Link exchanges
Reciprocal Links and ABC Exchanges: How Link Trading Actually Works
The short version
- Direct swaps fail because the relationship is visible on both backlink profiles.
- ABC exchanges add a third site so the two trading parties never link to each other.
- Agencies hold inventory: partner pools and link slots bought 20, 50 or 100 at a time.
- Google names link exchanges in its spam policies. ABC is the discreet version, not the compliant one.
Most SaaS links are traded, not earned and not straightforwardly bought. Almost nobody writes down how the trading works.
I have spent the last few years on the inside of that market, and the mechanics are less mysterious and more mundane than people expect. They are also, in Google's own words, a link scheme. I am going to explain both parts, because a piece that describes the machinery without the risk is marketing, and a piece that describes the risk without the machinery is useless.
Why direct swaps stopped working
The simplest version of a link trade is two sites linking to each other. You link to me, I link to you.
It fails, and the reason is arithmetic rather than morality. Do enough of them and the only sites linking to you are the same sites you link to. That pattern is trivially visible to anyone looking, including Google, which names it explicitly.
Set aside how heavily you think it gets penalised. The bigger problem is that it does not scale and it wastes your best asset. Every outbound link you give is currency. Spending it on a one-for-one swap with a single partner is the worst exchange rate available to you.
The ABC structure
So a third site enters the arrangement.
Site A links to site C. Site B links to site A. The two companies actually doing the trading, A and B, never link to each other. There is no visible relationship between them at all.
That is the entire idea. It is not sophisticated. It just removes the footprint that makes a direct swap obvious, and it means each company can trade with many partners without any of those relationships showing up as a pattern.
| Direct swap | ABC exchange | Paid placement | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Visible relationship between the two parties | Yes, unavoidable | None | None |
| Scales past a handful of partners | No | Yes | Yes |
| Requires you to own a linkable site | Yes | Yes | No |
| Cash changes hands | No | Usually not | Yes |
| Named in Google's spam policies | Yes, explicitly | Yes, as a link scheme | Yes, explicitly |
Note the last row. The ABC structure is quieter than a direct swap. It is not more compliant. Anyone selling it to you as the safe option is selling you something.
Where the inventory actually comes from
This is the part that surprises founders.
Agencies do not usually go and find a site for your specific link. They already hold inventory. They buy link slots in bulk, often twenty, fifty or a hundred at a time, and they maintain a partner pool of companies that have agreed to trade. When you buy a link, you are drawing on stock that already exists, which is why an agency can place something in days and you cannot.
Some of that supply is cheap. There are sites selling placements at fifty to a hundred dollars, and there is a reason for the price. The quality range in this market is enormous, which is worth understanding before you assume a placement is a placement. I have set out what different link tiers actually cost separately.
The other route in is partnership rather than purchase. Other founders, other agencies, even competitors. That last one sounds wrong and is not: two SaaS companies in adjacent categories can find genuinely useful opportunities for each other without either being a threat. Some of the most durable trading relationships I have are with people who, on paper, compete with me.
The rules that keep it defensible
If you are going to trade, trade well. The companies doing this properly have guidelines and stick to them.
Link only where it is contextually relevant. If the placement would not make sense to a reader, it does not go in. This is the rule that does the most work, because a contextually sensible link on a real page is the one thing in this whole system that is genuinely defensible.
Cap your outbound volume. Ten links a month from a site publishing serious content volume raises nothing. The same ten on a thin site is your entire outbound profile.
Do not hand your domain to strangers. Your content strategy should stay with you or with a long-term partner who understands your positioning. Letting freelancers publish on your domain in exchange for links is how sites end up with content that reads like it was written for a machine, because it was.
Vary what you give. Different pages, different anchors, different partners. A ledger that shows the same anchor going to the same category of site every month is its own footprint.
Keep a ledger, because links disappear
The operational half of this is unglamorous and it is where most in-house attempts fall apart.
You need to track what you have given and what you have received. A spreadsheet is genuinely fine. So is a purpose-built tool. What matters is that somebody can answer, at any moment, whether the trade is balanced and whether the links you were promised are still live.
