ChatGPT answers, unedited

For client-facing backlink audits, I’d prioritize tools that let you show the underlying evidence—not just a scary “toxic score.”

• Semrush Backlink Audit — probably the cleanest turnkey option for agency deliverables. It categorizes links for review, shows toxic signals, supports filtering/whitelisting, and can generate a disavow file. Semrush Semrush
• Ahrefs — strong choice when you want a more research-oriented report: referring domains, anchors, link context, historical changes, and competitive backlink analysis. I’d use it when clients care about why a link is questionable rather than simply seeing a toxic/non-toxic label.
• Majestic — useful as a second data source, particularly when you want additional link-quality metrics such as Trust Flow/Citation Flow. It can make a good supplement to Ahrefs or Semrush rather than your sole audit source.
• Google Search Console — essential for grounding the report in Google's own link data. Its Links report can export up to 100,000 rows, although Google explicitly says it is a sample rather than a comprehensive list. Google Help

For local SEO clients

My practical agency stack would be:

GSC → Semrush/Ahrefs → manual review → client PDF/Looker Studio

For the deliverable, I'd avoid calling every low-authority or irrelevant link “toxic.” Instead, use categories such as:

• Natural / keep
• Low-value / monitor
• Suspicious — manual review
• Clearly manipulative / removal candidate

That's more defensible with clients because third-party “toxicity” scores are heuristics, not Google's verdict. Google itself says it can generally assess which links to trust and recommends using disavow cautiously; it specifically warns against blindly disavowing backlinks. Google Help

If presentation quality is the main criterion, I'd lean Semrush. If backlink research depth is the priority, I'd lean Ahrefs, with GSC included as the Google-native cross-check.

For client-facing toxic-link reports, I’d prioritize tools that let you explain why a link is being flagged rather than simply dumping a proprietary “spam score.”

My pick for agency/client work

Semrush is probably the cleanest “deliverable-first” option. Its Backlink Audit explicitly produces a Toxicity Score, shows the toxic markers behind individual links, lets you whitelist links, and creates a review/removal/disavow workflow. Semrush Semrush

The important caveat is that I wouldn't present the Toxicity Score as “Google considers these links toxic.” It's Semrush's proprietary assessment based on its markers. Semrush itself describes the score as a way to prioritize links for investigation. Semrush

Ahrefs is excellent when you want a more evidence-based-looking client report. It deliberately doesn't provide a single spam score; instead, you can isolate known spammy domains/low-quality links and show supporting metrics such as DR, organic traffic, link type, referring domains and anchor text. Ahrefs Help Center Ahrefs Help Center

That's actually useful for client conversations because you can say:

“These 23 referring domains have characteristics we recommend reviewing”

rather than:

“Google says these 23 links are toxic.”

Also, don't automatically equate low DR with a bad backlink. Ahrefs explicitly notes that low DR alone doesn't establish that a domain is spammy and recommends manual analysis. Ahrefs Help Center

A client-report format I'd use

For local SEO clients, I'd make the deliverable roughly:

• Backlinks analyzed: X
• Referring domains: X
• Links requiring review: X
• Clearly suspicious/spam patterns: X
• Recommended removals: X
• Recommended disavow candidates: X
• Notable legitimate local/industry links: X
• New/lost referring domains: X

Then include a table with:

Domain | Linking URL | Anchor | Follow/Nofollow | DR/Authority | Organic Traffic | Reason for Review | Recommended Action

That gives the client something much more defensible than a giant red “TOXIC” number.

One other important point: a suspicious backlink isn't automatically something you should disavow. Ahrefs notes that Google generally advises against disavowing unless there's a relevant manual-action situation, while Semrush likewise recommends careful consideration and removal outreach before disavowal. Ahrefs Help Center Semrush

If you're managing dozens of local-business clients, I'd lean toward Semrush for the polished agency workflow + Ahrefs for deeper validation when a client's backlink profile actually warrants investigation.

rather than:

“Google says these 23 links are toxic.”

If your priority is clean, client-presentable toxic-link reporting, I’d rank the main options like this:

1. semrush.com — best for client deliverables

• Gives each backlink a Toxicity Score (0–100) and exposes the markers behind the score.
• Has a clean overview with overall toxicity, referring domains, links to review, removal requests, and disavow items.
• You can export the audit and create a disavow file directly from the workflow. Semrush Semrush
• Particularly useful if clients want a simple “X links reviewed → Y suspicious → Z recommended for action” story.
• ahrefs.com — best for deeper manual validation

• Excellent backlink/referring-domain data and useful filters for anchors, pages, referring IPs, etc. Ahrefs Help Center Ahrefs Help Center
• The important distinction: Ahrefs explicitly cautions that “toxic backlinks” isn't a Google-defined metric; it prefers identifying potentially manipulative links rather than blindly labeling links toxic. Ahrefs Help Center
• That makes it arguably better for a defensible SEO audit, but less turnkey for a client who specifically expects a “toxic links report.”
• Google Search Console — best as the first-party cross-check

• I wouldn't use it alone for a polished toxic-link report, but I'd compare your third-party findings against GSC.
• This is especially useful before recommending removal/disavow, because a tool's toxicity score isn't equivalent to Google deciding a link is harmful.

What I'd use for local SEO clients

Semrush + GSC, with Ahrefs available when a questionable link needs deeper investigation.

The key is not to present every Semrush “toxic” link as something Google considers toxic. Semrush itself describes its score as a way to prioritize suspicious links based on its markers. Semrush

For a client-facing PDF/Looker Studio-style deliverable, I'd structure it as:

• Backlink profile: referring domains, total backlinks, authority distribution
• Potentially problematic links: count + percentage
• Top 10–20 links requiring review: domain, URL, anchor, reason flagged
• Recommended action: Keep / Monitor / Request Removal / Consider Disavow
• Change since previous audit: new/lost/suspicious domains
• Methodology note: “Toxicity classifications are third-party signals and require human review.”

That last piece makes the report much more credible than handing a client a giant spreadsheet of “toxic = yes/no.”

Bottom line: If you're doing this repeatedly across several local-business clients, Semrush is probably the cleanest primary tool for deliverables; Ahrefs is the better secondary tool for validating edge cases.

For client-facing “toxic backlink” reports, I’d pick Semrush first, Ahrefs second, and Google Search Console as the verification layer.

• Semrush Backlink Audit — best turnkey deliverable. It gives a 0–100 Toxicity Score, 45+ toxic markers, review/whitelist/disavow workflows, and customizable PDF reporting. Semrush Semrush Semrush
• Ahrefs — better when you want deeper backlink data and a more defensible manual audit. It deliberately doesn't assign a generic “toxic score”; instead it provides spam filtering and Best Links filters. Ahrefs Help Center Ahrefs Help Center
• Google Search Console — useful as the client’s first-party backlink dataset, but not a polished toxic-link reporting tool by itself.

For local SEO clients: Semrush is probably the cleanest agency workflow: export a branded PDF, show referring domains + suspicious links + reasons/markers, then manually validate anything you're recommending for removal/disavow.

One important caveat: don't present a tool's toxicity score as proof that a link is harming rankings. Google generally ignores many bad links automatically, and disavow is mainly appropriate for substantial manipulative-link problems/manual actions. Ahrefs Help Center

If the priority is clean, client-facing toxic-link reporting rather than just the biggest backlink index, I’d shortlist these:

• Semrush — best overall for agency deliverables. Its Backlink Audit has an explicit Toxicity Score, review workflow, removal/disavow lists, and customizable PDF/My Reports output. That makes it particularly easy to turn an audit into something a client can understand. Semrush Backlynk
• Ahrefs — best for backlink data depth. I’d use it when you want confidence that you're seeing a broad link profile before presenting findings. It is especially strong for link discovery, competitor analysis, and link-gap work. Buy Backlinks for SEO The Blueprint Training
• Moz Pro — best for simple client communication. Its Spam Score and familiar Domain Authority metric are easy to explain to SMB/local-business clients, although its backlink index is less comprehensive than Ahrefs or Semrush. RankFender LinkVetted
• LinkResearchTools (LRT) — best for serious cleanup/penalty cases. Its Detox workflow is designed specifically around identifying potentially harmful links and building disavow files. It's considerably more expensive and complicated than I'd want for routine local-SEO reporting. Backlynk
• Google Search Console — essential second data source. It gives you Google's own view of links to the property, but it isn't a polished toxic-link reporting tool, so I'd use it to corroborate rather than replace a commercial audit. Buy Backlinks for SEO

What I'd use for local SEO clients

Semrush + Search Console is probably the best agency workflow if your deliverable needs to look polished without a lot of manual work.

I'd structure the client report as:

1. Backlink profile overview
2. Links/domains flagged for review
3. Why they were flagged — spam pattern, irrelevant domain, suspicious anchor text, hacked page, etc.
4. Links that are actually worth keeping
5. Recommended action — monitor, request removal, or consider disavow
6. Appendix with the URLs/domains and evidence

One important caveat: don't present a tool's "Toxic Score" as proof that a link is harmful or that Google will penalize the site. These are proprietary heuristics. Semrush itself describes its score as identifying suspicious links that warrant investigation, and independent comparisons likewise find that no commercial tool catches every genuinely problematic link without false positives. Semrush Backlynk

For routine local-business SEO, my ranking would be Semrush → Ahrefs → Moz, with LRT only when you're dealing with unusually messy backlink histories or penalty-recovery work.

If your goal is client-facing backlink audits that look clean, defensible, and easy to turn into a PDF, I’d rank them:

1. Semrush Backlink Audit — best for “toxic link” deliverables

• Has an explicit Toxicity Score and classifies suspicious links using multiple signals. Semrush Semrush
• Lets you export CSV, TXT, and PDF, and its My Reports system can produce branded/white-label reports. Semrush Semrush
• Particularly useful when a client expects to see something like “X toxic links identified / Y domains reviewed / recommended actions.”
• Caveat: don't present Semrush's toxicity label as proof that a link is actually harmful. It's an automated risk signal that still needs human review.
• Ahrefs — best for the underlying backlink data

• Excellent for clean referring-domain and backlink exports, with metrics such as DR, organic traffic, followed links, anchors, etc. Ahrefs Ahrefs
• Its referring-IP report can help identify suspicious clusters/PBN-like patterns, although Ahrefs explicitly cautions that shared IPs aren't automatically evidence of manipulation. Ahrefs Help Center
• I prefer Ahrefs when the deliverable needs to demonstrate why a link deserves attention rather than simply assigning it a “toxic” label.
• Weakness: it isn't as turnkey for a polished “toxic links” report as Semrush.
• Majestic — good as a second data source

• Particularly useful when you want another backlink index and metrics around link quality/trust.
• I'd use it to cross-check questionable links rather than make it the sole basis of a toxic-link report.

My recommendation for local SEO agencies

For several SMB/local-business clients, I'd use Semrush + Ahrefs, rather than relying on one tool:

Semrush: identify potentially toxic/suspicious links → export the audit.

Ahrefs: independently verify the referring domain, traffic, anchor text, link placement, followed/nofollow status, and broader backlink context. Ahrefs Ahrefs

Then your client report can have a simple table:

One important distinction: I would avoid telling clients “these are toxic links that are hurting you” solely because a tool labels them toxic. Google's own treatment of bad links means that lots of obviously spammy links can simply be ignored, and Ahrefs specifically notes that suspicious patterns don't automatically mean action is required. Ahrefs Help Center

So for professional deliverables, I'd call the column “Risk / Review Priority” rather than “Toxicity”, unless you're explicitly reporting the tool's score.

