Short version: there isn’t a “best” free YouTube keyword tool, there’s a stack, and the core of that stack is actually hiding in YouTube Studio.
Since @cacadordeestrelas already covered external sources like comments, Reddit and Google, here’s a different angle that lives mostly inside YouTube itself plus a couple of lightweight helpers.
1. Your actual best free keyword tool: YouTube Studio > Research tab
Most people sleep on this because it looks basic, but for small channels it is pure signal.
What it gives you:
- What your viewers are searching for on YouTube
- How often those terms show up (low / medium / high)
- Whether a topic is marked “Content gap”
How to use it:
- Go to Analytics → Research
- Type broad niche terms: “digital art,” “valorant settings,” “budget camera,” whatever
- Save queries that show “content gap” or have medium / high search volume but few solid videos
Use those phrases in:
- Title core: “How to Color Lineart in Procreate (Beginner Friendly)”
- First 1–2 lines of the description in natural language
- 5–10 tags that are close variations, not spam
This is not as flashy as a Chrome extension score, but it is based on your actual audience behavior, not generic averages.
2. YouTube search bar + filters as a live keyword map
Type a seed phrase and let autocomplete finish it. That is YouTube telling you what people are already searching.
What to do differently from what has already been suggested:
- Type your core idea, then a space, then each letter of the alphabet
- “capcut t” gives “capcut transitions smooth,” “capcut text animation,” etc.
- For each autocomplete phrase, click it, then:
- Filter by “This year” and sort by “View count”
- Find videos from channels close to your size that still have decent views
- Instead of copying titles, steal the angle:
- Are they promising speed (“in 5 minutes”)
- Result (“cinematic transitions”)
- Difficulty (“for absolute beginners”)
I slightly disagree with ignoring bigger channels completely. You can still use them as benchmarks for angles. They show you what the algorithm understands well, you just niche down the same topic.
3. vidIQ / TubeBuddy free tiers, but used like a sniper
You said a lot of the good stuff gets paywalled. True. The trick is to use them for 2 things only, not as “decision gods.”
Use them for:
- “View velocity” and “historical performance” of similar titles
- Basic keyword variations in the sidebar
Then stop. Ignore the “overall keyword score” obsession. Scores are based on fuzzy math and huge channels. For a small creator:
- Relevance to your specific video
- Clarity for a human reading it
- Match with your thumbnail promise
are more important than a green bar.
4. YouTube Analytics as a free intent detector
Once you have a few videos, your own data beats every external tool.
Inside each video:
- Go to “Traffic source: YouTube search”
- Look at the specific search terms that brought views
- You will see slightly different phrases than what you targeted
Use those terms to:
- Reword future titles to match how people actually searched
- Add 1–2 of the strongest phrases into your descriptions and tags
This is where I disagree a bit with the “tags are only 5 percent.” They are still minor, yes, but for small channels with chaotic niches, clean, focused tags can help YouTube cluster your video with the right neighbors. Not magic, just a tiny advantage that stacks over time.
5. Reality check on “free YouTube keyword tool” expectations
Most keyword tools, free or paid, share the same problems:
- They estimate volume based on partial data
- They can’t see watch time or satisfaction
- They overvalue broad phrases that are useless for a tiny channel
So instead of hunting for The Perfect Free Tool, set this rule:
- Every video idea must answer one specific question or scenario a real person could say out loud
Then:
- Use Studio Research and YouTube search to get phrasing
- Use Analytics to refine over time
- Use extensions sparingly to speed up research, not dictate it
You’ll get more growth from 20 sharply defined videos than 200 “SEO-optimized” but vague ones.
Pros & cons of this “YouTube-native stack” approach:
Pros
- Completely free, built into YouTube
- Based on what your viewers and similar viewers actually do
- No limits, credits, or trial walls
- Scales with your channel instead of guessing from generic data
Cons
- Less “shiny” than tools with fancy scores
- Takes more manual thinking and pattern-spotting
- No clear “this keyword is 87/100, go make it” simplicity
- Requires at least a few uploads before Analytics really shines
@cacadordeestrelas is absolutely right that real human language is the gold. I’d just anchor it more inside YouTube Studio and search instead of spreading your time across too many sites. Think of external tools and websites as accelerators, not decision makers.