A fixed-scope diagnostic of exactly how AI systems see your brand today — crawler access, entity resolution, schema coverage, and real citation share against the competitors currently winning your category's prompts.
Most brands have no idea whether AI systems can read their site, how those systems describe them, or which competitors are being recommended in their place. They're not being careless — until recently there was no established way to check, and the tools most teams own don't report on any of it.
The audit exists to replace that uncertainty with numbers. We test what AI crawlers actually receive from your site, benchmark the questions your category genuinely gets asked, measure what share of those answers name you, and identify who's winning the rest.
It's deliberately sold as a standalone, fixed-fee engagement with no retainer commitment attached. Plenty of clients run the audit, take the roadmap to their internal team, and execute it themselves. That's a legitimate outcome, and we'd rather be useful than lock you into work you don't need.
Both are legitimate. The right answer depends on whether your constraint is knowing what to do or having capacity to do it.
Best for: Teams with strong internal SEO or dev capacity who need direction rather than delivery.
Best for: Teams without spare implementation capacity, or those wanting the measurement layer to continue.
Four assessment areas, each producing a scored finding set with specific, actionable remediation attached rather than generic advice.
Whether GPTBot, ClaudeBot, PerplexityBot, and Google-Extended can reach and render your pages — tested per user agent, including render parity against what a browser sees.
Whether models can resolve your brand to a specific entity: schema coverage and accuracy, naming consistency, sameAs corroboration, and knowledge graph presence.
Whether your priority pages are structurally capable of being quoted — answer position, self-containment, query alignment, and declared hierarchy.
Where you actually appear across a benchmarked prompt set, per platform, against the competitors currently occupying those answers.
Every audit produces the same six deliverables. Nothing is held back to create a reason to sign a retainer — you get the complete picture and the full roadmap.
Every finding documented with evidence, impact rating, and specific remediation — not a generic checklist with your logo on the cover.
Findings sequenced by impact and effort, so your team knows what to do first, what can wait, and what isn't worth doing at all.
The raw benchmark data — every prompt tested, every platform, who was cited. Yours to keep and re-run independently later.
Which competitors own the answers you want, roughly why they're winning them, and where the realistic openings are.
Developer-ready detail for the technical findings — actual directives, markup, and rendering changes, not vague recommendations.
A 60-minute session with the strategist who ran the audit, to work through findings and pressure-test the roadmap against your constraints.
After running these repeatedly, certain failure patterns recur. Here's what we most commonly uncover, by business type.
Modern JS frameworks are the single most frequent blocker. Sites that look perfect in a browser routinely deliver an empty shell to crawlers that don't execute JavaScript.
Product markup is usually present but incomplete or inaccurate — missing availability, stale pricing, or review markup that doesn't validate.
Service firms usually have the expertise and none of the entity signals. Models can't resolve who they are, so their content reads as anonymous.
Large organizations rarely fail technically. They fail through contradiction — regions, business units, and legacy pages describing the same entity incompatibly.
Two to three weeks from kickoff to walkthrough. You'll need to provide access in week one; everything after that is on us.
We take Search Console and analytics access, then crawl your site as each major AI user agent and compare against browser-rendered output.
We build and run the category prompt set across every platform, recording who's cited, and map how models currently describe your brand.
Findings are scored by AI visibility impact and implementation effort, then sequenced into a roadmap your team can actually work through.
Report, roadmap, and raw data delivered, followed by a 60-minute walkthrough to pressure-test priorities against your real constraints.
We deliberately built this as a self-contained product. The roadmap is written for your team to execute, the benchmark data is yours to re-run, and the technical spec is developer-ready. If you never speak to us again, it should still have been worth it.
The questions clients ask us most before starting. If yours isn't here, ask us directly on a consultation call.
It's a fixed-scope diagnostic that measures how AI systems currently see and describe your brand. It covers four areas: whether AI crawlers can access and render your pages, whether models can resolve your brand as an entity, whether your content is structurally extractable, and what share of your category's answers currently name you.
The output is a written findings report, a prioritized 90-day roadmap, the raw benchmark dataset, a competitor gap map, a developer-ready technical spec, and a walkthrough call.
Two to three weeks from kickoff to the walkthrough call. The main variable is how quickly you can provide access — Search Console, analytics, and a crawl of the live site.
Very large sites or complex multi-property setups can run slightly longer, and we'll say so upfront rather than discovering it mid-engagement.
No. It's deliberately structured as a standalone product with no obligation attached. A meaningful share of clients run the audit, take the roadmap in-house, and execute it themselves.
If you do proceed to a retainer, the audit fee is typically credited toward the first month.
Standalone audits typically run in the low five figures, with scope driven by site size, catalog complexity, and how many properties or markets are in play.
We quote a fixed fee before starting. There are no variable costs or scope surprises once it's agreed.
Google Search Console, analytics, and permission to crawl the live site. For ecommerce, product feed access helps considerably. For multi-property setups, a list of every domain and subdomain in scope.
We don't need CMS or code access for the audit itself — that's only relevant if you engage us for implementation afterwards.
Partially. We can review architecture, rendering strategy, schema plan, and content structure against staging. What we can't do is benchmark citation share, because there's nothing indexed to measure.
For pre-launch sites we usually recommend a scoped architecture review instead, then a full audit once you've been live long enough to have a baseline worth measuring.
We combine your existing query data, competitor positioning, and the questions your sales team actually hears from buyers. Then we test how those get phrased conversationally, which is often quite different from how they're typed into a search box.
You review and approve the prompt set before we run it, so the benchmark measures questions you actually care about rather than ones we found convenient.
Then we'll tell you, and the audit will be shorter and cheaper in its recommendations. It happens occasionally, usually with brands that have strong technical foundations and genuine category authority already.
We'd rather deliver that honestly than manufacture urgency. A findings report padded with non-issues to justify a fee is worse than useless.
Substantially. A classic SEO audit examines crawlability, performance, and ranking factors for search engines. This tests AI crawler access specifically per user agent, entity resolution, passage extractability, and citation share against a benchmarked prompt set.
There's overlap in the technical layer, and we flag classic SEO issues we find. But the framing, prioritization, and roughly half the tests are different.
Yes, and it's a common outcome. The technical remediation spec is written to be handed straight to a developer — actual directives, actual markup, actual rendering changes, with enough context to understand why each matters.
Where teams typically get stuck is the entity and citation work, which is less about code and more about sustained external effort. We'll be clear about which findings need specialist help and which don't.
Two to three weeks, a fixed fee, no retainer commitment. You'll know exactly where you stand in AI search and precisely what it would take to change it.
No commitment · 45 minutes · Immediate value
We’ll run your category’s real questions live on the call and tell you honestly whether this is worth your budget. No pitch deck.
Two fields. We’ll crawl your site as GPTBot, ClaudeBot and PerplexityBot, benchmark a sample of your category’s prompts, and send you what we find.
No commitment, no sales sequence. If we’re not a fit, we’ll say so.