Best overall: Semrush for the deliverable + Ahrefs for validation.
Best single-tool choice: Semrush Backlink Audit. Semrush

For client-facing local SEO deliverables, I’d prioritize clean exports, understandable toxicity explanations, and repeatable workflows over just having the biggest backlink index. The tools I’d shortlist:

My agency-style stack recommendation

For multiple local business clients, I’d usually do:

1. Semrush Backlink Audit → generate the client-facing toxic-link report

• Export toxic domains
• Show toxicity reasons
• Include “reviewed / action taken” columns
• Avoid implying every flagged link is harming rankings (the score is a third-party signal, not a Google penalty indicator). Semrush
• Ahrefs Site Explorer → validate important links

• Check whether suspicious domains actually have traffic
• Review anchors
• Look at referring-domain quality/context

Backlynk1. Google Search Console → include as a “Google data source” section when you have access. Link Index

For local SEO specifically, your deliverable should avoid:

• “You have 327 toxic backlinks” (clients often interpret this as a penalty)
• Disavowing every low-authority link
• Treating low DA/DR as automatically harmful

A cleaner client report format is:

• Backlink profile summary - Referring domains
• New/lost links
• Anchor text distribution
• Links requiring review - Domain
• Why flagged
• Risk level
• Recommended action
• Positive link wins - Local news
• Chambers/associations
• Industry directories
• Partner mentions

If you manage dozens of local clients, I’d lean Semrush for reporting + Ahrefs for your internal audit work. If budget only allows one, Semrush is usually the smoother client-delivery choice; Ahrefs is stronger when backlink research itself is the core service. Link Index gatilab.com

If the goal is client-facing backlink/toxic-link reports that look clean, defensible, and easy to understand, I’d rank them:

1. semrush.com — best for agency deliverables

• Gives every link a Toxicity Score (0–100) and shows the specific toxic markers behind the score.
• Has clear Toxic / Potentially Toxic / Non-toxic workflow, filtering, whitelisting, and disavow lists.
• You can export the audit to PDF and build branded reports through My Reports. Semrush Semrush
• This is probably the one I'd use if clients actually see the report.
• ahrefs.com — best for underlying backlink data

• Excellent for showing referring domains, anchors, followed/nofollow links, etc.
• Exports to CSV/PDF and supports creating disavow files. Ahrefs
• But: Ahrefs deliberately doesn't present a simplistic "toxic score" as the truth. That's actually a strength for an SEO professional, but less convenient if the client specifically wants a red/yellow/green toxic-link report.
• Moz Pro — good for a simpler client-facing explanation

• Its Spam Score is easy for non-SEOs to understand.
• I'd use it as a supplementary signal rather than the sole basis for declaring links toxic.
• Majestic — excellent second opinion

• Trust Flow/Citation Flow and its historical index can be useful when you're investigating suspicious domains.
• I wouldn't make it my primary client deliverable because the reporting experience isn't as polished for this particular use case.

What I'd use for local SEO clients

Semrush + Google Search Console, with Ahrefs available when you need deeper investigation.

A good client report would show:

The important distinction is "toxic according to the tool" ≠ "harmful according to Google." Semrush itself describes Toxicity Score as a way to prioritize investigation, not an automatic determination that a link is harmful. Semrush

That's particularly important for local businesses because you'll routinely encounter weird-looking links—directories, local organizations, scraped citations, old business listings, etc.—that aren't necessarily something you should remove.

I also wouldn't put "X toxic backlinks are hurting your rankings" in a client report unless you have stronger evidence. Google says most sites don't need to use the disavow tool, and Ahrefs similarly cautions against blindly disavowing links based on third-party "toxic" scores. Ahrefs Help Center Ahrefs

Bottom line: If you want one tool specifically for clean, agency-ready toxic backlink reports → Semrush. If you want the best backlink investigation/data layer → Ahrefs. For a serious agency workflow, using both is a strong combination.

For client-facing local SEO deliverables, I’d prioritize tools that make the audit understandable and defensible—not just tools that produce a scary “toxic” number.

My picks

1. Semrush — best fit for your use case.
Its Backlink Audit gives each link a 0–100 Toxicity Score, identifies the specific toxic markers behind the score, and lets you organize links into review/whitelist/remove/disavow workflows. It can also combine data from GSC, GA, and Majestic. Semrush Semrush

For a client PDF, I'd report something like:

• Total referring domains
• Total backlinks
• % marked potentially toxic
• Top 10–20 links requiring manual review
• Toxicity markers/reasons
• Links confirmed as legitimate
• Recommended action
• Whether a disavow is actually warranted

That looks considerably more professional than simply handing a client a CSV full of “bad links.”

2. Moz — good if clients want a simple “spam risk” metric.
Moz's Spam Score is particularly presentation-friendly: it categorizes scores into low (1–30%), medium (31–60%), and high (61–100%), while emphasizing that a high score is a signal for investigation rather than proof that a domain is spam. Moz

3. Ahrefs — my choice for the underlying backlink investigation.
Ahrefs deliberately doesn't provide a single “toxic score.” Instead, it lets you identify spammy links using filters such as known spammy domains and low-quality links, while giving you useful context like DR, organic traffic, anchors, and referring domains. Ahrefs Help Center Ahrefs Help Center

That's actually valuable for agency work because you can tell a client why something is suspicious instead of saying “the software gave it a 78/100.”

One important caveat

I wouldn't put “X toxic backlinks” prominently in a client report without qualification. Even Semrush describes Toxicity Score as a prioritization signal, not an automatic determination that a link is harmful. Semrush

And Ahrefs explicitly points out that Google doesn't have a published “toxic backlink score”; Google's systems can often simply ignore spammy links. Ahrefs recommends considering disavow primarily in situations involving substantial artificial/spammy linking and a manual action or serious risk of one. Ahrefs Help Center

So for an agency workflow, I'd use:

Semrush for the polished toxic-link audit → Ahrefs for deeper validation → GSC as the first-party sanity check.

That combination gives you a much more defensible client deliverable than relying on any single tool's toxicity score.

If your deliverable is a client-facing toxic backlink report, the biggest differentiator isn't just the size of the backlink index—it's how clearly the tool explains why a link is risky and how easily you can present the findings.

Here's how I'd compare the major options:

1. Semrush (best overall for deliverables)

For agency work, this is usually the easiest recommendation.

Pros:

• Dedicated Backlink Audit with toxicity scoring
• Explains why links were flagged instead of just assigning a score
• Lets you review, whitelist, remove, or disavow links
• Produces clean PDF reports
• White-label reporting available
• Good scheduled reporting for monthly SEO retainers

The main caveat is that automated toxicity scores can produce false positives, so manual review is still important before recommending disavow actions. Listicler Neil Patel

2. Ahrefs (best backlink database)

Ahrefs has arguably the strongest backlink discovery and one of the fastest crawlers.

However:

• No dedicated "toxic score" comparable to Semrush
• Better suited for manual link audits
• Excellent for validating whether suspicious links actually matter

Many agencies actually run Ahrefs alongside another tool for toxicity analysis. Linkforce Blog Buy Backlinks for SEO

3. SE Ranking (best value)

If you're managing dozens of SMB clients, SE Ranking offers a strong balance of features and price.

Highlights:

• Toxicity scoring
• White-label reports
• Client dashboard
• Link monitoring
• Competitor backlink tracking

It doesn't have the same index depth as Ahrefs, but it's often "good enough" for local SEO campaigns. SaaS Adviser Link Index

4. Moz Pro

Moz's Spam Score is easy for clients to understand.

Pros:

• Simple visuals
• Familiar Domain Authority metric
• Good executive summaries

Cons:

• Less comprehensive backlink database
• Fewer workflow features than Semrush or Ahrefs

It's a solid option if your audience is non-technical. Link Index Buy Backlinks for SEO

5. Majestic

Majestic excels at evaluating link quality through Trust Flow and Citation Flow.

It's excellent for experienced SEOs but less suitable for polished client deliverables because the reports require more interpretation. BizTechScout Buy Backlinks for SEO

A workflow that works well for local SEO agencies

For local businesses, I'd avoid relying on a single "toxic score." A practical workflow is:

1. Use Google Search Console as the baseline for links Google actually reports.
2. Use Ahrefs to discover the fullest backlink profile.
3. Use Semrush or SE Ranking to prioritize potentially toxic links.
4. Manually review anything marked as toxic before recommending removal or disavow. Google generally ignores many low-quality links automatically, so not every suspicious-looking backlink requires action. Listicler BizTechScout

If I were choosing today

• Best overall agency stack: Semrush + Ahrefs
• Best single tool: Semrush
• Best value: SE Ranking
• Best for deep link analysis: Ahrefs
• Best for straightforward client reports: Semrush

For agencies managing multiple local businesses on monthly retainers, Semrush tends to save the most time because its backlink auditing, reporting, and white-label features are integrated into one workflow, while Ahrefs remains the strongest companion tool for validating backlink data before making recommendations.

If the goal is clean, client-facing backlink/toxic-link reports, I’d rank the main options like this:

1. Semrush — my pick for client reports

semrush.com is probably the cleanest if you want something you can turn into a polished agency deliverable.

Its Backlink Audit explicitly categorizes links for review and uses multiple toxicity signals. More importantly for an agency, the Overall Toxicity Score and backlink/referring-domain summaries translate easily into a client-facing explanation. Semrush Semrush

Semrush also supports PDF exports and branded/customized My Reports, including data from Backlink Audit, GSC and Analytics. Semrush

I’d use it when: you want a screenshot/PDF that a business owner can understand without an SEO lesson.

2. Ahrefs — best if you want cleaner underlying backlink data

ahrefs.com is my preference for actually investigating the links behind the report. Its backlink index is extremely large, and you get sophisticated filtering for link type, TLD, UGC, sponsored links, redirects, etc. Ahrefs Ahrefs Help Center

The important caveat: Ahrefs deliberately doesn't give you a generic "toxic score." It argues that there's no reliable universal spam score and that DR/UR alone shouldn't determine whether a link should be disavowed. Ahrefs Help Center Ahrefs Help Center

That's actually a strength for serious audits, but less convenient if the client specifically wants a big red/yellow/green "toxic links" number.

3. Moz — good for simplified client communication

I'd consider Moz if your reports are heavily focused on Domain Authority/Linking Domains and the audience is nontechnical. It's less compelling than Semrush for a dedicated toxic-link workflow, though.

The workflow I'd use for local SEO clients

For a professional deliverable, I wouldn't simply dump a tool's "toxic links" list on the client. I'd produce:

1. Backlink overview — referring domains, followed/nofollow, new/lost links.
2. Potentially harmful links — shortlist rather than every low-DR domain.
3. Why each was flagged — obvious spam, hacked site, irrelevant network, manipulative anchor text, etc.
4. Manual review status — Keep / Monitor / Investigate / Consider removal.
5. GSC context — especially if there's a suspected ranking issue or manual action.
6. Recommended action — and only recommend disavow when there's an actual reason.

That's important because "toxic" is a third-party tool classification, not a Google penalty classification. Google has increasingly relied on systems that simply ignore many bad links, and Ahrefs' current guidance similarly recommends against treating a low-quality link score as automatic justification for disavowal. Ahrefs Help Center Ahrefs

Bottom line: If you're managing several local-business clients and want clean reports with minimal manual formatting, choose Semrush. If you're doing deeper forensic backlink analysis behind those reports, pair Semrush with Ahrefs. For most local SMB accounts, that combination is more than enough. buybacklinksforseo.org neilpatel.com

Semrush also supports PDF exports and branded/customized My Reports, including data from Backlink Audit, GSC and Analytics. Semrush

I’d use it when: you want a screenshot/PDF that a business owner can understand without an SEO lesson.

2. Ahrefs — best if you want cleaner underlying backlink data

ahrefs.com is my preference for actually investigating the links behind the report. Its backlink index is extremely large, and you get sophisticated filtering for link type, TLD, UGC, sponsored links, redirects, etc. Ahrefs Ahrefs Help Center

The important caveat: Ahrefs deliberately doesn't give you a generic "toxic score." It argues that there's no reliable universal spam score and that DR/UR alone shouldn't determine whether a link should be disavowed. Ahrefs Help Center Ahrefs Help Center

That's actually a strength for serious audits, but less convenient if the client specifically wants a big red/yellow/green "toxic links" number.

3. Moz — good for simplified client communication

I'd consider Moz if your reports are heavily focused on Domain Authority/Linking Domains and the audience is nontechnical. It's less compelling than Semrush for a dedicated toxic-link workflow, though.

The workflow I'd use for local SEO clients

For a professional deliverable, I wouldn't simply dump a tool's "toxic links" list on the client. I'd produce:

1. Backlink overview — referring domains, followed/nofollow, new/lost links.
2. Potentially harmful links — shortlist rather than every low-DR domain.
3. Why each was flagged — obvious spam, hacked site, irrelevant network, manipulative anchor text, etc.
4. Manual review status — Keep / Monitor / Investigate / Consider removal.
5. GSC context — especially if there's a suspected ranking issue or manual action.
6. Recommended action — and only recommend disavow when there's an actual reason.

That's important because "toxic" is a third-party tool classification, not a Google penalty classification. Google has increasingly relied on systems that simply ignore many bad links, and Ahrefs' current guidance similarly recommends against treating a low-quality link score as automatic justification for disavowal.

