Crawlability
Can AI crawlers reach and render the page?
One URL becomes a 0–100 AEO score, a five-signal evidence trail, and a fix queue your team can actually ship.
Public pages only · no signup · shareable report
Every point maps to a visible rule. The same page produces the same result, which makes before-and-after work measurable.
Understand the methodology →Can AI crawlers reach and render the page?
Does machine-readable markup explain the page?
Can answer engines isolate the useful content?
Does the page provide direct, supportable answers?
Are canonical, social, and mobile signals complete?
Fetch the public HTML and crawler directives without calling an AI model.
Run deterministic checks across access, structure, extraction, answers, and signals.
Turn missed rules into a sequenced fix queue with the evidence attached.
AEO is already full of vague probability claims. This checker uses observable page signals so teams can reproduce a result, ship a fix, and measure the change.
Short answers about the score, the rule engine, privacy, and what to change first.
Read the full AEO field guide →AEO is the practice of structuring your content so AI answer engines — ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude — can find, understand, and quote it directly. Where SEO optimizes for blue links, AEO optimizes for being the cited answer.
SEO helps you rank in search results; AEO helps you become the answer inside AI responses. Many fundamentals overlap (crawlability, structured data), but AEO adds answer readiness — clear Q&A pairs, definitions, and citations.
Yes — deterministically. Our engine is pure rules, no AI guesswork. The same URL always returns the same score, so you can trust it for before/after comparisons.
No. Detection runs entirely on a rule engine with zero token cost. A future Pro tier may add real-time AI citation checks, but the core score never depends on an LLM.
We evaluate crawlability for the major AI crawlers — GPTBot (OpenAI), Google-Extended (Gemini / AI Overviews), PerplexityBot, Claude-Web (Anthropic) and Common Crawl (CCBot).
It's a weighted blend of five dimensions: Crawlability (20%), Structured Data (25%), Extractability (25%), Answer Readiness (20%) and Visibility (10%). 90+ is excellent, 70+ good, 50+ average, 30+ poor, below 30 critical.
Human-visible ≠ AI-readable. Common killers: no structured data, missing FAQ/Q&A pairs, thin content, or a JS-rendered shell with no server HTML. The report pinpoints exactly which.
If a page is unreachable (non-200), its Crawlability score is 0 and the total is capped at 30. That red banner means fix access first — no content tweak will help until crawlers can reach the page.
Absolutely. Agencies can export a branded PDF or share an audit URL that reruns the same public page. Batch history and white-label branding are on the roadmap.
The basic check is stateless. Optional signed-in history (a later release) stores only the URL, score and timestamp so you can track trends.
Usually a few seconds. Slow target servers, redirects, and robots.txt responses can extend the check, and bounded timeouts prevent a stalled page from hanging indefinitely.
Yes. The checker is free with no account. A Pro tier with real-time AI citation detection is planned but optional.
Yes. Every report has an "Export PDF" button that opens the browser's print dialog with a branded score summary, all five dimensions, rule evidence, recommendations, and any available code examples.
The tool is English-first. Several answer-readiness checks currently rely on English-language patterns, so non-English pages may score lower than they should. Broader multilingual analysis is on the roadmap.
Start with the Critical cards: add JSON-LD (FAQPage + HowTo + Organization), write 3+ FAQ Q&A pairs, and ensure the page returns HTTP 200 with AI crawlers allowed in robots.txt. Each fix typically lifts the score 5–10 points.