zapf.wiki
Its Domain Power Rank is moderate.
- Global Rank
- #2,059,303
▼ 52,816
- Rank in TLD
- #403
▼ 22
- Referring Domains
- 25
－
- Avg. Referrer Power Rank
- 42.7
- Subdomains
- 0
- Domain age
- 11 yr 0 mo
Link Overview
- Avg. Referrer Power Rank
- 42.7
- Median Referrer Power Rank
- 51.1
- Referring Domains
- 25
- Linked Domains
- 235
Referring Domains by Power Rank
0–9 0
10–19 5
20–29 6
30–39 1
40–49 0
50–59 6
60–69 6
70–79 1
80–89 0
90–100 0
Total 25
Referring Domains
| Referring domain | Power Rank | Global Rank |
|---|---|---|
| bundestag.de | 73.6 | #1,683 |
| rwth-aachen.de | 69.4 | #3,770 |
| uni-tuebingen.de | 67.9 | #4,789 |
| uni-muenster.de | 66.8 | #5,728 |
| uni-wuerzburg.de | 64.5 | #8,107 |
| uni-potsdam.de | 63.3 | #9,801 |
| pdffiller.com | 62.9 | #10,418 |
| signnow.com | 59.9 | #17,841 |
| b-tu.de | 57.3 | #28,318 |
| zapf.in | 55.0 | #41,606 |
Basic Information
- TLD
- .wiki
- Registration date
- 11 Oct 2015
- Last updated
- 11 Oct 2026
- Expires
- 11 Oct 2026 (The published expiration date passed 25 days ago.)
- Domain statuses
- clientTransferProhibited
- Registry
- Registry Services, LLC
- Registrar
- INWX GmbH
Subdomain
No data
DNS
| Type | Name | TTL | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | zapf.wiki | 60 | 116.202.37.51 |
| MX | zapf.wiki | 60 | 10 mail.zapf.in |
| NS | zapf.wiki | 60 | ns.inwx.de |
| NS | zapf.wiki | 60 | ns2.inwx.de |
| NS | zapf.wiki | 60 | ns2.zapf.in |
| NS | zapf.wiki | 60 | ns3.inwx.eu |
| NS | zapf.wiki | 60 | ns4.inwx.com |
| NS | zapf.wiki | 60 | ns5.inwx.net |
| SOA | zapf.wiki | 3600 | ns2.zapf.in. hostmaster.zapf.wiki. 2025111504 10800 3600 604800 3600 |
| TXT | zapf.wiki | 60 | v=spf1 ip4:116.202.37.51 ip4:116.202.37.52 -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.