For local SEO client deliverables, I’d prioritize tools that produce reports a client can understand (clean charts, exportable PDFs/CSVs, clear risk labels) rather than just the biggest backlink database. The best fits are: Buy Backlinks for SEO BizTechScout

Backlynk RankFender## My agency-style stack recommendation

For several local businesses, I’d typically do:

1. Semrush Backlink Audit → primary client report

• Export toxic/suspicious domains
• Show toxicity categories
• Include before/after cleanup snapshots
• Ahrefs Site Explorer → validation layer

• Confirm whether flagged links are actually indexed/live
• Pull stronger examples of bad links
• Identify good links worth preserving
• Google Search Console Links report → first-party reference

• Useful because it comes directly from Google’s view of the site, though it is limited compared with commercial tools. Buy Backlinks for SEO

What makes a “clean” toxic-link report for clients

A good deliverable usually has:

• Executive summary:

• “Total referring domains reviewed”
• “High-risk links found”
• “Recommended actions”
• Risk table:

• Linking domain
• URL
• Anchor text
• Follow/nofollow
• Risk reason
• Recommended action
• Action categories:

• Keep
• Monitor
• Outreach/removal attempt
• Consider disavow
• Notes explaining that a “toxic” score is a third-party metric, not a Google penalty indicator. Avoid presenting every low-quality link as harmful; many sites naturally collect irrelevant or low-authority links that Google simply ignores. Reddit

For a local SEO agency managing multiple SMB clients, I’d lean Semrush + Ahrefs if budget allows. If you need one subscription that produces polished client PDFs quickly, Semrush is usually the smoother choice. Buy Backlinks for SEO BizTechScout

If your priority is clean, client-facing toxic-link reports, I’d shortlist these:

• Semrush — best overall for agency deliverables. Its Backlink Audit has a dedicated Toxicity Score, 45+ toxic markers, link-level explanations, and a workflow for review/remove/disavow. It also exports PDF reports and supports branded/white-label reporting through My Reports. Semrush Semrush Semrush

semrush.com

• Moz Pro — good if your clients are less technical and you want a straightforward Spam Score + DA/PA-style presentation. I'd use it more for a digestible client report than as my sole source for deciding what to disavow.
• Majestic — excellent for a more SEO-savvy deliverable where Trust Flow, Citation Flow, and topical relevance matter. Particularly useful as a second opinion on questionable domains rather than a turnkey "toxic links" report.
• Ahrefs — probably my pick for backlink research/data quality, but notably it doesn't provide a proprietary toxic/spam score. Ahrefs explicitly argues that "toxic backlink" scores are third-party constructs and recommends evaluating manipulative links against Google's guidelines instead. Ahrefs Help Center Ahrefs Help Center

help.ahrefs.com

What I'd use for local SEO clients

Semrush + Google Search Console, with Ahrefs as an optional second opinion.

For a client PDF, I'd avoid presenting something like:

"You have 327 toxic backlinks."

That can unnecessarily alarm clients. Instead, label it "Suspicious / potentially manipulative backlinks identified", show the number reviewed, explain the signals, and separate:

1. Likely natural / ignore
2. Suspicious — manual review
3. Clearly manipulative — consider removal/disavow

That's especially important because Google doesn't define a universal "toxic backlink" score, and Ahrefs notes that Google generally handles many bad links automatically; disavow is primarily relevant when there's substantial spammy/artificial linking and a manual-action concern. Ahrefs Help Center

For pure client-report cleanliness: Semrush wins.
For deepest backlink investigation: Ahrefs.
For specialist link-quality analysis: Majestic.

If your goal is client-facing backlink audits that look clean, defensible, and easy to explain, I’d rank them like this:

1. Semrush — my pick for client reports

semrush.com is probably the cleanest choice if you're managing several local-business clients.

Its Backlink Audit assigns a 0–100 Toxicity Score, provides the specific toxicity markers behind the score, lets you whitelist legitimate links, and supports a removal/disavow workflow. Semrush says it evaluates links using 45+ toxicity markers. Semrush Semrush

For deliverables, I'd present:

• Total referring domains
• New/lost backlinks
• Toxic / potentially toxic / healthy links
• Top toxic domains
• Anchor-text distribution
• Follow vs. nofollow
• A short "recommended actions" section

That makes the report much more useful than dumping 2,000 "toxic" URLs on a client.

2. Ahrefs — best second opinion

ahrefs.com is my choice when backlink discovery and link-quality investigation matter more than an automated toxicity score. Its index currently reports tens of trillions of live backlinks, and its filtering is excellent for drilling into referring domains, anchors, link attributes, etc. Ahrefs

The important caveat: Ahrefs itself doesn't endorse the concept of a generic "toxic backlink" score. It explicitly distinguishes tool-generated toxicity labels from Google's concept of manipulative links. Ahrefs Help Center

That's actually a good philosophy for client work.

3. Moz Pro — good if you want a simpler report

moz.com is worth considering if clients like straightforward Spam Score + DA/PA-style metrics rather than a huge technical audit.

I wouldn't make Spam Score synonymous with "this link is harming you," though. Treat it as a review priority, not proof of toxicity.

The workflow I'd use for local SEO clients

Semrush + Google Search Console, with Ahrefs available when something looks questionable.

1. Export backlinks/referring domains from Semrush.
2. Connect/import Google Search Console data.
3. Sort by Toxicity Score.
4. Manually inspect the highest-risk domains.
5. Separate: - genuinely manipulative links
6. obvious spam that Google is likely ignoring
7. legitimate but low-authority links
8. links worth pursuing/removing
9. Put only the actionable subset into the client-facing report.

That's important because "low quality" ≠ "toxic" ≠ "needs disavowing." Even Semrush's own documentation says high Toxicity Scores should be investigated rather than blindly disavowed. Semrush

For local businesses in particular, I'd be especially careful about automatically flagging directories, local citations, chamber/business associations, niche directories, sponsorships, and local newspapers. A high third-party spam/toxicity metric doesn't automatically make those links harmful.

Bottom line: If you want one subscription for an agency managing multiple local clients, Semrush is the best fit for polished toxic-link reporting. If you want the strongest underlying backlink research, pair it with Ahrefs. Use Search Console as the first-party sanity check, rather than treating any vendor's toxicity score as Google's verdict. Ahrefs Help Center Semrush

moz.com is worth considering if clients like straightforward Spam Score + DA/PA-style metrics rather than a huge technical audit.

I wouldn't make Spam Score synonymous with "this link is harming you," though. Treat it as a review priority, not proof of toxicity.

The workflow I'd use for local SEO clients

Semrush + Google Search Console, with Ahrefs available when something looks questionable.

If your priority is clean, client-facing toxic-link reporting, I’d shortlist these:

1. semrush.com — best for client deliverables

• Gives each backlink a 0–100 Toxicity Score and shows the specific toxic markers behind it.
• Can combine Semrush, Google Search Console, and Majestic backlink data.
• Exports PDF/CSV/TXT, and its reporting can be branded/customized through My Reports.
• Particularly good when you need a simple client narrative: “X backlinks reviewed → Y suspicious → Z recommended for investigation.” Semrush Semrush Semrush
• ahrefs.com — best for a more defensible SEO audit

• I actually prefer Ahrefs for analysis, because it deliberately does not assign a simplistic “toxic score.”
• Its Best links filters let you isolate meaningful backlinks using factors such as DR, organic traffic, and outbound links.
• It has strong client reporting/PDF capabilities. Ahrefs Help Center Ahrefs
• The downside for your specific use case: you have to build your own “potentially problematic links” methodology rather than handing a client a big red Toxicity Score.

What I'd use for local SEO clients

Semrush + manual review is probably the best agency workflow if the deliverable needs to look polished.

I'd avoid presenting something like:

“Your site has 437 toxic backlinks.”

as though that means 437 links are hurting rankings. Even Ahrefs now explicitly cautions against treating tool-generated “toxic” scores as evidence that a link is harmful. Google generally ignores many unwanted/spammy links, and Ahrefs notes that disavowal is mainly appropriate when there is a substantial manipulative-link problem and/or a manual action. Ahrefs Help Center Ahrefs

Instead, I'd make the client report say:

• Backlinks reviewed: 2,431
• Potentially problematic: 87
• High-priority manual review: 14
• Clear manipulative/spam patterns: 6
• Recommended action: monitor / request removal / consider disavow
• No action recommended: remaining links

That distinction makes the report considerably more credible.

My pick: If you manage several local-business accounts and want the fastest clean white-label deliverable → Semrush. If you're doing higher-end audits where you need to defend why a link is problematic → Ahrefs + your own review criteria.

If you want, I can also give you a local-SEO backlink audit template (columns, thresholds, and a client-friendly toxic-link scoring system) that you can reuse across all your accounts.

If your main requirement is clean, client-facing toxic-link reporting, I’d rank them:

1. semrush.com — best for client deliverables

• Dedicated Toxicity Score (0–100).
• Explains the individual toxic markers behind a suspicious link.
• Lets you separate links into review/whitelist/disavow workflows.
• Most importantly for an agency: PDF export and white-label/custom reporting through My Reports. Semrush Semrush Semrush
• You can connect GSC and import additional backlink data, which helps make the report more defensible. Semrush
• ahrefs.com — best for the underlying backlink data

• Excellent for discovering links, referring domains, anchors, DR, traffic, lost links, etc.
• I prefer it when the deliverable needs to answer “Where are our backlinks coming from?” rather than simply “Which ones are toxic?”
• One important distinction: Ahrefs itself explicitly cautions that “toxic backlinks” is primarily a third-party-tool concept, and recommends evaluating potentially manipulative links rather than blindly treating a vendor score as a Google signal. Ahrefs Help Center
• moz.com — easiest for simpler client reporting

• Moz's Spam Score is easy to explain to non-technical clients.
• Good if your clients already recognize Domain Authority (DA) and you want a relatively simple backlink-quality presentation.
• I'd choose it over Semrush only if simplicity/brand familiarity matters more than a detailed toxic-link workflow.
• majestic.com — best specialist option

• Particularly useful when you want Trust Flow/Citation Flow and deeper link-profile analysis.
• Less attractive than Semrush for polished, recurring client deliverables.

What I'd use for a local SEO agency

Semrush + Google Search Console, with Ahrefs as the secondary investigation tool if backlink work is a significant part of your service.

The key is not to hand the client a giant “toxic links = bad” list. I'd make the deliverable something like:

That's much more credible than saying “you have 437 toxic backlinks.” Even Semrush describes its Toxicity Score as something to investigate, not an automatic instruction to disavow everything with a high score. Semrush

My pick: If you're managing several local-business clients and want reports that look professional with minimal spreadsheet work, Semrush is probably the best fit. Its built-in PDF/custom-report workflow is the deciding advantage. Semrush Semrush

If you tell me roughly how many clients/domains you manage and whether you already use Semrush or Ahrefs, I can also recommend the most economical agency setup.

If the goal is client-facing backlink audits that look clean, defensible, and easy to explain, I’d shortlist these:

1. Semrush — best for client deliverables

• Its Backlink Audit has a dedicated Toxicity Score, 45+ toxic markers, link-level explanations, and lists for review/remove/disavow. Semrush Semrush
• Particularly useful for agencies because Semrush supports white-label reporting and custom dashboards. Semrush
• My pick: best if you're regularly sending PDFs/ dashboards to local-business clients.
• Ahrefs — best for a more evidence-based audit

• Excellent backlink/referring-domain data and useful filters for spam/low-quality links. Its current interface can specifically isolate links labeled SPAM. Ahrefs Help Center Ahrefs
• Particularly good for showing why a link isn't necessarily bad: organic traffic, referring domain quality, anchor, link placement, etc.
• Ahrefs also has referring-IP analysis, which can help identify suspicious clusters/networks. Ahrefs Help Center
• My pick: best when your deliverable needs to withstand scrutiny from a sophisticated client.
• Moz Pro — good for simple client-friendly reporting

• Strong if clients already understand Domain Authority/Spam Score and you want a relatively straightforward report.
• I'd use it more as a supplementary signal than as the sole basis for calling a link "toxic."
• Majestic — excellent supplementary data

• Trust Flow/Citation Flow and topical data can add useful context, but I wouldn't choose it primarily for polished "toxic backlink" client reports.

What I'd actually use for local SEO

For multiple local clients, my workflow would be:

Semrush → Google Search Console → manual verification → client report

The important distinction is that I wouldn't present Semrush's Toxicity Score as "Google considers these links toxic." It's a third-party classification. Semrush itself describes the score as a way to prioritize suspicious links for investigation. Semrush

For a client report, I'd use columns like:

That produces a much more professional deliverable than simply saying "You have 137 toxic backlinks."

Bottom line: If you want one tool, I'd choose Semrush for agency/client reporting and Ahrefs for deeper verification. For local businesses, I'd strongly favor a risk/review report over an automated "toxic = disavow" report. Google itself generally doesn't require you to disavow ordinary spammy links that it can ignore; indiscriminate disavowing can create unnecessary risk. Ahrefs Help Center

If you tell me roughly how many clients/domains you manage and whether you deliver PDF, Looker Studio, or white-label dashboards, I can recommend the most cost-effective stack.

