Free AI Website Audit — Get Your AIReady™ Score

When we started auditing sites, we kept running into the same problem: a business would have decent Google rankings but zero presence in ChatGPT or Perplexity responses. That gap is what AEO — Answer Engine Optimization — is designed to close. It is the work of structuring your content so AI systems can actually read it, understand what you do, and choose to cite you when someone asks a relevant question. Google themselves now call this just “SEO for generative AI” — because their AI Overviews pull from the same index as regular search. The difference is that AI engines reward clarity, specificity, and authority signals that traditional SEO often ignores.

The AIReady™ Score is something our founder Lindsey created when she was building this tool and needed a single number to answer the question: how prepared is this site for AI search? There was no standard metric for it, so she built one. It runs 0–100 and is calculated from 40+ signals we check on every audit — things like whether AI crawlers can access your site, whether your schema markup is correct, whether your content is structured in a way that AI can extract and cite, and whether your authority signals are strong enough to be trusted. A high score means AI engines can find you, understand you, and are likely to surface you. A low score means something is blocking that — and we tell you exactly what.

Yes, completely free. When we built this tool, we made a deliberate decision not to gate it behind a signup wall or a credit card. We wanted anyone to be able to find out where they stand with AI search without having to commit to anything first. You submit your URL and contact info, and we send back your full AIReady™ Score plus a prioritized report of every issue we found — usually within 24 hours. No account, no trial, no catch.

From everything we have seen auditing sites, the pattern is consistent: AI engines cite sources that are crawlable, clearly structured, and authoritative. That means your robots.txt needs to allow bots like GPTBot and PerplexityBot, your content needs to directly answer specific questions rather than talk around them, and your site needs enough authority signals — backlinks, author credentials, schema markup — for AI to trust you as a source. One thing worth knowing: Google has confirmed that llms.txt files do not affect Google AI Overviews at all. They may help other AI systems, but they are not a shortcut to citations. Genuine content quality and technical accessibility are what actually move the needle.

Traditional SEO gets you into the list of blue links. AEO gets you into the answer itself. When we were building this audit, we kept finding sites that ranked well on Google but were completely absent from AI-generated responses — because the signals that drive AI citations are different from the signals that drive rankings. Google has said publicly that their generative AI features are built on the same core ranking systems as regular search, so the foundations overlap. But AI engines also reward things like direct Q&A structure, entity clarity, and content that goes beyond common knowledge — things that traditional SEO tools do not measure. That is the gap our audit was built to find.

We check 40+ signals across the areas that actually determine AI visibility. That includes whether AI crawlers like GPTBot, PerplexityBot, and ClaudeBot can access your site; whether your schema markup is present and correctly implemented; whether your content is structured to answer specific questions directly; whether your authority and E-E-A-T signals are strong enough for AI to trust you as a source; and whether your site is set up for RAG — the retrieval method most AI systems use to pull in real-time web content. At the end, you get a prioritized list of what to fix first, not just a score.

When Lindsey was designing the scoring model, she grouped the signals into five areas based on what we were consistently seeing block AI visibility across the sites we audited: technical crawlability (can AI bots actually get in?), structured data (does your schema tell AI what you are and what you do?), content clarity (are you answering questions directly, or dancing around them?), authority signals (do backlinks, author credentials, and E-E-A-T give AI a reason to trust you?), and AI-specific configuration (robots.txt directives, RAG-friendly formatting, and content depth). Most sites we audit have gaps in at least two of these areas.

When we were calibrating the scoring, we found that most sites we audited landed between 35 and 65 before any optimization work. A score of 80 or above means your site has the core signals in place — AI engines can find you, understand you, and are likely to cite you. Between 50 and 79, you have a functional foundation but fixable gaps that are probably costing you visibility. Below 50 usually means something structural is blocking AI access or comprehension — and that is where we see the biggest gains after fixing the issues we flag.

An SEO score tells you how well your site is set up for Google’s traditional ranking algorithm — keywords, backlinks, page speed, Core Web Vitals. An AIReady™ Score tells you how well your site is set up for AI-generated answers — ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, Claude. The reason we built a separate score is that we kept seeing sites with strong SEO scores that were completely invisible in AI responses. A site can rank on page one of Google and still never get cited by an AI engine, because the signals that drive AI citations — entity clarity, direct answers, structured data, content depth beyond common knowledge — are different from what traditional SEO tools optimize for.

The highest-impact fixes we see across audits are: making sure AI crawlers are allowed in your robots.txt, adding or correcting schema markup (Organization, FAQPage, Article), writing content that directly answers specific questions rather than covering topics broadly, and strengthening your E-E-A-T signals — author credentials, about pages, citations. One thing we want to be honest about: there are no shortcuts. Google has confirmed that tactics like llms.txt files, content chunking, and keyword stuffing for AI do not work for Google Search. What works is the same thing that has always worked — content that is genuinely useful, technically accessible, and clearly structured. Our audit tells you exactly where your site falls short on those fundamentals.