Original research
The State of LLM Visibility
We ran LLCrawler's free audit on 111 real websites and aggregated the results. This is what AI readiness looks like across the web right now — average scores, the most common failures, and how few sites have the basics in place.
Why this matters
Projected drop in traditional search volume by 2026 as users shift queries to AI assistants. If buyers ask ChatGPT instead of Google, being citable is the new being rankable.
Gartner (2024)Weekly active users on ChatGPT by early 2026 — a discovery channel that barely existed two years ago. The sites AI cites are the ones it can read and trust.
TechCrunch (2026)How sites score
The most common issues we find
Share of audited sites where each issue showed up at least once.
| Issue | Severity | % of sites |
|---|---|---|
| No BreadcrumbList or SiteLinksSearchBox | Warning | 83% |
| No /llms-full.txt file found | Warning | 70% |
| No review platform links | Warning | 62% |
| No first-party expertise language | Warning | 58% |
| No citations or references found | Warning | 55% |
| No credential or expertise signals | Warning | 52% |
| No detectable FAQ section | Warning | 52% |
| No publication or update date found | Critical | 47% |
Methodology
Figures are aggregated from 111 completed LLCrawler audits of public websites. Each audit crawls the homepage plus up to nine internal pages and scores six categories: structured data, content structure, meta and social tags, performance, AI readiness (llms.txt, robots.txt directives, JavaScript dependency), and sitemap. Issues are counted once per site. Numbers update as more sites are analyzed.
How does your site compare?
Run the same free audit on your own site and see your LLM visibility score in about 30 seconds. No signup.
Audit my site free