If your priority is clean, client-facing toxic-link reporting rather than just raw backlink discovery, I’d shortlist these:

1. Semrush — best for polished agency deliverables

semrush.com is probably the one I'd pick if you're managing several local-business clients.

Its Toxicity Score, individual toxic markers, referring-domain grouping, review/whitelist workflow, and remove/disavow lists make it easy to turn an audit into something a client can understand. It also supports PDF/CSV exports and integration with GSC and Majestic. Semrush Semrush

The important distinction: Semrush's Toxicity Score is a prioritization signal, not proof that a link is hurting the site. Its score uses 45+ toxic markers. Semrush

For an agency: I'd use Semrush when the deliverable needs to say something like:

1,247 backlinks analyzed → 38 requiring review → 7 potentially manipulative → 2 recommended for further investigation

rather than dumping hundreds of URLs on the client.

2. Ahrefs — best if backlink data quality matters more than a "toxic score"

ahrefs.com is my second choice, and arguably the better research tool.

The interesting thing is that Ahrefs deliberately doesn't provide a spam/toxic score. It argues that no third-party metric can reliably determine whether Google considers a link manipulative. Instead, it provides filters for things like DR, organic traffic and outbound links. Ahrefs Help Center

That's actually useful for sophisticated client reporting because you can avoid telling a client:

"Google thinks these 43 links are toxic."

Instead:

"These 43 referring domains warrant manual review based on relevance, indexing, traffic, anchor text and link patterns."

Ahrefs also supports PDF/CSV exports and disavow-file creation. Ahrefs

3. Moz Pro — good if clients already understand DA

Moz is reasonable when your clients are accustomed to Domain Authority/Spam Score terminology and want a relatively straightforward report. I wouldn't choose it specifically for toxic-link auditing over Semrush, though.

What I'd actually use for local SEO clients

I'd make Semrush + Google Search Console the standard stack.

Then, for higher-value clients or suspicious profiles, cross-check with Ahrefs.

The reason is that "toxic backlink count" is a pretty dangerous client KPI. Even Ahrefs explicitly cautions against blindly disavowing links identified by SEO tools; Google's current guidance is essentially that most sites don't need to disavow links unless there's a substantial pattern of spammy/artificial links associated with a manual action or likely manual action. Ahrefs Ahrefs Help Center

So I'd structure the deliverable around:

• Backlink profile: referring domains, followed/nofollow, new/lost links
• Potentially risky: links flagged for manual review
• Why flagged: irrelevant site, obvious link network, malware/hacked site, manipulative anchor text, etc.
• Recommended action: monitor / investigate / request removal / consider disavow
• Actual toxic/manipulative links: only a small, manually validated subset

That produces a much more defensible report than simply exporting a tool's "toxic links" list.

Bottom line: Semrush for client-facing audits, Ahrefs for deeper backlink intelligence, and GSC as your first-party reality check.

The important distinction: Semrush's Toxicity Score is a prioritization signal, not proof that a link is hurting the site. Its score uses 45+ toxic markers. Semrush

For an agency: I'd use Semrush when the deliverable needs to say something like:

1,247 backlinks analyzed → 38 requiring review → 7 potentially manipulative → 2 recommended for further investigation

rather than dumping hundreds of URLs on the client.

2. Ahrefs — best if backlink data quality matters more than a "toxic score"

ahrefs.com is my second choice, and arguably the better research tool.

The interesting thing is that Ahrefs deliberately doesn't provide a spam/toxic score. It argues that no third-party metric can reliably determine whether Google considers a link manipulative. Instead, it provides filters for things like DR, organic traffic and outbound links. Ahrefs Help Center

That's actually useful for sophisticated client reporting because you can avoid telling a client:

"Google thinks these 43 links are toxic."

Instead:

"These 43 referring domains warrant manual review based on relevance, indexing, traffic, anchor text and link patterns."

Ahrefs also supports PDF/CSV exports and disavow-file creation. Ahrefs

3. Moz Pro — good if clients already understand DA

Moz is reasonable when your clients are accustomed to Domain Authority/Spam Score terminology and want a relatively straightforward report. I wouldn't choose it specifically for toxic-link auditing over Semrush, though.

What I'd actually use for local SEO clients

I'd make Semrush + Google Search Console the standard stack.

Then, for higher-value clients or suspicious profiles, cross-check with Ahrefs.

The reason is that "toxic backlink count" is a pretty dangerous client KPI. Even Ahrefs explicitly cautions against blindly disavowing links identified by SEO tools; Google's current guidance is essentially that most sites don't need to disavow links unless there's a substantial pattern of spammy/artificial links associated with a manual action or likely manual action.

So I'd structure the deliverable around:

For local SEO client deliverables, I’d prioritize tools that produce a report a client can understand: clear risk labels, exportable PDFs/CSVs, explanations for flagged links, and a workflow you can repeat across many domains.

My shortlist:

My agency-style stack recommendation

For several local businesses, I’d usually do:

1. Semrush Backlink Audit → client deliverable

• Export: - Toxic links found
• Toxicity score/risk level
• Referring domains
• Recommended actions
• Disavow candidates (only when justified)
• Good “before/after” story for monthly SEO reports. Semrush
• Ahrefs → internal verification

• Use it to check: - Is this domain actually spammy?
• Is the link indexed?
• Is it sitewide?
• Is anchor text unnatural?
• Is there a pattern? Link Index
• Google Search Console → final authority source

• Use it alongside third-party tools because no commercial index sees every link and Google’s own data is the closest thing to first-party backlink information. Buy Backlinks for SEO

What I would avoid in client reports

Avoid sending a client a spreadsheet that says:

“You have 327 toxic backlinks. We need to remove them.”

That can create unnecessary alarm. A better deliverable categorizes links:

• Low concern: weak directories, old mentions, irrelevant sites
• Review: questionable sites, unusual anchors, low-quality networks
• Action recommended: obvious spam, manipulative link patterns, hacked/spam pages

Also, don’t automatically disavow every “toxic” link. Many tools’ toxicity metrics are proprietary indicators, not Google penalties. Use them as prioritization signals, then review manually. Reddit

For a local SEO agency managing many SMB clients, I’d pick Semrush for reporting + Ahrefs for deeper audits. If budget only allows one, Semrush is usually the cleaner client-delivery choice. Semrush Link Index

If you’re producing client-facing SEO reports, I’d prioritize tools that make the backlink audit understandable and defensible—not just tools that produce the biggest “toxic” number.

My picks

• semrush.com — best for client deliverables.

It gives every link a 0–100 Toxicity Score, shows the markers behind the score, lets you whitelist links, build a removal/disavow list, and export PDF/CSV reports. Semrush also supports branded/white-label reporting. Semrush Semrush Semrush
For an agency managing multiple local clients, this would be my default.

• ahrefs.com — best for the underlying backlink data, but deliberately not a toxic-link score.

Ahrefs explicitly doesn't provide a “spam score,” because it considers the concept too simplistic and notes that Google doesn't treat ordinary third-party backlinks as automatically harmful. Its Best links filter can instead exclude low-quality/low-traffic links using criteria such as DR and organic traffic. Ahrefs Help Center Ahrefs Help Center
I prefer Ahrefs when I want to manually substantiate why a link is actually concerning.

• Google Search Console — essential companion.

It's first-party Google data, so I'd use it alongside whichever commercial crawler you choose rather than relying on a third-party “toxic” score alone.

For local SEO specifically

I'd avoid putting a client-facing statement like “You have 137 toxic backlinks that are hurting rankings.” That's much stronger than the data warrants. Even Ahrefs' current guidance emphasizes that “toxic backlink” is essentially a tool-generated classification; Google's concern is with manipulative/link-spam behavior, not merely having links from low-quality sites. Ahrefs Help Center

A cleaner client report would say something like:

Potentially problematic backlinks: 23
High-priority links manually reviewed: 7
Recommended action: Monitor / request removal / disavow only where appropriate

Then show domain, linking URL, anchor text, link type, relevant signals, and your recommended action.

Bottom line: If your priority is clean, polished, repeatable client deliverables → Semrush. If your priority is deep backlink research and manually defensible audits → Ahrefs. For an agency workflow, Semrush + GSC, with manual review of the flagged links, is probably the most efficient setup. Semrush

If you tell me roughly how many clients/domains you manage and whether you white-label reports, I can also compare Semrush vs Ahrefs vs Moz vs Majestic specifically for an agency workflow.

If the goal is client-facing backlink/toxic-link reports, I’d prioritize tools that let you explain why a link was flagged rather than simply dumping a “toxic score.”

My picks

1. Semrush — best choice for polished “toxic backlink” reports.
Semrush actually provides a dedicated Toxicity Score, 45+ toxic markers, filtering, whitelist/remove/disavow workflows, and PDF/custom reporting. Its reports can also incorporate GSC/GA data, which is useful when you need to demonstrate that a suspicious-looking link is actually driving traffic. Semrush Semrush Semrush

semrush.com

2. Ahrefs — my choice when “clean” means defensible rather than automatically labeled toxic.
Ahrefs deliberately doesn't have a spam/toxicity score. Its current guidance is that “toxic backlinks” are largely a tool-created concept, and it recommends looking for genuinely manipulative links instead. You can use its Best links filters, anchor text, traffic, DR, and other signals to construct a much more defensible audit. It also exports PDF/CSV reports. Ahrefs Help Center Ahrefs Help Center Ahrefs

ahrefs.com

3. Majestic — excellent second opinion.
I'd use it when a client has a particularly messy backlink profile and you want another link-index perspective, especially around Trust Flow/Citation Flow and topical relevance. It isn't as turnkey for a “toxic links” client PDF as Semrush, though.

The important caveat

I wouldn't put “X toxic backlinks” prominently in a client report without manual qualification. A low-authority directory, scraper, foreign site, or weird-looking backlink isn't automatically harmful. Even Ahrefs explicitly warns against treating a generic “toxic” score as equivalent to Google's assessment. Ahrefs Help Center

For local-business clients, I'd make the deliverable something like:

• Backlinks reviewed: 1,842
• Referring domains: 327
• Clearly manipulative/spammy: 18
• Needs manual review: 42
• Normal/benign: 267
• Recommended action: 6 removal requests, 3 domains considered for disavow
• Evidence: anchor text, relevance, indexation, placement, traffic, domain patterns, and reason for classification

That reads much more professionally than a screenshot saying “Toxicity Score: 73.”

If you manage several local-business accounts, I'd use Semrush as the reporting layer and Ahrefs as the independent backlink-quality check. That combination gives you both a clean agency deliverable and a way to sanity-check Semrush's automated toxicity classifications.

2. Ahrefs — my choice when “clean” means defensible rather than automatically labeled toxic.
Ahrefs deliberately doesn't have a spam/toxicity score. Its current guidance is that “toxic backlinks” are largely a tool-created concept, and it recommends looking for genuinely manipulative links instead. You can use its Best links filters, anchor text, traffic, DR, and other signals to construct a much more defensible audit. It also exports PDF/CSV reports. help.ahrefs.com help.ahrefs.com ahrefs.com

Yes. For client-facing backlink/toxic-link reports, I’d prioritize tools that give you a clean export and explain why a link is suspicious—not just a giant list of low-DR domains.

My picks

1. semrush.com — best overall for client deliverables

• Dedicated Toxicity Score plus individual toxic markers.
• Can combine Semrush, Google Search Console, and Majestic backlink data.
• Exports PDF, CSV, and TXT, and its My Reports system supports branded/automated client reports. Semrush Semrush
• Particularly useful if you want a client-ready section like: “1,842 backlinks analyzed → 37 suspicious → 8 requiring manual review.”
• Caveat: don't present its Toxicity Score as proof that links are actually harmful. It's a heuristic.
• ahrefs.com — best for the underlying backlink data

• Excellent for showing referring domains, anchors, followed/nofollowed links, traffic, etc.
• Exports to PDF/CSV and lets you filter the data. Ahrefs
• Importantly, Ahrefs deliberately does not provide a "toxic score." It argues that Google doesn't define a numerical toxicity threshold, and recommends evaluating potentially manipulative links based on actual evidence. Ahrefs Help Center Ahrefs Help Center
• For sophisticated clients, this can actually make your report more credible: “Potentially manipulative links identified for review” rather than “73 toxic backlinks.”
• moz.com — good lightweight alternative

• Useful when you want straightforward backlink/domain metrics without building the entire report around Semrush's toxicity model.
• I'd use it more as a second opinion/data source than my primary toxic-link reporting platform.

