As of 13 August 2026, AI can only partly compare your backlinks with your competitors' backlinks.

What to actually do

1. Hand it to a person

   The route this page recommends

   A person who owns the outcome does this end to end, worth it when the failure is dear.

2. Use a tool built for this

   Second choice

3. Do it yourself

   The distant third

   A chat interface, power-user skill, and roughly 1 hour until you can act on the result.

   How to actually do it

   1. Open the backlink tool you already use and export the backlink and referring-domain reports for your site, including the source URL, target URL, anchor text, link type and any available authority or traffic fields.
   2. Export the equivalent reports for each competitor using the same settings, country, language and date range, and name each file with its domain.
   3. Remove passwords, API keys and unrelated private data, then combine or upload the exports with a short note describing your market, target audience and the competitors being compared.
   4. Paste the prompt into an AI chat or upload the files to Julius AI, then ask it to produce the comparison and keep observed figures separate from interpretation.
   5. Check the reported counts, domains, target pages and anchor text against the original exports, and correct any column-mapping or duplicate-removal errors.
   6. Open a sample of each proposed opportunity in your backlink tool and browser, confirm that the page and link exist, and mark relevance, editorial quality and risk yourself.
   7. Turn only the verified opportunities into an outreach or content plan, recording the owner, proposed action and reason for prioritisation.

   Prompt

   Compare my backlink profile with the competitor backlink profiles in the attached files.
   
   My site: [YOUR DOMAIN]
   Competitors: [COMPETITOR DOMAINS]
   Business and target market: [BRIEF DESCRIPTION]
   
   Use only the supplied files and clearly label any missing, conflicting or incomplete data. Do not invent links, domains, metrics or explanations. First standardise the columns and remove exact duplicate rows, while preserving the original data in your reasoning. Then report:
   1. The number of referring domains and backlinks shown for each site, without treating the figures as complete unless the files say they are.
   2. Referring domains linking to competitors but not to my site.
   3. Referring domains linking to my site and at least one competitor.
   4. Competitor links that appear relevant to my market, grouped by publication or site type.
   5. Patterns in anchor text, target pages and link types, stating when the evidence is weak.
   6. A prioritised list of link opportunities with the source domain, linked page, competitor evidence, relevance reason, suggested action and confidence level.
   7. Three concrete content or digital PR ideas suggested by the comparison.
   
   Do not call a link valuable solely because of a score. Separate observed facts from interpretation. Flag likely spam, paid or otherwise risky-looking patterns for manual review rather than recommending them. End with a verification checklist showing exactly which rows and source exports I should inspect before acting.

   Open it prefilled in ChatGPT or Claude, or copy it into Gemini, which takes no prefill link.