CodeFrog vs Screaming Frog
CodeFrog and Screaming Frog SEO Spider are both desktop apps focused on website analysis. CodeFrog is a native app (macOS and Windows) for unified quality engineering — security, accessibility, HTML validation, SEO, and code analysis in one Mega Report. Screaming Frog is a Java-based desktop crawler (Windows, macOS, Linux) for deep technical SEO auditing.
Both tools offer accessibility testing via the axe-core engine and share on-page SEO analysis capabilities. Where they differ: CodeFrog goes deeper on security, HTML validation, and code analysis, while Screaming Frog goes deeper on crawling, content analysis, and third-party integrations.
Note on WCAG compliance: Full WCAG A, AA, or AAA conformance cannot be achieved with automation alone — neither CodeFrog, Screaming Frog, nor any other automated tool can fully validate conformance. Many WCAG criteria require human judgment and manual testing with assistive technologies (screen readers, keyboard navigation, voice control, etc.). Automated tools are a valuable part of your accessibility toolkit, but manual testing is required for full conformance at any level. See CodeFrog's WCAG page for details.
| Feature | CodeFrog | Screaming Frog |
|---|---|---|
| Accessibility | ||
| Automated WCAG AA checks (axe-core) | Yes | Yes |
| Automated WCAG AAA checks | Yes | Yes |
| Color contrast checks | Yes | Yes |
| ARIA attribute validation | Yes | Yes |
| Heading hierarchy validation | Yes | Yes |
| Severity/impact classification | Yes (minor to critical) | Yes (axe severity) |
| Security | ||
| OWASP-based security scanning | Yes (comprehensive) | No |
| Security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options) | Yes (dedicated checks) | Detection only |
| CORS misconfiguration detection | Yes | No |
| Sensitive file detection (.env, .git, backups) | Yes | No |
| TLS/SSL configuration analysis | Yes | Basic HTTP/HTTPS checks |
| Directory listing detection | Yes | No |
| Mixed content detection | Yes | Yes |
| Server/framework fingerprinting | Yes | No |
| Secrets detection (Gitleaks) | Yes | No |
| SEO | ||
| Title tag validation | Yes | Yes (length, duplication, pixel width) |
| Meta description check | Yes | Yes (length, duplication, pixel width) |
| Robots.txt validation | Yes | Yes (custom testing) |
| Sitemap.xml validation | Yes | Yes (independent analysis) |
| Heading hierarchy (H1-H6 structure) | Yes | Yes (missing, duplicate, non-sequential) |
| Structured data validation | Yes | Yes (JSON-LD, Microdata, RDFa) |
| Content quality (word count, readability) | Yes | Yes |
| Content-to-HTML ratio | Yes | Yes |
| Canonical URL validation | Yes | Yes (conflicts, non-indexable) |
| Mobile-friendliness checks | Yes | Yes (via PageSpeed API) |
| Orphan page discovery | No | Yes |
| Crawl depth analysis | No | Yes |
| Redirect chain/loop detection | No | Yes |
| Broken link detection (internal) | No | Yes |
| Duplicate content detection | No | Yes (exact + near-duplicate) |
| hreflang validation | No | Yes (return links, language codes) |
| Spelling/grammar checks (25+ languages) | No | Yes |
| Meta Tags & Social Sharing | ||
| Open Graph tags validation | Yes (full) | Manual XPath extraction only |
| Twitter Card tags validation | Yes | No |
| OG image dimension/aspect validation | Yes | No |
| Favicon detection | Yes | No |
| HTML Validation | ||
| W3C/Nu HTML Checker compliance | Yes (strict mode) | No |
| Heuristic-based fast validation | Yes | No |
| AMP validation | No | Yes (official AMP Validator) |
| Performance | ||
| Page size / resource inventory by type | Yes | No |
| DNS/TCP/TLS/TTFB timing breakdown | Yes | Response time only |
| Multi-URL timing comparison | Yes | No |
| Core Web Vitals (LCP, FCP, CLS) | No | Yes (via PageSpeed API) |
| Performance score (0-100) | No | Yes (via PageSpeed API) |
| JavaScript rendering (Chromium) | No | Yes (full headless Chromium) |
| Render-blocking resource detection | No | Yes (via PageSpeed API) |
| JavaScript error detection | No | Yes |
| Code Analysis | ||
| Source code secrets scanning (Gitleaks) | Yes | N/A |
| Dependency vulnerability scanning (OSV) | Yes | N/A |
| Static code pattern analysis (Semgrep/OpenGrep) | Yes | N/A |
| Custom source code search | No | Yes (regex, XPath, CSS selectors) |
| Reporting & Platform | ||
| Unified report (all tests combined) | Yes (Mega Report) | Separate tabs/exports |
| Sitemap-based multi-URL testing | Yes | Yes (unlimited URLs, paid) |
| Localhost / dev domain testing | Yes | Yes |
| Health score / letter grade | Yes (A-F grade) | No |
| Report history and trending | Yes (built-in) | Via Looker Studio integration |
| Desktop app | Yes (native macOS and Windows) | Yes (Java — Windows, macOS, Linux) |
| JavaScript rendering | No | Yes (headless Chromium) |
| Google Analytics / Search Console integration | No | Yes |
| AI/LLM integration (OpenAI, Gemini, Claude) | No | Yes |
| Pricing | Free / one-time purchase | Free (500 URLs) / $279/year (as of early 2026) |
Where CodeFrog excels
- OWASP-based security scanning — Screaming Frog has only basic header checks
- W3C/Nu HTML validation (strict and fast modes)
- Secrets detection, supply chain vulnerabilities, and static code analysis
- Open Graph and Twitter Card validation with image dimension checks
- Unified Mega Report with health score (A-F grade)
- Free native desktop app with no URL limit — no subscription required
Where Screaming Frog excels
- Deep site crawling with unlimited URLs (paid license)
- Duplicate and near-duplicate content detection
- Broken link detection and redirect chain analysis
- JavaScript rendering via headless Chromium
- Spelling and grammar checks in 25+ languages
- AI/LLM integration (OpenAI, Gemini, Claude, Ollama)
- Google Analytics, Search Console, and PageSpeed Insights integration
- Custom extraction (XPath, CSS, regex) and CLI for automation
Better together: CodeFrog and Screaming Frog are both desktop apps that complement each other well. Use CodeFrog for security scanning, HTML validation, code analysis, and Open Graph/meta tag validation. Use Screaming Frog for deep SEO crawling, broken link discovery, content analysis, and JavaScript rendering. Both tools share the axe-core engine for accessibility testing.