Bing Webmaster Tools reporting
Organic performance on Bing, finally in the report
Queries, pages and search types beside index coverage, crawl health, sitemaps, backlinks and severity-ranked SEO recommendations, scoped to one client. Sign in to open the report workspace, or preview what is inside.
Bing Webmaster Tools reporting
Bing Webmaster Tools is the first-party record of how a site performs on the Microsoft index — its own crawler, its own link graph and an on-page analyzer with no counterpart on the other side. This dashboard lays the property out in the order an organic conversation follows: performance first, then the queries and pages behind it, then indexing, crawl health, links and a ranked list of what to fix.
Bing Webmaster Tools keeps its own record of how a site performs on the Microsoft index, and it is the record most monthly packs never open. This dashboard puts it in the same shape as every other channel in the workspace: clicks, impressions, average click-through rate and average position, trended day by day, with the search-type filter running across the top. Move from all types to web, image, video or news and every card, chart and table underneath re-bases to the slice you picked.
Average position is aggregated by impression weight, so a filtered slice reports the rank the property genuinely earned rather than a flattering mean. A click-mix ring shows how the organic total divides across the four search types, and choosing a single type swaps that ring for a device split. Either ring reads from the same totals as the cards above it, so the mix a client sees and the headline numbers can never disagree.
Ranking is index-specific, so the query list here is its own dataset rather than a smaller copy of another engine's. Every row carries the search type it came from alongside clicks, impressions, click-through rate and position, and brand terms sit beside head terms so it is obvious how much of the demand is reputation and how much is earned discovery. A term sitting just off the first page here is often one content pass away from meaningful traffic.
The page table answers the companion question: which URLs actually collect those clicks. Because both tables share the search-type filter and the date range, an image-led URL and a news-led URL stop being averaged into one story. A page that performs here but not elsewhere — or the reverse — is usually a crawling, canonical or freshness problem, and the next section is where that gets diagnosed.
Rankings are academic for URLs that never made it into the index. The coverage view splits every known URL into indexed, crawled but not kept, excluded and errored, then ranks the exclusion reasons sitting behind those buckets — robots rules, noindex tags, canonical alternates, redirects, duplicate content, parameter handling and low crawl priority. Submitted sitemap files are reported beside it with per-file submitted and indexed counts and a status, closing the loop between what was declared and what was accepted.
Crawl health reports the other half: how many requests the crawler made, how many pages that actually reached, the average server response time, and every failure grouped by kind — not found, server errors, robots blocks, redirect loops, timeouts and DNS failures. Response time belongs in that view because it caps how much a crawler takes in a single session, which is how a slow origin quietly limits the rate at which new content is discovered.
Link data is only ever a sample of the web, and this sample is gathered by a different crawler from the one most agencies quote. That makes it a genuine second opinion: total external links, unique referring domains and the number of pages on the site that attract them, with the top domains ranked by how many links each contributes and how many of your pages it points at.
Anchor text rides alongside, because the words other sites choose when they link are part of what a page ends up ranking for. Read together, the two views give a link-building engagement an honest baseline on this engine — the profile it started from, the domains already covered, and whether new links are landing on the pages that actually need them.
This is the part of the toolset with no equivalent on the other engine: an on-page analysis of the crawled property that returns named issues rather than raw metrics. Missing meta descriptions, absent or duplicated h1 tags, images with no alt attributes, pages under a workable word count, missing canonical tags, redirect chains, absent language declarations and slow responses each arrive with a severity and a count of the pages affected.
That count is what makes the section commercially useful. An issue on four pages is an afternoon; the same issue on ninety is a scoped project worth quoting, and the severity filter lets an account manager separate the two while a client is watching. Because every recommendation names the rule it failed, remediation hands off to a developer without a translation step, and the following scan is the evidence the work landed.
Organic demand is rarely spread the way a media plan assumes it is. The country view ranks every reported market by clicks or impressions, with a share bar and the click-through rate and average position each market earns, so a property that quietly ranks well outside its home territory shows up as a fact rather than a hunch. Read next to the query table, it is usually the quickest way to find the translation, hreflang or regional-content gap worth scoping as work.
Every view here is scoped to a single client and presented with your agency branding, beside the paid Microsoft reporting and the other organic reporting in the same workspace, so a cross-channel discussion never needs a second tab. The search-type filter, the date range and the export control behave the way they do in every other report your team already runs. The workspace supplies the structure and the presentation; connecting a data source stays a separate step, handled once per client account.
It is Microsoft's counterpart to Search Console for its own index: clicks, impressions, click-through rate and average position for the queries and pages Bing ranks, plus index coverage, crawl health, sitemaps, backlinks and site-scan recommendations. The report lays those out as tabs for one client at a time, so a Bing organic figure can be quoted in the same conversation as the Google one.
They describe different indexes, so they disagree by design. Bing publishes its own crawl statistics — request volume, response time and every failed fetch — and a backlink index of its own, independent of anything Search Console reports. Reading both is how you tell a site-wide technical fault from one engine's ranking preference.
Different crawlers, a different index and different ranking signals. A page Google keeps may be excluded by Bing, and the terms a site ranks for on one engine are rarely the same set as the other. The queries and pages tabs are worth reading precisely because they surface phrases the Google side of the report never shows.
Yes, and it is one of the few sources that reports them without a paid subscription. The backlinks tab covers external links, the number of referring domains, which pages attract them and the anchor text used. That gives an agency a second, independent view of a client's link profile alongside whatever tooling it already pays for.
It is worth reporting when the client's audience is actually there — desktop-heavy, in-market, and increasingly arriving through Microsoft's assistant surfaces. Because the report is built per client, the answer is visible rather than assumed: clicks, impressions and the countries they came from, next to whatever the same site is doing on the other engine.
