Google Trends

I use Google Trends most often to validate whether a topic I'm considering is actually growing or just my own bias. For a client selling outdoor gear, I saw 'winter hiking boots' trending up in September — I published a guide in early October, and it ranked by November peak. Trends told me the timing. The tool is free and fast, and the relative scale, while initially frustrating, proves surprisingly stable across data refreshes. I've come to trust the shape of the line more than any keyword tool's estimated volume.

The 'Related queries' section — especially the 'Rising' filter — is the best feature. It surfaces search terms that are gaining momentum right now, not six months ago. Keyword tools often lag because their data comes from aggregated historical samples; Trends samples current activity daily. I check this filter before writing any content brief.

The category filter is underrated. If you compare 'apple' as a search term, you can filter by Food & Drink or Computers & Electronics to see which interest belongs to the fruit and which to the brand. Without the filter, the data is misleading. I also use search type filters (Image, News, YouTube) to understand which verticals drive demand.

I used to think the 0–100 scale was useless because it doesn't give absolute numbers. Now I see its value: it normalises peaks so I can compare growth rates across terms. A term at 80 that was at 20 last year is exploding, even if its absolute volume is small.

Google Trends is terrible for exact search volume, and that's by design. The 0–100 scale is relative to the term's own peak within the selected time frame. If you compare 'SEO' and 'PPC' side by side, you see which is more popular relative to its own history — not which gets more absolute searches. I once pitched a client on a topic based on strong Trends growth, only to find in Ahrefs that it averaged 20 searches per month. That was a lesson: Trends shows direction, not magnitude.

The data is sampled. Google says it uses 'an unfiltered sample of Google search requests' that is anonymised and aggregated. This means the line can shift when you reload or change a filter. For low-volume queries, the sample may be too small to show any interest at all; the graph stays at 0. I've also noticed that comparing unrelated terms in the same chart is practically useless because each term normalises to its own peak. 'COVID' at 100 and 'SEO' at 30 doesn't mean COVID has 3.3x the searches; it means both hit their respective peaks at different points.

There is no breakdown by device, geography below city level in most cases, or search intent. If I need keyword difficulty, SERP analysis, or volume estimates for budgeting, I have to leave Trends behind. For competitive analysis or tracking exact rank positions, it offers nothing.

For keyword volume estimates and difficulty scores, I still reach for [Semrush](/semrush/) and [Ahrefs](/ahrefs/), even though their data is modelled from clickstream panels rather than Google's direct feed. They give me numbers I can put in a spreadsheet, which clients expect. But they cost money, and their volume estimates can be wildly off for low-competition niches. I've seen Ahrefs show 2,000 searches for a term that my Search Console data says gets 200. I keep that caveat in mind.

For a low-cost supplement, [Keywords Everywhere](/keywords-everywhere/) shows volume estimates directly in the search results and YouTube. It's a browser extension that costs pennies per credit. I use it for quick checks without opening a full platform. [Ubersuggest](/ubersuggest/) is free but its data is less reliable — I've found it inconsistent month to month. [Similarweb](/similarweb/) is better for estimating site traffic than keyword-level data, so I only use it for competitor website comparisons.

I've debated whether to just rely on Trends and skip paid tools entirely. The tradeoff is real data (Trends) versus modelled estimates (paid tools). I've settled on using Trends for early-stage ideation and content timing, then validating with paid tools before committing resources. That combination has saved me from both missing rising trends and over-investing in topics with low absolute demand. If I could only keep one, I'd keep Trends — it tells me what is happening now, which is what I need most.