cw.no
Its Domain Power Rank is moderate.
- Global Rank
- #184,366
▲ 9,214
- Rank in TLD
- #542
▲ 20
- Referring Domains
- 345
▲ 7
- Avg. Referrer Power Rank
- 29.8
- Subdomains
- 12
- Domain age
- 10 yr 11 mo
Link Overview
- Avg. Referrer Power Rank
- 29.8
- Median Referrer Power Rank
- 28.4
- Referring Domains
- 345
- Linked Domains
- 1,128
Referring Domains by Power Rank
0–9 37
10–19 62
20–29 90
30–39 70
40–49 42
50–59 30
60–69 9
70–79 3
80–89 1
90–100 1
Total 345
Referring Domains
| Referring domain | Power Rank | Global Rank |
|---|---|---|
| wikipedia.org | 91.8 | #34 |
| weebly.com | 87.4 | #85 |
| sap.com | 79.3 | #562 |
| techradar.com | 76.6 | #936 |
| macrumors.com | 70.8 | #2,930 |
| regjeringen.no | 69.6 | #3,609 |
| knowbe4.com | 67.5 | #5,161 |
| uib.no | 66.2 | #6,228 |
| windowscentral.com | 65.9 | #6,470 |
| biztechmagazine.com | 65.8 | #6,606 |
Basic Information
Subdomain
academy.cw.noadmin.cw.noapi.cw.nobilag.cw.nocm.cw.noeavis.cw.noevent.cw.nowww.event.cw.noimage.cw.nomedieinfo.cw.nowhitepaper.cw.nowww.cw.no
DNS
| Type | Name | TTL | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | cw.no | 300 | 15.197.188.249 |
| A | cw.no | 300 | 3.33.166.206 |
| MX | cw.no | 300 | 0 cw-no.mail.protection.outlook.com |
| NS | cw.no | 300 | dns11.teknograd.no |
| NS | cw.no | 300 | dns10.teknograd.no |
| NS | cw.no | 300 | dns12.teknograd.no |
| SOA | cw.no | 300 | dns10.teknograd.no. hostmaster.teknograd.no. 3000010940 28800 7200 604800 86400 |
| TXT | cw.no | 300 | MS=ms52743999 |
| TXT | cw.no | 300 | google-site-verification=Yj_dItbiIy6iilHdk3FQ7WOYWcddddpftkpu9MPCtYs |
| TXT | cw.no | 300 | v=spf1 include:spf.protection.outlook.com include:spf.mandrillapp.com include:sendgrid.net ip4:5.10.29.253 ~all |
Email Authentication
- MX
- Valid
- SPF
- Valid
- DMARC
- Warning
DMARC is set to p=none, which does not ask receiving servers to quarantine or reject failing messages.
Some information is cached or comes from our own analysis, so it may not be current or complete. Our link analysis does not cover every link on the web. Metrics are based on our own methodology and should not be taken as definitive assessments of a domain’s or service’s quality or trustworthiness.