GEO report · public sharing
screamingfrog.co.uk
Technical AI readiness measured using Geoa’s free GEO-test — 15 dimensions that determine whether ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Perplexity can read, understand and quote the site.
Last scanned: 2026-10-02 · Back to the benchmark
83.3
/100
Grade: B
Strong technical AI readiness — the site is easy for AI search engines to read and cite. Dimensions marked ‘not measured’ are treated as neutral, typically because the site blocks automatic measurements.
Strong technical AI readiness — the site is easy for AI search engines to read and cite. Dimensions marked ‘not measured’ are treated as neutral, typically because the site blocks automatic measurements.
Your Google visibility
93/100
Grade A
Your AI visibility
73/100
Grade C
The 15 dimensions
🤖 AI Crawler Accessibility
100
- All pages in your sitemap share the same lastmod date — it looks auto-generated, and search engines learn to ignore it
🖥️ Server-Side Rendering
100
- Content appears in HTML — SSR friendly ✓
📄 llms.txt
0
- No /llms.txt found — strongly recommended for AI visibility. Call POST /llms-txt/generate/{customer_id} to generate one automatically.
- Ingen /llms-full.txt — anbefalet supplement til llms.txt med fuld sideindholdsindeks. llms-full.txt øger citering på Claude og ChatGPT ved at give dem adgang til komplet kontekst.
📊 Structured Data
75
No issues found ✓
📝 Basic Page Signals
80
- Heading hierarchy skips levels (e.g. H2→H4)
💬 Content Citability
65
- BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front) missing — the key point should appear in the first 60 words
- Only 0/26 headings are questions (0%) — recommend 10%+
🏷️ Brand Entity
65
- No Wikipedia page — a strong signal for AI authority
- No Wikidata entry — less entity recognition in AI
🔒 Security
100
- Security-headers kunne ikke måles (HTTP 301, bot-beskyttelse) — ikke medregnet
⚡ Performance
100
No issues found ✓
📱 Mobile Adaptation
100
No issues found ✓
🔗 Internal Links
100
No issues found ✓
⭐ E-E-A-T Content Quality
88
No issues found ✓
🎯 Platform Optimization
90
- Only 1/2 community validation signals found — recommend Trustpilot, G2, case studies or LinkedIn
🗂️ Schema Recommendations
90
- Missing FAQPage schema — FAQs are frequently cited in AI answers
🔢 Empirical Content Data
65
- Lav empirisk tæthed: kun 2 af 55 sætninger indeholder konkrete tal, procenter eller kvantificerede resultater. At tilføje statistikker var blandt de mest effektive ændringer i KDD'24-studiet (30-40 % på studiets primære synlighedsmål)
- Intet konkret case-resultat fundet (fx 'sagsbehandlingstid fra 3 uger til 4 dage'). Kundehistorier med målbare resultater er stærkt citerbart indhold — brug kun tal, I selv har målt, og skriv gerne hvornår
- Lav teknisk forklaringsdybde (0 sætninger forklarer mekanismen bag jeres løsning). AI prioriterer indhold der forklarer HVORDAN frem for HVAD ('vi bruger RAG + vektor-søgning til ...')
How does your website score?
Same engine, same 15 dimensions — run Geoa’s free GEO-test on your own domain and get a report like this in under a minute.
Run the free AI Visibility Checker →