How to Find Low Competition Keywords Worth Writing About

Google Keyword Planner can label a phrase “low competition” while the organic results contain strong answers. Its label describes advertisers, not the pages a new article would need to beat. For a founder deciding what to publish next, that distinction can prevent work on the wrong topic. Learning how to find low competition keywords means testing promising phrases against the actual results, then choosing a page the team can make more useful.

To find low competition keywords, start with specific customer problems and collect the phrases people use to describe them. Screen those phrases for business fit and search intent. Inspect the competing organic pages, identify an improvement the team can deliver, and group related queries into one appropriate page. Brief, review, publish, and measure that page before expanding the topic.

What makes a keyword low competition—and why scores can mislead

A low-competition keyword is a query for which a particular site has a realistic chance of earning visibility against the pages already appearing in organic results. “Low” is relative to the site and the answer it can produce. A specialist business may have direct experience that makes a narrow guide useful; another site may have nothing distinctive to add to the same results.

Keyword Difficulty (KD) helps sort a large list into candidates for further investigation. Ahrefs defines its KD as an estimate of how hard it is to reach the top 10 search results, on a scale from 0 to 100, with 100 the hardest. Vendors use their own methods, so scores from different tools are not interchangeable. A score cannot assess every advantage or limitation of the specific site planning the article.

Search volume answers a different question. It estimates searches, not visits to a particular page. Google Keyword Planner’s “Avg. monthly searches” averages searches for a keyword and its close variants over the selected month range, location, and Search Network settings. A page may receive visits from related searches as well as its target phrase, while prominent results, result features, and searchers’ choices affect how many clicks it earns.

There is also a naming trap. Keyword Planner labels its “Competition” column low, medium, or high, but Google says it reflects the number of advertisers showing on a keyword relative to other keywords. It does not measure the strength of organic pages. In keyword research for startups, these figures are useful for deciding what to investigate; the publishing decision depends on search intent, competing pages, and the business’s ability to answer well.

Start with customer problems and specific search phrases

Begin with problems customers describe, rather than a list of broad industry terms. “Project management software” spans many needs and page types. “How to track client approvals across email and Slack” names a task and a constraint, making it easier to investigate what an answer should contain. The latter is a seed phrase, not an established traffic opportunity.

Collect language from sales questions, support requests, onboarding friction, product use cases, and objections that recur in demos. Record what customers say before translating it into marketing terminology. If several customers ask how to hand off work when a colleague is away, “handover checklist for a two-person support team” provides a more precise starting point than “team productivity.”

Modifiers help turn a general problem into a searchable task:

• Audience: “invoice approval process for small agencies” identifies who needs the answer.
• Task: “how to document client sign-off” names the work being done.
• Comparison: “shared inbox vs help desk for a small team” captures a decision between approaches.
• Location: “restaurant staff scheduling rules in California” limits the question to a jurisdiction.
• Constraint: “client approval workflow without another login” reflects an obstacle.

Use modifiers only when they change the answer. “For startups” adds little if the advice applies to any business; “for a founder who handles support alone” could materially change the workflow. The point is to identify a problem the team understands, not to generate every grammatical variation of a keyword.

A compact working note is enough: customer question → underlying task → possible search phrase → knowledge the team can contribute. Keep the original question attached to each phrase. It will later help an editor decide whether a proposed page actually resolves the customer’s problem.

Seovyn can read a submitted site, identify its niche, and find competitors, subreddits, and YouTube channels for the user to select. Those inputs can widen the idea list; the team still chooses which customer problems belong on its editorial plan.

Find keyword ideas with free search sources and optional tools

Discovery should produce a shortlist with context, not a spreadsheet of phrases detached from customer needs. Record each candidate’s wording, where it came from, and the problem it appears to express. Google Search and a site’s own Google Search Console data offer starting points; other tools can widen the list when their access requirements fit the team’s workflow.