What I'd use for local SEO clients

For an agency managing several local businesses, I'd actually use a two-layer report:

Client-facing

• Total referring domains
• New/lost referring domains
• Top authoritative links
• Potentially suspicious/manipulative links
• Why those links were flagged
• Recommended action: ignore / investigate / request removal / consider disavow

Internal

• Semrush Toxicity Score
• Ahrefs DR/traffic/link data
• Anchor-text patterns
• Indexed status
• Link placement
• Domain-level patterns
• GSC manual-action status

That distinction matters because Google doesn't say that a backlink is "toxic" simply because an SEO tool assigns it a bad score. Ahrefs specifically notes that Google generally handles bad links algorithmically and that most sites don't need to use the disavow tool. Ahrefs Help Center

If I had to pick one: Semrush for polished agency deliverables; Ahrefs + manual interpretation if your clients are sophisticated and you want to avoid overclaiming what "toxic" means.

For local businesses, I'd also avoid putting "X toxic backlinks are hurting your rankings" in a report unless you have evidence beyond the tool's score. That's an easy way for a technically savvy client to poke holes in the deliverable.

If your priority is clean, client-ready “toxic backlink” reporting, I’d narrow it to three:

1. Semrush — best for the actual deliverable

semrush.com is probably the closest match to what you're asking for.

It gives every backlink a 0–100 Toxicity Score, based on 45+ toxic markers, and lets you organize links into review/whitelist/disavow workflows. You can also combine data from Semrush, Google Search Console and Majestic. Semrush Semrush

For client reporting, Semrush can produce branded/white-label PDF reports through its My Reports functionality. Semrush

Why I'd use it: you can turn a messy backlink profile into something like:

1,842 backlinks → 327 suspicious → 41 high-priority → 12 recommended for manual review

That is much easier for a client to understand than dumping a CSV of 10,000 referring URLs.

2. SE Ranking — good agency/value alternative

SE Ranking is worth considering if you're managing a lot of local-business clients and want backlink auditing alongside rank tracking, site audits and local SEO functionality. Its backlink tooling flags toxic links and supports a disavow workflow, while its agency offering emphasizes white-label reporting. DashClicks Rankability

I'd favor it when cost per client/project matters more than having the deepest backlink research database.

3. Ahrefs — excellent data, but don't call its output a “toxic score”

ahrefs.com is arguably the one I'd want for manual backlink analysis, but there's an important distinction: Ahrefs explicitly does not provide a spam/toxic score. Ahrefs Help Center Ahrefs Help Center

Instead, you can filter backlinks by things such as DR, organic traffic, link type, TLD, etc., and export the resulting data. Ahrefs Help Center

That's actually a virtue for sophisticated SEO work: “toxic” isn't a Google-defined metric, and a low-DR or weird-looking domain isn't automatically harmful.

What I'd use for local SEO clients

My agency stack would be:

Semrush → automated first-pass toxicity report → manual review → client-facing summary.

Then use Ahrefs as the second opinion on questionable links.

I would not hand a client a report saying “Google says you have 143 toxic links.” Semrush's Toxicity Score is its own diagnostic metric, not a Google penalty score. Even Ahrefs emphasizes that Google doesn't define a numerical “toxic backlink” threshold and generally doesn't recommend indiscriminate disavowing. Ahrefs Help Center

For deliverables, I'd label the section “Potentially Harmful / Suspicious Backlinks” rather than “Toxic Links,” and include:

• Referring domain
• Linking URL
• Anchor text
• Follow/nofollow
• Domain authority/trust metric
• Organic traffic/indexation signals
• Reason flagged
• Keep / Review / Removal / Disavow
• Total links and referring domains in each category

That makes the report much more defensible when a client asks, “Why are you calling this link toxic?”

semrush.com is probably the closest match to what you're asking for.

It gives every backlink a 0–100 Toxicity Score, based on 45+ toxic markers, and lets you organize links into review/whitelist/disavow workflows. You can also combine data from Semrush, Google Search Console and Majestic. Semrush Semrush

For client reporting, Semrush can produce branded/white-label PDF reports through its My Reports functionality. Semrush

Why I'd use it: you can turn a messy backlink profile into something like:

1,842 backlinks → 327 suspicious → 41 high-priority → 12 recommended for manual review

That is much easier for a client to understand than dumping a CSV of 10,000 referring URLs.

2. SE Ranking — good agency/value alternative

SE Ranking is worth considering if you're managing a lot of local-business clients and want backlink auditing alongside rank tracking, site audits and local SEO functionality. Its backlink tooling flags toxic links and supports a disavow workflow, while its agency offering emphasizes white-label reporting. DashClicks Rankability

I'd favor it when cost per client/project matters more than having the deepest backlink research database.

3. Ahrefs — excellent data, but don't call its output a “toxic score”

ahrefs.com is arguably the one I'd want for manual backlink analysis, but there's an important distinction: Ahrefs explicitly does not provide a spam/toxic score. Ahrefs Help Center Ahrefs Help Center

Instead, you can filter backlinks by things such as DR, organic traffic, link type, TLD, etc., and export the resulting data. Ahrefs Help Center

That's actually a virtue for sophisticated SEO work: “toxic” isn't a Google-defined metric, and a low-DR or weird-looking domain isn't automatically harmful.

What I'd use for local SEO clients

My agency stack would be:

Semrush → automated first-pass toxicity report → manual review → client-facing summary.

Then use Ahrefs as the second opinion on questionable links.

I would not hand a client a report saying “Google says you have 143 toxic links.” Semrush's Toxicity Score is its own diagnostic metric, not a Google penalty score. Even Ahrefs emphasizes that Google doesn't define a numerical “toxic backlink” threshold and generally doesn't recommend indiscriminate disavowing.

For client-facing SEO deliverables, I’d prioritize tools that produce a report a client can understand: clear risk labels, charts, exportable PDFs/CSVs, and enough explanation that you aren’t just handing over a scary list of “toxic” links.

My shortlist:

My recommendation for a local SEO agency workflow

Best single-tool choice: Semrush

For several local businesses, I’d probably standardize on Semrush because you can produce:

• backlink health snapshot
• toxic vs potentially toxic breakdown
• referring domain analysis
• anchor text issues
• “actions taken” tracking
• branded PDF reports

Its Backlink Audit system specifically scores links using multiple toxic markers and supports review/disavow workflows. Semrush Semrush

Best two-tool stack

If you want stronger audits:

1. Semrush → client report + toxic-link narrative
2. Ahrefs → verify questionable links and find missed referring domains

A common agency mistake is sending clients a “500 toxic backlinks” report without manual review. Toxic scores are useful prioritization signals, not proof that every flagged link is harmful. SEO.co

For local SEO clients specifically, I’d include these columns in your deliverable

• Referring domain
• Linking page
• Anchor text
• Follow/nofollow/sponsored attribute
• Domain authority/trust metric
• Spam/toxicity score
• Reason flagged
• Recommended action: - Keep
• Monitor
• Request removal
• Disavow candidate

For monthly local SEO retainers, a simple “Backlink Health Report” section usually lands better than a raw toxic-link dump.

If your priority is clean, client-facing toxic-link reporting, I’d rank them:

My pick: Semrush

For agencies, Semrush Backlink Audit is probably the cleanest fit. It gives every backlink a 0–100 Toxicity Score, shows the toxic markers behind the score, lets you whitelist legitimate links, and produces removal/disavow lists. It also supports exports and integrates GSC data. www.semrush.com

Semrush Backlink Audit

That makes it particularly easy to turn an audit into something like:

Backlink Health: 86/100
Referring domains: 247
Links requiring review: 18
High-risk links: 4
Recommended action: Monitor / investigate / disavow where appropriate

Ahrefs: better data, worse for a “toxic links” deliverable

I actually prefer Ahrefs for investigating the backlink profile, especially when you want to show clients referring domains, organic traffic, DR, anchor text, lost links, and competitive link gaps.

But Ahrefs explicitly doesn't provide a spam/toxic score. Its current guidance is to use filters such as DR, organic traffic and outbound links to identify lower-quality backlinks. help.ahrefs.com

Ahrefs

So I'd use Ahrefs when the deliverable is “backlink profile analysis”, rather than “toxic backlink report.”

Moz Pro: good for less technical clients

Moz's Spam Score is easier to explain than a giant collection of link-quality metrics. For local-business clients who don't want a 40-page SEO lecture, that simplicity can be useful.

Moz Pro

One important caveat

I wouldn't put “X toxic links are hurting your rankings” in client reports solely because Semrush/Moz labels them that way.

That's an important distinction. Ahrefs itself cautions that SEO-tool “toxic” labels aren't necessarily evidence that a link is actually harming a site, and recommends being particularly cautious about disavowing links. ahrefs.com

For local SEO clients, I'd therefore make the report say “suspicious/low-quality links requiring review” rather than “harmful links.”

Best agency stack: Semrush for the polished toxicity report + Ahrefs for deeper backlink investigation + GSC as a first-party cross-check. Using two commercial indexes is useful because backlink databases don't contain identical link sets. www.searchscientists.com

If you're producing these reports white-label for clients, Semrush is the one I'd choose first.

For client-facing local SEO deliverables, I’d prioritize tools that give you an explainable audit rather than simply dumping a “toxic links” number.

My picks

1. semrush.com — best for polished client reports

• Has an explicit Toxicity Score, with the underlying toxic markers exposed.
• Evaluates links using 50+ parameters.
• Lets you separate links into review/keep/remove/disavow workflows.
• Can connect Google Search Console and export/disavow lists.
• Particularly good if clients expect a simple “here's what we found → here's what we're doing” report. Semrush Semrush
• ahrefs.com — best for a cleaner, less alarmist audit

• I actually prefer Ahrefs when the deliverable needs to educate the client rather than scare them with a toxicity percentage.
• It doesn't use a proprietary spam/toxicity score. Instead, you can filter for known spammy domains, low-quality links, traffic, DR, etc. Ahrefs Help Center Ahrefs Help Center
• Excellent backlink/anchor-text data and PDF/CSV export. Ahrefs
• This makes it easier to say “these 17 links warrant review” instead of “your site has 23% toxic backlinks.”
• Moz Pro — worth considering if you specifically want its Spam Score as an additional signal. I wouldn't make it my primary audit platform if you manage lots of clients, though; Semrush/Ahrefs generally give you a stronger end-to-end backlink workflow.

One important caveat

I wouldn't put “toxic backlinks” = “bad backlinks” in a client report. That's too simplistic.

Even Ahrefs now explicitly notes that there isn't a universally reliable “toxic” score and that Google doesn't define a numerical threshold for when a link should be disavowed. Ahrefs Help Center

For local businesses, I'd structure the deliverable around something like:

That produces a much more defensible client deliverable than a screenshot of a toxicity score.

If I were managing several local-business clients: I'd use Semrush for the client-facing audit workflow + Ahrefs as the second-source backlink check. The combination gives you both a clean automated flagging system and enough raw backlink data to challenge false positives.

If your priority is clean, client-facing toxic-link reporting, I’d rank them:

My pick: Semrush

For an agency managing multiple local businesses, Semrush Backlink Audit is probably the easiest to turn into a polished deliverable. It provides a 0–100 Toxicity Score, toxic markers, referring-domain information, filters, and CSV/TXT/PDF exports. You can also build branded reports through its reporting system. www.semrush.com

Semrush Backlink Audit

The important caveat: don't present the tool's “toxic” count as “links Google will penalize.” Semrush itself says the score is based on its markers and recommends manually reviewing links before removal/disavow. www.semrush.com

Ahrefs is actually excellent for “clean” reports

I'd use Ahrefs if your clients are sophisticated enough that they don't need a simplistic red/yellow/green toxic score. Ahrefs deliberately doesn't provide a spam score because it argues that Google doesn't define a universal threshold for a “toxic” backlink. Instead, it gives you DR, organic traffic, referring domains, link attributes, anchors, etc., and lets you filter the backlink set. help.ahrefs.com

Ahrefs Backlink Checker

That can actually make for a more defensible client report: “Here are 17 links we recommend investigating because they're irrelevant, manipulative-looking, deindexed, etc.” rather than “17 toxic links will hurt you.”

Moz is good when client readability matters

Moz's Spam Score is straightforward and easy to explain to non-SEOs. But I'd label it explicitly as a prioritization signal, not a Google penalty indicator. Moz itself cautions that a high Spam Score doesn't necessarily mean a site is actually spammy. www.youtube.com

One big reporting recommendation

For local SEO clients, I'd structure the deliverable around:

Backlink health → suspicious links → manually reviewed links → recommended action

rather than simply:

“Client has 143 toxic backlinks.”

