Weak AI visibility with 5 of 22 criteria passing. Biggest gap: llms.txt file.
Verdict
outrove.ai has a technically accessible foundation (HTTPS enabled, robots.txt and sitemap.xml both returning 200, and semantic elements like main/nav/section), but AEO readiness is currently low with an overall score of 22. The highest-impact machine-readable signals are missing: /llms.txt returns 404, no JSON-LD blocks are detected, and no canonical tag is present. Content is also hard for AI engines to extract confidently, with no direct Q&A pairs, no definition patterns, no quantitative facts, and no FAQ page at /faq (404). The site does show usable baseline structure (12 internal links, 30/30 images with alt text, 8 sitemap URLs with lastmod), but it lacks the authority and extractability layers needed for citation visibility.
Scoreboard
Top Opportunities
Improve Your Score
Guides for the criteria with the most room for improvement
Tidio has a 251-line llms.txt. Crisp has zero. The score gap: +29 points. This single file tells AI assistants exactly what your site does -and without it, they're guessing.
Tidio runs 4 JSON-LD schema types. Crisp runs zero. That's not a coincidence -it's the difference between a 63 and a 34. Structured data is the machine-readable layer AI trusts most.
Our site runs 87 FAQ items across 9 categories with FAQPage schema on every one. That's not excessive -it's how we hit 88/100. Each Q&A pair is a citation opportunity AI can extract in seconds.
AI has a trust hierarchy for sources. At the top: proprietary data and first-hand expert analysis. At the bottom: rewritten Wikipedia articles. We've watched AI preferentially cite sites with original benchmarks -even over bigger competitors.
Want us to improve your score?
We build citation-ready content that AI engines choose as the answer.