Search and site data

1. Expand a phrase in Google Search. Type a task into the search box, then try an audience or constraint. Record useful Autocomplete predictions and related searches. Google says Autocomplete predictions reflect real searches, while also considering language, location, trending interest, and past searches. Related searches are generated from Google’s understanding of how people search. Neither feature supplies a search-volume or ranking-difficulty figure. Question-style results, when shown, can offer additional wording to investigate.
2. Inspect queries the site already reaches. In Search Console’s Search results Performance report, review the Queries table for relevant searches with impressions but few clicks. Switch to Pages to identify the page appearing for a query. It may need a clearer answer, or the query may reveal a distinct task worth its own page. The site’s existing exposure gives these ideas context that a generic suggestion list cannot.
3. Read competitor pages and community discussions. Review relevant competitor guides, headings, and navigation to identify problems they cover. Search Reddit and Quora for recurring questions and customers’ descriptions of those problems. A phrase found in a discussion—even one repeated on autogenerated-content sites—is vocabulary to test, not evidence of demand or an attainable result.

Tools that widen the list

Keyword Sheeter describes itself as a free keyword research tool and provides “Filter” and “Filter Out” options for sorting suggestions. Ahrefs’ Free Keyword Generator shows up to 150 keyword ideas for a search; Ahrefs says the first ten receive an Easy, Medium, or Hard KD rating. These are ways to collect candidates, not substitutes for examining the results.

AnswerThePublic offers another source of question-oriented ideas. Its pricing page mentions a free daily limit but does not state a numeric free search limit. Teams that need predictable access should distinguish that option from a method they can run directly in Google Search.

Google Keyword Planner’s “Discover new keywords” accepts product-related words or a website, which makes it useful for expanding a seed or researching a competitor’s content. It requires a Google Ads account and billing information to access basic features, so it does not belong in a no-setup free-source workflow. Its keyword suggestions still need the same intent and SERP review as ideas from any other source.

Filter candidates by intent, relevance, and attainable value

A phrase can be popular and still be a poor assignment. Before spending time on a full SERP assessment, give each candidate a quick screening pass. Keep the underlying customer question visible so an attractive metric does not replace the reason the page would exist.

• Business fit: Can the site answer credibly, and does the answer connect to a customer problem or area of expertise? A restaurant payroll provider has a clearer reason to cover a restaurant payroll workflow than a general history of taxation.
• Search intent: Does the person need an explanation, instructions, a comparison, a template, or a product? Plan the kind of page that meets that need. A sales page is unlikely to satisfy a searcher asking how to complete a task.
• Potential reach: Is there evidence of searches, and could one useful page answer closely related questions? A narrow phrase need not have the largest estimated volume to justify a page.
• Strategic value: Could a useful visit bring a relevant audience closer to a signup, sales conversation, or informed buying decision? Record the reason rather than assuming every informational visit has equal value.
• Ability to deliver: Does the team have the expertise, examples, and evidence needed to make a better answer? A topic that requires unavailable data or specialist review may be a poor near-term choice.

Keep advertising data separate from the organic assessment. Cost per click (CPC) can be a clue that advertisers see commercial value in a query. Keyword Planner’s ad competition can show advertiser activity for selected targeting. Neither tells the team which organic page it can outperform.

This screening pass should leave a small set of relevant questions worth examining closely. Mark competing-page strength as unresolved until the live results have been reviewed. That avoids spending equal editorial time on every suggestion generated by a tool.

Inspect the live SERP before deciding a keyword is easy

Search the exact candidate phrase in Google Search for the location and language the business serves. Google says results can differ by time and context, including location, language, device type, and recent searches. Record the query and relevant context alongside the pages reviewed so another editor can understand the decision.

Use the search engine results page (SERP) to answer four practical questions:

1. What page types dominate? Note whether searchers are being offered tutorials, product pages, directories, forum threads, or videos. The intended article should fit the apparent task rather than forcing an informational guide into a primarily transactional result set.
2. Which pages directly answer the query? Read beyond titles. A broad page that mentions the phrase may leave an opening for focused instructions; a detailed page that resolves the task raises the standard for a new article.
3. What can this team improve? Name a missing step, unsupported claim, unclear example, or constraint that the proposed page can address with direct knowledge and verifiable sources. “More comprehensive” is not a sufficient brief on its own.
4. Is the improvement worth the work? A narrow gap may be real but require specialized evidence, maintenance, or a different format. Compare the likely benefit with the team’s capacity before commissioning a draft.