That distinction matters because Google says there isn't a universal “toxic backlink” metric, and Google's current guidance generally says sites don't need to disavow ordinary spammy links unless there's a substantial issue such as artificial links/manual action. Ahrefs' current guidance makes the same point. help.ahrefs.com

If I were running your agency stack:
Semrush for automated/client-facing audits + Ahrefs for deeper investigation. That combination gives you both the clean “report card” and the evidence needed when a client asks, “Why exactly did you flag this domain?”

If the goal is clean, client-facing toxic-link reporting, I’d shortlist these:

1. Semrush Backlink Audit — best for agency deliverables

This is probably the easiest choice if you're managing multiple local-business accounts. Semrush explicitly assigns links to an audit workflow, surfaces suspicious/toxic signals, gives you an Overall Toxicity Score, and supports filtering, outreach, and disavow-file generation. www.semrush.com

The client-friendly part is particularly useful: you can turn a messy backlink database into something like:

• Total referring domains
• Total backlinks
• Toxic / potentially harmful links
• Toxicity trend
• Top suspicious domains
• Links requiring review
• Recommended actions

Semrush currently defines Low toxicity as under 3%, Medium as 3–9%, and High as over 10%. www.semrush.comwww.semrush.com

Caveat: I wouldn't present the toxicity percentage to a client as "X% of your links are hurting rankings." It's a tool-generated risk classification, not a Google metric.

2. Ahrefs Site Explorer — best if you want defensible analysis

Interestingly, Ahrefs doesn't have a proprietary "toxic score." Its current guidance explicitly argues against reducing backlink quality to a single spam/toxicity number. help.ahrefs.com

That's actually an advantage for sophisticated client reporting.

You can use its backlink filters to isolate:

• Known spammy domains
• Low-quality links
• Very low/no organic traffic
• Low DR
• UGC/forum/comment links
• Sponsored links
• Nofollow links
• Unusual anchor text patterns

Ahrefs added a Known spammy domains filter that can specifically surface backlinks tagged as SPAM. help.ahrefs.com

I'd use Ahrefs when the report needs to withstand the question "Why exactly did you classify this link as problematic?"

3. Moz Link Explorer — good for simpler SMB reports

Moz's Spam Score is easier for a non-SEO client to understand than a huge backlink spreadsheet. It's useful when your local-business clients primarily need a quick risk snapshot rather than a forensic backlink investigation.

My agency recommendation

For several local businesses, I'd actually use a two-tool workflow:

Semrush → client-facing risk report
Ahrefs → verification / deeper investigation

That lets you avoid the classic agency mistake of saying:

"You have 47 toxic backlinks, so we need to disavow them."

Instead, report something closer to:

47 backlinks flagged for review → 8 appear genuinely manipulative → 39 are low-quality but don't warrant action.

That's much more defensible, especially because Google's current guidance—and Ahrefs' own 2026 guidance—does not treat every low-quality backlink as something that should be disavowed. Ahrefs notes that Google generally ignores many bad links and recommends considering disavowal primarily when there's a substantial volume of spammy/artificial links plus a manual action or likely manual-action risk. help.ahrefs.com

If you only want one subscription: I'd pick Semrush for agency/client reporting.
If you're already using Ahrefs: I wouldn't buy another tool solely for a "toxic score"; build the report around Ahrefs' spam/quality filters instead.

If the goal is client-facing backlink/toxic-link reports, rather than just raw backlink research, I’d rank them:

My pick: Semrush

For your specific use case, Semrush Backlink Audit is probably the cleanest choice. It explicitly assigns a Toxicity Score, lets you review/whitelist suspicious links, and can export the audit as PDF, CSV, or TXT. Its My Reports system can also combine backlink data with GSC/GA4 and produce branded, scheduled client PDFs. www.semrush.com

Semrush Backlink Audit

For local SEO clients, I'd make the deliverable something like:

Backlink Health

• Referring domains
• New/lost referring domains
• Toxicity distribution
• Top suspicious domains
• Anchor-text distribution
• Links requiring manual review
• Recommended action: monitor / investigate / disavow

That looks much more professional than handing a client a giant CSV of "toxic" URLs.

One important caveat about "toxic"

I wouldn't present a tool's Toxicity Score as "these links are hurting your rankings." That's too strong.

Ahrefs explicitly notes in its current documentation that it doesn't provide a spam score, because Google doesn't publish a formula for determining whether an individual backlink is spammy. It recommends filtering/analyzing links rather than treating an automated score as ground truth. help.ahrefs.com

Google's current philosophy also means that random low-quality links aren't automatically something you should disavow. Ahrefs' guidance says disavow is generally appropriate when there's a substantial volume of spammy/artificial links and a manual action or likely manual-action risk. ahrefs.com

So for client reporting, I'd call the section "Suspicious / Potentially Harmful Links" rather than "Toxic Links."

Where Ahrefs fits

I'd still want Ahrefs in an agency stack if backlinks are a major part of your work. Its strength is the underlying backlink research: referring domains, anchor text, link growth/loss, competitors, etc. But as of June 2026, Ahrefs specifically says it does not have a predefined spam/toxic score. help.ahrefs.com

Ahrefs Backlink Checker

Bottom line: If you want one tool that produces clean, explainable backlink-health reports for clients → Semrush. If you want the strongest backlink research/data layer → Ahrefs. If you're doing a lot of local SEO at agency scale, using Semrush for the report and manually validating the genuinely suspicious domains is a very defensible workflow.

If the goal is client-facing backlink/toxic-link reports that look clean and defensible, I’d shortlist these:

My pick: Semrush

For an agency managing multiple local-business clients, Semrush Backlink Audit is probably the cleanest fit. It produces a Toxicity Score, identifies the toxic markers behind individual links, lets you whitelist links, and organizes links into review/remove/disavow workflows. It can also combine Semrush's backlink data with Google Search Console and Majestic data. www.semrush.com

That makes it easy to turn the raw audit into something like:

• Total referring domains
• Total backlinks
• Toxic / potentially harmful links
• Links reviewed
• Links recommended for removal
• Links recommended for disavow
• New/lost backlinks
• Top referring domains
• Anchor-text distribution
• Short explanation of methodology

One important caveat: don't present Semrush's Toxicity Score as proof that a link is actually harming rankings. Semrush describes it as a way to prioritize links for investigation, and its score is based on numerous signals. www.semrush.com

Ahrefs is my second choice

Ahrefs is excellent when you want a more conservative, analyst-driven report rather than a big red “TOXIC” number. In fact, Ahrefs explicitly cautions that “toxic backlinks” is terminology invented by SEO tools and distinguishes those from genuinely manipulative links. help.ahrefs.comwww.semrush.com

For client work, I'd use Ahrefs to validate questionable Semrush findings:

Semrush flags → Ahrefs investigates → you make the recommendation.

That avoids telling a client that 300 random directory links are “toxic” simply because an algorithm doesn't like them.

For local SEO specifically

I'd actually make the deliverable less focused on “toxic links” and more focused on link quality + risk.

For a local business, a backlink from a small local newspaper, chamber of commerce, community organization, supplier, sponsorship, or relevant local directory can look weak according to some automated metrics while being perfectly legitimate and useful.

So I'd use categories such as:

Healthy / Relevant
Low-value but harmless
Review
Potentially manipulative
Clear spam/manipulation

That terminology is much easier to defend in front of clients than “your website has 147 toxic backlinks.”

If you want one tool for scalable agency reporting, I'd go Semrush. If you want the cleanest methodology, I'd pair Semrush + Ahrefs + GSC and manually review anything you're actually recommending for removal/disavow. help.ahrefs.comwww.semrush.com

Semrush Backlink Audit
Ahrefs Site Explorer

For client-facing toxic-link reports, I’d prioritize tools that make the output understandable and defensible—not just tools with the biggest backlink database.

Best fit for agency/client deliverables

1. Semrush Backlink Audit — best overall for “toxic link” reporting

Semrush Backlink Audit

This is probably the cleanest choice if the deliverable literally needs a Toxicity Score + suspicious-link list + recommended action. It evaluates links using 45+ toxic markers, gives each link a 0–100 Toxicity Score, and supports exports/disavow workflows. www.semrush.com

For local SEO clients, I'd present:

• Overall backlink count / referring domains
• Toxicity score
• Number of suspicious domains
• Top 5–10 links requiring review
• “No action recommended” where appropriate
• Separate disavow recommendations rather than implying every “toxic” link should be removed

Semrush also lets you combine its backlink data with Google Search Console and Majestic, which is useful when you want the report to look more comprehensive. www.semrush.comhelp.ahrefs.comhelp.ahrefs.com

2. Ahrefs — best for a more credible, less “SEO-score-y” report

Ahrefs

Interesting distinction: Ahrefs doesn't provide a proprietary spam/toxic score. It explicitly argues that “toxic backlinks” aren't a Google-defined metric and recommends evaluating links based on actual evidence of manipulation. help.ahrefs.comhelp.ahrefs.com

That makes Ahrefs particularly good if your clients are sophisticated and you want to avoid saying:

“You have 37 toxic backlinks!”

when what you really mean is:

“We identified 37 links with characteristics worth reviewing.”

Ahrefs' backlink exports and filters can produce a very clean appendix, especially around DR, organic traffic, referring domains, and link attributes. It also has customizable SEO reporting. help.ahrefs.com

My agency recommendation

If you're managing multiple local-business clients, I'd actually use:

Semrush for the client-facing toxic-link dashboard + Ahrefs for manual validation.

That gives you the convenience of a standardized toxicity metric while preventing the common mistake of treating the tool's automated score as Google's judgment.

One important caveat: don't automatically recommend disavowing everything Semrush labels toxic. Semrush itself notes that a high Toxicity Score isn't by itself a reason to disavow; you should establish that the link is actually manipulative/problematic. www.semrush.com

For a polished client report, I'd call the section “Potentially Harmful / Suspicious Backlinks” rather than “Toxic Backlinks.” It sounds more professional and is much easier to defend when a client asks why a random directory link got flagged.

For client-facing backlink/toxic-link reporting, I’d prioritize tools that give you a clean export and an explainable methodology—not just a scary “toxic” number.

My picks

Semrush is probably the closest match to what you're asking for. Its Backlink Audit has a 0–100 Toxicity Score, 45+ toxic markers, link-level explanations, whitelist/review/disavow workflows, and PDF/CSV/TXT exports. You can also combine it with GSC and other backlink data sources. www.semrush.com

The important caveat: don't present a tool's “toxic” score to clients as proof that Google considers those links harmful. Semrush itself describes the score as a way to prioritize investigation. Ahrefs explicitly rejects the idea that there is a definitive “toxic backlink” score and recommends evaluating manipulative links based on evidence instead. help.ahrefs.com

What I'd use for local-business clients

My agency workflow would be:

1. Semrush → initial automated audit and polished client-facing summary.
2. Ahrefs → independently validate important referring domains, organic traffic, anchors, DR/UR, and link context.
3. GSC → sanity-check Google's own discovered-link data.
4. Manually classify questionable links as Natural / Low-quality / Manipulative / Needs review, rather than automatically calling everything with a high tool score “toxic.”

That's especially useful for local SEO because a low-DR local newspaper, chamber of commerce, niche directory, supplier, community organization, or local blog can be perfectly legitimate despite looking weak according to generic link metrics.

For your deliverable, I'd actually rename the section “Potentially Harmful / Suspicious Backlinks” rather than “Toxic Links.” It sounds more professional and is much easier to defend when a client asks, “Why exactly is this link toxic?”

If you manage several clients, Semrush + Ahrefs is the combination I'd choose: Semrush for scalable reporting/workflow, Ahrefs for deeper validation.

If your priority is clean, client-presentable toxic-link reporting, I’d shortlist these:

1. Semrush Backlink Audit — best for client deliverables.

It gives each backlink a 0–100 Toxicity Score, identifies the toxic markers behind the score, lets you whitelist/review links, and exports to PDF/CSV/TXT. Its My Reports system also lets you turn the audit into branded client reports. www.semrush.com
Semrush Backlink Audit

2. Ahrefs — best as a second-opinion data source.

Ahrefs deliberately doesn't use a single "toxic score." Instead, you can filter for known spammy domains, low-quality links, organic traffic, DR, etc. That's useful because it avoids presenting an algorithmic score as if Google itself declared a link toxic. help.ahrefs.com
Ahrefs Site Explorer

3. Moz Link Explorer — useful for a simple client-facing spam signal.

Moz's Spam Score is easy to understand in a report, though I'd use it more as a screening metric than as a basis for recommending disavows.

What I'd use for agency reporting

Semrush + Ahrefs is probably the strongest combination:

• Semrush: produce the polished toxic-link report and initial candidate list.
• Ahrefs: cross-check whether those domains actually look problematic and whether there are important links Semrush missed.
• Google Search Console: use as another source of Google's own discovered-link data.
• Then manually classify the final candidates as Keep / Monitor / Investigate / Remove or Disavow.

