollup problem, and it is the reason bulk checking across properties is worth automating even when each individual site is small enough to check by hand.

Is there a bulk Bing index checker as well?

Yes, and Bing is more generous about it than Google. Bing Webmaster Tools exposes index status for a verified site and its URL Submission API allows a considerably larger daily allowance than anything on the Google side, which is why bulk work against Bing tends to be limited by your own throughput rather than by a quota you have to ration.

It is worth checking both rather than assuming they agree, because they routinely do not. The two engines crawl on different schedules, make independent decisions about duplicates and quality, and one commonly holds pages the other has passed on. A page indexed in Bing and missing from Google is normal and is not evidence of a technical fault. A page missing from both usually is, and the overlap is a useful filter for deciding what to investigate first.

Bing also supports IndexNow, which Google still does not use as of 2026, so a URL you submit there reaches Bing, Yandex, Seznam and Naver on the same call. That makes the check-then-submit loop faster on the Bing side than the Google one, and it is why a bulk workflow that treats the two engines identically leaves the easier win on the table.