Because they are not the same thing bought in different quantities. A foundation pack builds breadth — many placements across many platforms, so a thin profile stops looking thin. A contextual pack buys placement: your link inside the body copy of an article on an independent site that had to agree to publish it. Counting links per rupee across the two is like pricing a taxi against a bus by the seat.
- Where the link sits
- Foundation: a profile, bookmark, wiki entry or web 2.0 post. Contextual: inside the article body.
- Whose site it is on
- Foundation: platforms that accept anyone. Contextual: an independent site that agreed to publish.
- Relevance to your subject
- Foundation: broad by design — diversity is the point. Contextual: niche-relevant, hand-vetted.
- What it is for
- Foundation: breadth and diversity. Contextual: depth on the pages you care most about.
Why the cheaper pack can show a higher DA
You will notice the foundation packs quote DA 30–90 and the contextual packs DA 20–50. Both are accurate, and they measure different things. On a web 2.0 or profile link, the DA belongs to the platform— a page on a big blogging host inherits that host’s score, not its own. On a contextual placement, the DA belongs to the independent site your link is actually on. That is why we quote the smaller number for the dearer pack rather than the flattering one.
Most sites want both, in that order
This page is the breadth half, and it is the right place to start. Once a profile has volume behind it, the usual next move is a smaller number of hand-placed contextual links pointed at the handful of pages that actually earn money. Different job, not a better version of this one.