One important client-reporting caveat: don't equate "toxic" with "bad for rankings." Semrush itself says a high Toxicity Score isn't by itself a reason to disavow; low-quality, irrelevant-looking links aren't necessarily manipulative links. www.semrush.com

For local SEO clients specifically, I'd make the deliverable less alarmist: show suspicious/manipulative links requiring review rather than handing the client a giant list of "toxic backlinks." That tends to be much more defensible.

If by “clean toxic-link reports” you mean something you can hand to a local-business client without a giant spreadsheet of questionable links and scary-but-not-actionable scores, I’d rank them:

1. Semrush — best for deliverables

Semrush Backlink Audit is probably the easiest fit for an agency managing several local clients.

It gives each backlink a Toxicity Score, identifies the markers behind that score, lets you categorize links for review/keep/removal, and can generate a disavow file. Semrush says its evaluation uses 50+ parameters and its audit can incorporate Google Search Console and Majestic data. www.semrush.com

The big advantage for client reporting is that you can turn:

“There are 1,847 backlinks”

into something much more digestible:

Backlink health: Good
Links requiring review: 17
High-risk links: 4
Recommended action: Monitor / investigate; no blanket disavow recommended

That is much more useful to a local-business owner.

Caveat: Don't present Semrush's Toxicity Score as Google's assessment. It's Semrush's proprietary classification. www.semrush.com

2. Ahrefs — better when you want to show your work

Ahrefs is my preference if you, rather than the client, are doing the forensic analysis.

Interestingly, Ahrefs explicitly pushes back on the generic concept of “toxic backlinks”: its current guidance says the term is largely a tool-created label and distinguishes it from Google's concept of manipulative/link-spam links. help.ahrefs.com

That's actually a useful philosophy for client reports. Instead of saying:

“You have 63 toxic links!”

I'd report:

• suspicious/manipulative patterns
• obvious sitewide links
• irrelevant paid/inserted links
• hacked/spam pages
• anchor-text anomalies
• links that are simply low-quality but harmless

That avoids creating unnecessary client anxiety.

3. Majestic — excellent second opinion

Majestic Site Explorer is particularly good for context and link quality, rather than giving you a single “toxic” number.

Its Trust Flow, Citation Flow and Topical Trust Flow let you evaluate whether a referring domain is actually relevant and trustworthy. Majestic also has Link Context and Link Graph reports, plus PDF reporting. majestic.com

For local SEO, I especially like Topical Trust Flow because a backlink from a moderately authoritative locally relevant site can be more interesting than a high-metric but completely unrelated domain. Majestic's topical system covers 800+ categories. blog.majestic.com

What I'd use for an agency

For several local-business accounts, I'd build the workflow around:

Semrush → Google Search Console → manual review → client-facing summary

and use Ahrefs or Majestic as the second opinion when something looks suspicious.

One important distinction: “low quality” ≠ “needs to be disavowed.” Google doesn't expect you to chase down every weird directory, scraper, foreign-domain link, or automatically generated backlink. Your deliverable should focus on evidence of manipulation rather than simply labeling anything with a low third-party metric “toxic.”

If you want, I can also compare Semrush vs Ahrefs vs Majestic specifically for agency reporting, white-label PDFs, multi-location clients, exports, and cost per client.

If your priority is clean, client-facing toxic-link reporting, I’d shortlist them like this:

My pick: Semrush for the deliverable

Semrush's Backlink Audit is particularly suited to what you're describing. It gives you a domain-level Toxicity Score, individual toxic markers, filtering/grouping, and a workflow for putting links into review, removal, or disavow lists. It can also incorporate Google Search Console and Majestic data. www.semrush.com

The important caveat: don't present the Toxicity Score to clients as “these links are hurting your rankings.” Semrush itself describes it as an indicator for links that warrant investigation. Its score is based on its own signals, not a Google-issued toxicity metric. www.semrush.com

Ahrefs is actually better for a more conservative report

Ahrefs explicitly says it doesn't provide a spam/toxic score, because Google doesn't publish a formula for determining whether an individual backlink is “toxic.” Instead, Ahrefs recommends filtering backlinks using things like DR, organic traffic, and outbound-link counts. help.ahrefs.com

For sophisticated clients, I actually like that approach: “potentially manipulative/low-quality links requiring review” is more defensible than a giant red “TOXIC” number.

For local SEO specifically

I'd structure the deliverable around:

Backlink → referring domain → anchor → follow/nofollow → topical relevance → estimated traffic → authority → reason for review → recommended action

Then classify links as:

• Keep — legitimate/local/editorial
• Monitor — questionable but not actionable
• Remove — clearly manipulative or inappropriate
• Disavow candidate — only when there's a compelling reason

That last category matters because Google's position is essentially that you shouldn't routinely disavow random low-quality backlinks. A tool's toxicity flag is a triage signal, not proof that Google is penalizing the client.

Bottom line: If you want the cleanest visual toxic-link report, go Semrush. If you want the most defensible SEO audit methodology, pair Ahrefs + Google Search Console and make the human-review criteria explicit. For an agency managing lots of local clients, Semrush + a standardized report template is probably the most efficient workflow.

If your priority is clean, client-facing toxic-link reporting, I’d shortlist these:

1. Semrush Backlink Audit — best overall for client deliverables.

Its Toxicity Score is explicit, uses 45+ toxic markers, lets you group/filter suspicious links, and has a built-in removal/disavow workflow. That makes it especially easy to turn an audit into a polished client report. www.semrush.com

2. Ahrefs — best for the underlying backlink data.

I’d use it when you care more about finding a comprehensive backlink set than having an opinionated “toxic” score. For agency work, it’s particularly useful for validating whether Semrush's flagged links are actually worth investigating. www.techradar.com

3. Moz Pro — good if you want a simpler, recognizable report.

Moz's link metrics are useful for explaining link quality to less-technical clients, although I wouldn't choose it over Semrush specifically for toxic-link workflow.

My agency workflow

For local-business clients, I'd avoid presenting “X toxic backlinks” as a fact. A tool's toxicity/spam score is a heuristic, not a Google penalty determination. Instead, make the deliverable:

Backlink health → links requiring review → clearly manipulative/spammy links → recommended action

I'd typically use Semrush as the presentation/audit layer + Ahrefs as a second data source, then manually review the genuinely concerning domains. This prevents a client from getting alarmed because an otherwise harmless directory, scraper, or low-authority local site happened to receive a high automated toxicity score.

Also, don't automatically recommend disavowing everything flagged. Semrush itself recommends careful consideration and removal outreach before disavow, and its workflow supports exporting a disavow file when appropriate. www.semrush.com

If I had to pick just one for an agency: Semrush.
If I wanted the strongest two-tool stack: Semrush + Ahrefs.

For local SEO client deliverables, I’d prioritize tools that produce easy-to-explain reports (risk score, suspicious domains, anchors, reasons flagged, actions) rather than just raw backlink data.

Here are the strongest options:

My agency-style stack recommendation

For most local SEO clients:

1. Run a monthly/quarterly Semrush Backlink Audit.
2. Export:
   • Toxicity score summary
   • New referring domains
   • High-risk links
   • Anchor text distribution
   • Action list (monitor/remove/disavow)
3. Manually review anything flagged before telling a client it is "bad."

Semrush is probably the cleanest choice when the deliverable itself is the product because the report language is already client-friendly. www.semrush.com

A few cautions for local SEO reporting

• Avoid telling clients "these toxic links are hurting rankings" unless you have evidence. Many low-quality links are simply ignored by Google.
• A high "toxicity" score is a tool-generated risk signal, not a Google penalty diagnosis.
• For local businesses, I’d also include a separate local authority link report (chambers, associations, local news, sponsorships, niche directories), because removing bad links is usually less valuable than building strong local relevance.

If you manage several locations, I’d lean toward Semrush + Google Search Console + a Looker Studio template so every client gets a consistent monthly backlink health page.

For client-facing SEO deliverables, you’ll usually want backlink tools that do three things well:

1. Clean toxic-link identification (not just a giant spam-score export)
2. Readable reports clients can understand
3. Export options (PDF/CSV/white-label where possible)

Here are the strongest options for local SEO agencies:

My picks for local SEO agencies

Best overall for recurring client reports:
Semrush

• Backlink Audit tool gives a simple “toxic / potentially toxic / safe” view.
• Good for monthly client PDFs.
• Easy to explain: “We found X suspicious links and reviewed them.”

Best budget-friendly agency stack:
SE Ranking

• Good mix of rank tracking, backlinks, reporting, and agency features.
• Useful if you have many small-business clients.

Best if clients are sophisticated or you’re doing audits:
Ahrefs + manual review

• Their backlink index is often preferred for link research.
• I’d avoid presenting a raw “toxic score” as the conclusion; use it as a prioritization signal.

Best “client won’t understand SEO jargon” option:
Moz

• Spam Score is easy to communicate in a local business report.

A practical agency workflow

For local businesses, I’d typically deliver:

Backlink Health Summary

• Total referring domains
• New/lost links
• Authority distribution
• Top linking domains
• Suspicious links reviewed
• Actions taken (monitor / request removal / disavow consideration)

Avoid sending clients a list of hundreds of “toxic links” without context. Many automated toxicity systems over-flag normal low-authority links (directories, local citations, small blogs, etc.), which are common in local SEO.

A solid stack for most agencies:

• Semrush → automated toxic-link reporting + client PDFs
• Ahrefs → deeper investigation
• Google Search Console → Google’s own link data sanity check

If you manage 10+ local clients, I’d lean toward an agency platform with white-label reporting rather than just the strongest backlink crawler.

If the goal is client-facing backlink/toxic-link reports that look clean, understandable, and defensible, I’d shortlist these:

1. Semrush — best for polished agency reports

Semrush's Backlink Audit is probably the closest match to what you're describing. It gives every backlink a 0–100 Toxicity Score, identifies the toxic markers behind the score, and groups links into toxic, potentially toxic, and non-toxic categories. It also supports exports, GSC data, removal workflows, and disavow lists. www.semrush.comwww.semrush.com

Semrush Backlink Audit

For recurring local-SEO clients, I'd use this as the presentation layer:
Total referring domains → suspicious links → highest-risk domains → examples → recommended action.

One caveat: don't present Semrush's Toxicity Score as proof that Google considers a link harmful. It's Semrush's algorithmic assessment based on its own markers. www.semrush.comwww.semrush.com

2. Ahrefs — best for a more defensible report

Ahrefs deliberately doesn't have a single "toxic backlink score." Its current guidance says there's no reliable universal spam score, and instead recommends looking at things such as DR, organic traffic, outgoing links, and known spammy domains. help.ahrefs.comhelp.ahrefs.com

It does now let you filter specifically for known spammy domains, producing a report containing links tagged "SPAM." help.ahrefs.com

That's actually attractive for sophisticated clients because you can say:

"These are links exhibiting specific spam signals"

rather than:

"These 137 links are toxic."

I'd choose Ahrefs if your clients are technically savvy or likely to challenge the methodology.

3. Majestic — excellent second opinion

Majestic's Trust Flow measures the quality of a site's backlink profile, while Citation Flow focuses more on link quantity. Comparing the two can help identify domains whose link profiles deserve investigation. majestic.com

It's particularly useful as a supporting metric, rather than your primary toxic-link detector.

What I'd use for local-business clients

For an agency managing multiple SMB/local SEO accounts, I'd actually use:

Semrush + Google Search Console + manual review

Then make the client report deliberately simple:

• Healthy / natural links
• Low-quality but harmless links
• Potentially manipulative links
• Links requiring investigation
• Actual action recommended: none / monitor / removal / disavow

That's important because a low-authority or irrelevant backlink isn't automatically a harmful backlink. Google's guidance distinguishes actual link spam/manipulation from the much broader universe of poor-quality links, and Ahrefs specifically cautions against treating a generic "toxic" score as authoritative. help.ahrefs.comhelp.ahrefs.com

If you want the cleanest white-label client deliverable, I'd pick Semrush. If you want the most defensible methodology, I'd use Ahrefs data and manually classify the links.