Open strong results as well as apparently weak ones. A small specialist site may provide the best answer on the page; a large publisher may have only a loosely related article. The useful output is a note naming the competing pages, what they already do well, and the improvement the proposed page would make—not a general impression that the SERP looks easy.

A documented assessment of “how to find low competition keywords”

The phrase targeted by this guide provides a concrete example of the process. The identifiable competing pages include Outrank’s guide, which covers discovery, SERP checks, clustering, prioritization, and tracking; a Better Marketing tutorial centered on free suggestion tools and CPC; and a brief Semrush Academy lesson on finding low-competition terms. A free-tools guide from Elephant in the Boardroom also discusses Search Console, Keyword Planner, and SERP analysis.

Those pages establish that another tool list or a bare instruction to inspect Google would add little. Outrank’s broad workflow is a particularly strong competing answer. The narrower editorial opening is to show how a small team moves from a named SERP gap to a scored decision, a source-backed brief, a reviewed article, and post-publication evidence. That is a proposed improvement to the answer, not a claim that the competing guides fail at every part of the process.

For a site serving founders and lean marketing teams, the candidate scores as follows under the four-part rubric in the next section:

The resulting brief targets an instructional guide. It must distinguish ad competition from organic difficulty, provide no-setup idea sources, name actual competing guides, demonstrate a completed prioritization decision, and show what happens after drafting. Its evidence includes Google’s documentation for Keyword Planner and Search Console, Ahrefs’ explanation of KD, and the competing pages above. The assessment would change if the visible pages or the team’s ability to deliver that angle changed; the score records a decision, not a predicted ranking.

Cluster related keywords and choose the right page

A list of keyword phrases is not necessarily a list of articles. Cluster queries by the job the searcher wants done, then decide whether one page can answer them well. This protects a lean team from publishing several thin pages that repeat the same instructions and compete for the same reader.

The phrases “how to find low competition keywords,” “find low competition keywords free,” and “low competition keyword ideas from Google” all contribute to the discovery task addressed here. The free-source and Google-specific angles can be clear subsections rather than separate articles that restart the same process. “How to find competitors’ keywords” names a more specific research task and could merit its own workflow when it calls for distinct steps and evidence.

Before merging or splitting planned pages, compare three signals:

• Intent: Would a person searching either phrase get a complete answer from the same page?
• Result overlap: Do the same pages recur for the two searches, and do they use similar formats? Record the pages rather than imposing a universal percentage threshold.
• Answer scope: Can the supporting question be answered clearly inside the main page, or does it need its own research, steps, and examples?

Record one primary query and its supporting phrases for each proposed page. If two briefs have substantially the same intent and outline, combine them or give each a genuinely different job. If an existing site page already serves the intent, assess whether improving that URL would be more useful than publishing a second answer.

This is also a capacity decision. A small team gains more from a coherent set of pages that each answers a distinct question than from a large queue of near-identical phrase variations. Clusters should guide useful page boundaries, not become a reason to insert every keyword into the copy.

Prioritize opportunities and build an evidence-backed brief

Use the same four criteria for each shortlisted query: business fit, SERP weakness, potential value, and effort feasibility. Give each criterion 0, 1, or 2 points. The completed assessment above illustrates how a candidate can remain worthwhile despite a strong competitor: its case rests on a defined editorial angle, not an assumed absence of competition.

A total is a discussion aid, not an automatic publishing rule. A candidate scoring 2 for SERP weakness and 0 for business fit still needs a convincing reason to use the team’s resources. Likewise, the effort score rewards feasibility: 2 means the work is achievable, not that it is labor-intensive.

