Programmatic SEO Cannibalization Risk

Estimate cannibalization risk for programmatic SEO portfolios by blending keyword overlap density, rank spread, and navigational query share.

Count of keywords where multiple pages target the same intent.
Number of programmatic pages that rank or aim to rank for the overlapping keywords.
Average rank difference between the best and next-best page on those terms.
Defaults to 0%. Higher share raises the cannibalization risk because Google clusters results.

Heuristic signal only. Validate with search console data, user intent testing, and manual SERP inspections.

Examples

  • 240 overlapping keywords, 35 pages, position spread 4, brand share 15% ⇒ 66.29% risk
  • 80 overlapping keywords, 18 pages, position spread 9, brand share blank ⇒ 28.89% risk

FAQ

Should branded keywords be included?

Yes, but adjust the brand share input upward when SERPs are navigational so the score reflects clustering pressure.

How often should I recompute?

Refresh monthly or after large template releases so overlap and position spreads capture the current crawl state.

What is a healthy score?

Portfolios below 30% typically show limited cannibalization. Scores above 60% warrant de-duplication tests.

Does this replace log-file analysis?

No. Pair the score with crawl budget and log data to confirm whether search engines are wasting resources on near-duplicate pages.

Additional Information

  • Score blends overlap density (pages per keyword), closeness of rankings, and navigational query share.
  • Position spread above 10 effectively zeroes the spread component, indicating little direct cannibalization.
  • Risk is capped at 100% and rounded to two decimal places.
  • Use the result to prioritise consolidation, canonicalization, or pattern adjustments in programmatic templates.

Related calculators