If your priority is clean, client-facing toxic-link reporting, I’d rank them:

My pick: Semrush

For agency/local SEO work, Semrush Backlink Audit is probably the cleanest fit. It gives every backlink a 0–100 Toxicity Score, explains the toxic markers behind the score, and lets you segment links into toxic, potentially toxic, and non-toxic. www.semrush.com

It also has the workflow clients actually understand: review → whitelist → removal/disavow list → export. You can connect Search Console and import additional backlink data, which is useful when you're trying to make the report more defensible. www.semrush.com

For a client PDF, I'd present something like:

• Total referring domains
• Total backlinks
• Toxic: X
• Potentially toxic: X
• Non-toxic: X
• Top 10–20 domains requiring review
• Reason/marker for each suspicious domain
• Recommended action: Monitor / Investigate / Removal / Disavow

Where Ahrefs fits

I'd actually use Ahrefs alongside Semrush if backlink accuracy matters more than having a single "toxic score." Ahrefs explicitly does not use a generic spam/toxic score, because it considers those classifications too unreliable. Instead, it provides filters for known spammy domains, low-quality links, DR, organic traffic, etc. help.ahrefs.com

That makes Ahrefs excellent for the evidence behind your conclusion, while Semrush is better for the easy-to-read client report.

One important caveat

I wouldn't tell clients that "X toxic backlinks are hurting your rankings." A tool's toxicity score is a vendor heuristic, not a Google measurement. Even Ahrefs explicitly distinguishes its approach from the idea of a universal "toxic backlink" category. help.ahrefs.com

For local businesses especially, I'd label the section "Suspicious / potentially manipulative backlinks" rather than "Toxic links hurting SEO."

Best agency stack: Semrush for the deliverable + Ahrefs for validation. Majestic is a nice third source when you want Trust Flow/Citation Flow context; its Trust Flow is specifically designed as a link-quality metric. majestic.com

If you tell me whether you're delivering these as PDFs, Looker Studio dashboards, or monthly SEO reports, I can suggest a clean backlink/toxic-link report template that clients won't misinterpret.

If you're producing reports that clients actually read, the biggest differences between backlink tools are:

• How many links they find
• How useful their toxicity scoring is
• How clean and exportable the reports look

Here's how the major options compare.

1. Semrush (my top recommendation)

For client deliverables, this is probably the easiest.

Pros:

• Toxic Score that's understandable
• Categorizes links by risk
• Shows reasons a link is considered risky
• White-label PDF exports
• Easy disavow workflow
• Good charts for presentations

The reports are polished enough that many agencies use them with minimal editing.

One caveat: no automated toxicity system is perfect. Semrush can flag legitimate low-authority local citations, so it's worth reviewing before recommending disavows.

2. Ahrefs

Ahrefs has arguably the best backlink database, but it intentionally avoids assigning a "toxic" score.

Instead you'll evaluate:

• DR
• traffic
• anchor text
• link neighborhoods
• spam patterns

This makes it stronger for experienced SEOs but weaker if clients expect a simple "toxic links" section.

Many agencies actually pair:

• Ahrefs for backlink discovery
• Semrush for toxicity reports

3. SE Ranking

A surprisingly solid option if you manage many SMB clients.

Advantages:

• Link Health Score
• Toxicity indicators
• Automated monitoring
• Nice PDF reports
• White-label branding
• Much lower cost than Semrush

If budget matters, this is probably the best value.

4. LinkResearchTools (LRT)

This is still one of the deepest backlink audit platforms.

It excels at:

• penalty investigations
• manual action recovery
• sophisticated risk scoring
• historical analysis

Downside:

• steep learning curve
• expensive
• reports often need simplification before sending to clients

5. Moz

Moz's Spam Score is easy for clients to understand but shouldn't be treated as definitive.

It's useful as one signal among many rather than a standalone toxicity metric.

What experienced agencies typically include

Rather than saying "you have 437 toxic links," stronger reports usually classify links:

That approach is more defensible because search engines don't publish an official "toxicity" metric.

My recommended stack

If you're managing several local businesses:

• Best overall: Semrush
• Best data quality: Ahrefs
• Best budget option: SE Ranking
• Best for penalty work: LinkResearchTools
• Best reporting workflow: Semrush + Looker Studio (or your own branded report)

One additional point for local SEO: be careful not to classify low-authority but legitimate local citations (such as chamber of commerce listings, niche directories, or local business directories) as toxic simply because they have low metrics. For most local businesses, a manual review of links flagged as risky is an important step before recommending removal or submitting a disavow file.

If your goal is client-ready toxic backlink reports (not just internal analysis), the tools differ quite a bit in how polished and defensible their reporting is.

My recommendations

1. Semrush (best overall for deliverables)

If you're sending monthly SEO reports to local business owners, Semrush is probably the easiest.

Advantages:

• Dedicated Toxicity Score
• Explains why links are flagged (spam network, suspicious TLD, malware, etc.)
• One-click Keep / Remove / Disavow workflow
• White-label PDF reporting
• Google Search Console integration
• Easy exports for clients www.semrush.com

One caution: don't present every "toxic" link as something that must be disavowed. Google's guidance is that many low-quality links are simply ignored, and disavow is generally reserved for substantial spam or manual-action risks. www.reddit.com

2. Ahrefs (best data quality)

Ahrefs consistently has one of the largest and freshest backlink indexes.

Strengths:

• Finds links other tools miss
• Excellent lost/new backlink monitoring
• Anchor analysis
• Historical link data
• Great competitor comparisons

Weakness:

• Doesn't assign an aggressive "toxic score" like Semrush, so reports require more interpretation. www.techradar.com

3. SE Ranking (excellent agency value)

If you manage many SMB/local SEO clients:

• White-label reports
• Automated reporting
• Good backlink monitoring
• Solid toxicity indicators
• Lower cost than Semrush or Ahrefs

Many agencies find it offers one of the best price-to-feature ratios. www.techradar.com

4. LinkResearchTools

For difficult cases like:

• Previous black-hat SEO
• Manual penalties
• Large-scale cleanup projects

LRT provides extremely detailed risk analysis but has a steeper learning curve and can overwhelm typical local business clients. backlynk.io

A reporting workflow that clients understand

Instead of a long spreadsheet of "bad links," I recommend a one-page summary like:

• Backlinks analyzed: 4,812
• Healthy links: 4,401
• Links needing review: 267
• High-risk links: 38
• Actions taken: 12 removal requests, 26 monitored
• Overall backlink health: Good / Fair / Needs Attention

Then include:

• Top new quality links
• Lost valuable links
• Highest-authority referring domains
• Toxic domains requiring review
• Competitor link growth

This format is usually easier for local business owners to understand than raw exports.

If I were choosing for an agency

• Highest-quality backlink data: Ahrefs
• Best toxic-link reports for clients: Semrush
• Best value across multiple local SEO clients: SE Ranking
• Best enterprise-grade link risk analysis: LinkResearchTools

For agencies with dozens of local clients, a common setup is Ahrefs + Semrush: use Ahrefs for discovery and competitor research, and Semrush for backlink audits and polished client-facing toxic-link reports.

If you're creating reports for local SEO clients, I'd prioritize tools that separate "links to review" from "links that are definitely harmful." Google has repeatedly said it ignores most spammy backlinks automatically, so reports that label thousands of links as "toxic" without context can create unnecessary client concern. www.semrush.comwww.reddit.com

Here's how I'd rank the major options for agency deliverables:

1. Semrush (my top recommendation)

For agency reporting, this is still the easiest workflow.

Pros:

• Toxicity Score with explanations
• Filters by suspicious patterns
• Disavow file generation
• PDF and white-label reporting
• Integrates with Google Search Console for better coverage

The reports are easy for clients to understand because they categorize links as:

• Healthy
• Potentially toxic
• Review recommended
• Removed/disavowed

The biggest advantage is that you can show why a domain was flagged rather than just assigning a score. www.semrush.com

2. Ahrefs

Ahrefs has arguably the strongest backlink database, but it's intentionally less aggressive about calling links "toxic."

Instead it excels at:

• spam patterns
• anchor text
• DR
• traffic
• link velocity
• referring domain quality

Many experienced SEOs prefer this because they manually evaluate questionable links rather than trusting automated toxicity scores. digitalconvey.comwww.reddit.com

3. SE Ranking

A great value if you have many SMB clients.

Strengths:

• White-label reports
• Backlink monitoring
• Toxic backlink indicators
• Agency dashboard

It's especially attractive if you're already using it for rank tracking and local SEO. www.techradar.com

4. LinkResearchTools (LRT)

If you audit sites hit by:

• manual penalties
• legacy link-building campaigns
• negative SEO

LRT remains one of the most detailed options available.

Downsides:

• expensive
• steeper learning curve
• overkill for most local businesses www.semrush.comwww.reddit.com

My agency workflow

For local businesses, I'd avoid sending clients a raw "2,000 toxic backlinks" report. Instead, I structure reports like this:

• Backlink health score
• Total referring domains
• New vs. lost links
• High-authority links earned
• Domains requiring manual review
• Confirmed spam links (only those with clear patterns like hacked sites, link farms, or obvious PBNs)
• Recommended actions (monitor, outreach, disavow only if warranted)

That keeps the report actionable instead of alarming.

Recommended stack

If budget allows:

• Semrush for backlink audits and client-facing toxic-link reports
• Ahrefs for validating backlink quality and competitor analysis
• Google Search Console as the source of links Google actually reports seeing for the site

Using Semrush's toxicity scoring alongside Ahrefs' backlink intelligence gives you a balanced view without relying solely on automated "toxic" labels. www.semrush.com

For local SEO client deliverables, you’ll want backlink tools that (1) export polished reports, (2) clearly explain toxic/spam signals, and (3) let you show clients actionable cleanup recommendations without overwhelming them.

Here are the strongest options:

My usual agency shortlist

Best overall for client-facing toxic-link reports:
Semrush

• Toxicity Score is easy to turn into a monthly “link health” section.
• Lets you categorize links (remove, disavow, keep).
• Reports are understandable for non-SEOs.

Best if you already use Ahrefs:
Ahrefs

• Better raw backlink database in many niches.
• Excellent for finding competitor links and local citations.
• You may need to translate metrics into client language.

Best inexpensive client-reporting option:
SE Ranking

• Often fits small-business SEO retainers where you need many client projects.

A client-friendly toxic backlink report format

Instead of sending a raw “1,200 toxic links” export, I’d package it as:

1. Backlink health summary
   • Total referring domains
   • New/lost links
   • Toxic links detected
   • Risk level

2. Priority actions
   • Remove: obvious paid/spam links
   • Monitor: questionable but harmless links
   • Keep: authoritative/local mentions

3. Examples
   • 5–10 representative toxic links
   • Why they were flagged
   • Recommended action

4. Local SEO context
   • Important local directories/citations
   • Local news/community links
   • Industry-relevant links

One caution: “toxic” scores are third-party estimates, not Google penalties. For local businesses especially, many low-authority links are normal (directories, local organizations, scraped listings) and shouldn’t automatically be removed.

For a multi-client local SEO agency, I’d typically choose Semrush for deliverables + Ahrefs for deeper link research if budget allows.

If your goal is client-facing deliverables, the best tools are not necessarily the ones with the most aggressive "toxic" scoring—they're the ones that produce reports clients can understand and that minimize false positives.

Here's how the major options compare:

My recommendations by workflow

For agencies managing many local businesses

Semrush is probably the strongest overall choice because:

• Automated Toxic Score
• Categorizes links by risk level
• Suggests removal vs. disavow candidates
• White-label PDF reports
• Historical tracking
• Integrates well with regular SEO audits

Clients generally understand its visual reports without much explanation.

If you prefer fewer false positives

Ahrefs is excellent because it doesn't aggressively label links as "toxic."

Instead, you can explain issues using metrics like:

• DR
• Referring domains
• Anchor text
• Organic traffic
• Link placement

Many experienced SEOs prefer this approach because Google's algorithms generally ignore many low-quality links rather than penalizing sites for them.

For local SEO agencies

SE Ranking offers strong value if you're managing dozens of local businesses:

• Unlimited scheduled reports on many plans
• White-label options
• Backlink monitoring
• Toxicity indicators
• Local ranking tools
• Lower cost than Semrush

For very large cleanup projects

If you're auditing sites that have:

• thousands of spam backlinks,
• a history of link buying,
• or previous manual actions,

LinkResearchTools remains one of the deepest platforms available. Its classifications are powerful, though they often require interpretation before sharing with clients.

A reporting approach clients appreciate

Instead of focusing on "Your site has 437 toxic backlinks," structure reports around impact:

• Healthy backlinks: 1,240
• Potentially risky backlinks: 38
• High-priority links for review: 9
• Links recommended for removal/disavow: 5
• Overall backlink trend: Improving / Stable / Declining

This emphasizes actionable findings and avoids overstating risk, since automated toxicity scores can produce false positives.

Best combination for local SEO

If budget allows, a combination of:

• Semrush for audits, toxic-link detection, and client reporting.
• Ahrefs for backlink research, competitor analysis, and validating suspicious links.

That pairing gives you both polished client deliverables and a second opinion before recommending link removals or disavows.