What the brief should contain

For the leading candidate, write a brief another editor can use to challenge the decision before drafting:

• Target query and supporting phrases: the main question and closely related wording that belongs on the page.
• Intent and format: what the reader needs to do next and why the proposed page type serves that need.
• Named competing pages: what the strongest pages cover, where the defensible gap lies, and which existing answer sets the quality bar.
• Primary evidence: original documentation, product specifications, public data, or direct expertise needed for consequential claims.
• Distinct contribution: the example, explanation, or process this page can deliver better, plus claims it must not make without support.
• Maintenance trigger: what might make the page stale, such as changed tool access requirements or an updated product interface.

This is the handoff from keyword selection to accountable writing. A good brief does not ask for “an article about” a phrase; it specifies the reader’s task and the evidence needed to complete it. For claims about finding and interpreting primary material, the team can use a separate primary-source research workflow rather than treating citations as a final formatting step.

Seovyn uses search volume and difficulty to prioritize topics, including terms competitors rank for that the user does not. Its keyword inputs can inform a shortlist. The brief is where an editor records why a particular page deserves to be made.

Publish, quality-check, and measure what happens

A promising keyword is only a publishing hypothesis until a useful page exists. Before release, check the draft against the brief, the searcher’s task, and the sources behind its claims. For this guide, that means a reader should be able to collect candidates, assess competing pages, and make a documented page decision—not merely receive a list of tools.

Use three editorial checks:

1. Answer the task. Ensure the draft gives the reader a workable process. Remove sections that are relevant to the general topic but do not help with the decision the query implies.
2. Verify consequential claims. Match descriptions of tool metrics to vendor documentation and factual claims to direct evidence. List sources beside the claims they support so a reviewer can inspect them.
3. Review the page as an asset. Check the title, links, examples, formatting, and destination URL. Require a person to approve the draft under the team’s own publishing policy before it goes live.

Automation can make that review more focused. Seovyn drafts articles from source material and lists the sources used. It checks drafts for SEO and scores accuracy, depth, and originality; weak drafts are rewritten before review. It can publish content live or as a draft, allowing a team to choose a route that fits its editorial process. Approved content is published to the customer’s own site, where the team controls the destination.

After publication, use Search Console’s Search results Performance report to filter to the page and inspect its queries over comparable periods. The report shows clicks, impressions, click-through rate (CTR), and average position. Average position is the average position of the site’s topmost result when it appeared, not a fixed rank for the page. Use the team’s analytics or lead records to assess conversions; Search Console’s search-performance metrics alone do not establish whether visitors became customers.

Impressions without many clicks can prompt a review of the queries showing the page and whether its title presents the answer clearly. Clicks without relevant conversions can point to a mismatch between the audience reached and the business’s intended audience. Visibility for a question the page answers poorly is a reason to improve its explanation and evidence at the same URL. How quickly any page gains visibility depends on the site, the query, and the results it competes with; set a measurement routine rather than a promised ranking deadline.

FAQ

Should an existing page be updated or should the keyword get a new URL?

Check the Pages view in Search Console to see whether an existing page appears for the query. If it serves the same intent, improve its answer and supporting evidence at that URL. Consider a separate page when the query requires a different task or format. Two pages with near-identical outlines need a clearer distinction before either becomes an assignment.

Why don’t Search Console chart and table totals always match?

Google Search Console aggregates its Performance chart by property. A Queries table row is aggregated by property, while a Pages table row is aggregated by page. Those groupings can produce different totals. When assessing one article, filter to its page and compare matching date ranges instead of assuming every report view should reconcile.

What if a promising keyword needs claims the team cannot verify?

Narrow the article to what the team can document, find direct evidence, or defer the assignment. A weak competing page is not a reason to publish unsupported statements. Put the missing evidence in the brief before drafting so an editor can decide whether the page can still answer the searcher’s question responsibly.

Can a team use automation while retaining editorial control?

Yes. A team can use automation to organize candidates and prepare drafts while keeping its own approval step. Seovyn lists the sources used in its drafts and checks drafts before review; it can publish a draft or a live article to the customer’s own site. The team can choose its review and publishing workflow. Start free.