They often are not. Expect somewhere around five to ten percent of links to disappear over time. Most of that is innocent: sites update content, articles get rewritten, links get dropped without malice. Some of it is not. There are freelancers who will quietly remove your link, or replace it with a competitor's, once the invoice is paid.
The industry standard guarantee is a year. If you are working with an agency and they have not mentioned link retention at all, ask, because it tells you whether they are tracking placements after delivery or forgetting about them the moment they invoice.
| What to track | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Links given, with the target and anchor | Stops you over-spending your outbound budget on one partner |
| Links received, with the placement URL | The other half of the balance |
| Live status, checked periodically | Five to ten percent quietly vanish |
| Date placed and guarantee window | Most guarantees run a year |
| Partner and relationship owner | Trades run on people, and people move on |
The honest risk section
Here is the part most agency blog posts skip.
Google's spam policies name this directly. The link spam section lists "Excessive link exchanges ('Link to me and I'll link to you') or partner pages exclusively for the sake of cross-linking", and separately lists "Buying or selling links for ranking purposes", which includes "Exchanging money for links, or posts that contain links". You can read the full link spam policy yourself.
So no, this is not a grey area in terms of what the guidelines say. It is clearly named.
What is also true, and what nobody in the industry will say on the record often enough, is that a very large share of SaaS link building runs on exactly this. Enforcement in practice targets obvious footprints and low-quality networks rather than individual contextual placements on genuine sites. The word doing the work in Google's own wording is "excessive".
That is a commercial risk decision, and you should make it with your eyes open rather than because someone told you ABC exchanges are the compliant version. They are the discreet version. Those are different things.
If that risk is not one you want to take, the honest alternative is not a cleverer scheme. It is publishing something people cite without being asked, which is slower, lumpier, and the only route that carries no downside at all.
Who this actually works for
| Where you are | Can you trade? | What to do instead |
|---|---|---|
| New site, thin content, low authority | No, you have nothing to offer | Build the asset first |
| Real blog, modest authority | Yes, at roughly parity | Trade selectively, cap outbound volume |
| Strong site, 20,000+ monthly visitors | Yes, above parity | Trade at two or three to one |
| Enterprise with brand risk | Usually not worth it | Editorial placements and original research |
The dividing line is whether you own something worth trading. If you do not, no amount of understanding the structure helps you, and that is the real reason most in-house link building stalls in its first quarter. I have gone through that decision in detail in the honest maths on buying versus building, and the assets worth creating in our piece on what makes a site linkable.
What I would actually tell you to do
If you have a real site and you want to trade, do it with a small number of partners you would still want a relationship with if links stopped existing tomorrow. Keep the placements contextual, keep a ledger, check your links every quarter, and do not let anyone publish on your domain.
If you are hiring someone to do this, ask them where their inventory comes from and what happens when a link gets removed. The answers will tell you more than any case study. There is a fuller list of those questions in how to tell a good provider from a bad one.
And if you would rather someone else held the partner pool, that is broadly what we do.
Frequently asked questions
What is an ABC link exchange?
A three way trade. Site A links to site C, and site B links to site A, so the two companies actually doing the trading never link to each other. It removes the visible footprint that a direct reciprocal swap leaves on both backlink profiles.
Are reciprocal links bad for SEO?
Google's spam policies name excessive link exchanges and partner pages that exist only for cross-linking. A handful of genuine reciprocal links between relevant sites is normal and unavoidable. A backlink profile made mostly of sites you also link to is a pattern, and that is the part that causes problems.
How many links can I safely give out from my own site?
There is no published number, and anyone quoting you one is guessing. In practice around ten contextual outbound links a month from a site publishing serious content volume goes unnoticed. The same ten on a thin site is your entire outbound profile.
What is a good link exchange ratio?
One to one if your site is comparable to your partner's. Once your site is genuinely stronger, two to one and three to one are both achievable, because the link you are giving is worth more than the one you are getting.
How many exchanged links get removed over time?
Expect roughly five to ten percent to disappear. Most of it is content updates and rewrites rather than bad faith, though some freelancers do quietly remove or swap links after payment. The industry standard guarantee is one year.