GA4 & GTM Audit Tool - Tracking Auditor

Audit your GA4 + GTM setup. Graded A to F in 2 minutes.

Analytics

Marketing

Data & Analytics

Visit WebsiteSee on Product Hunt

Tracking Auditor was built around one observation from years of agency work: on almost every account, the tracking is quietly wrong, and nobody knows. Not dramatically broken. Quietly wrong. A purchase event that fires twice, so revenue reads 8% high. Tags that fire before the cookie banner is answered. A conversion that stopped recording after a site update, discovered three months later. The reports keep rendering normal-looking charts the whole time, and real budget decisions get made on them. Checking for this by hand takes the better part of a day: open GTM, open GA4, open DevTools, walk the checkout, cross-reference every key event against every tag. Every manual audit found something. Tracking Auditor turns that checklist into a product. How it works: it connects to your GA4 property and GTM container read-only, analyses the setup against 30 days of your real traffic data, and grades it A to F across five weighted dimensions: consent (30%), GTM governance (20%), GA4 event quality (20%), cookies (15%) and conversion integrity (15%). The cross-referencing is the point. A tag scanner can't tell you a key event has no tag behind it; checking GA4 and GTM together can. Every finding comes out in plain English with a prioritised fix plan, and it exports to a client-ready Google Doc and Sheet. Agencies can white-label the whole thing, which matters because the people who run these audits most often are the ones delivering them to clients. A few principles behind the build: Read-only, always. It never changes anything in your accounts. Findings are signals to verify, not verdicts. Some checks flag risk from configuration patterns, so the report says so instead of pretending certainty. Region-aware consent scoring. A US site under opt-out rules isn't judged like a UK site under GDPR. Your first audit is free, no card. Connect, get your grade, see where the problems are. We'd genuinely like to know what grade your setup gets, and especially where you think a finding is wrong. That feedback is how the checks get sharper.