LLMaoLLMao

    AI search visibility report · 2026-07-17

    How AI assistants see ft.com

    ft.com has an AI visibility score of 61/100. The site passed 17 of 34 tests. Its strongest areas are Content Structure and Content Freshness. The areas to improve are Citation & Source Quality and Readability.

    How ChatGPT, Claude and Perplexity read ft.com

    Readability30/100

    Result: weak. 0 of 4 tests passed.

    Extremely poor readability scores due to high sentence complexity and length.

    Schema.org Markup74/100

    Result: average. 4 of 5 tests passed.

    Valid JSON-LD present but limited to WebSite; missing critical NewsArticle and Person schemas.

    Authority & Trust Signals64/100

    Result: average. 2 of 5 tests passed.

    Strong trust pages and publication info, but lacks structured author credentials and contact details.

    Citation & Source Quality28/100

    Result: weak. 0 of 4 tests passed.

    Very low outbound linking to external authoritative sources and lack of inline citations for claims.

    Content Freshness75/100

    Result: average. 3 of 4 tests passed.

    Excellent recency and date management, though lacks explicit update/version signals.

    Content Structure85/100

    Result: strong. 4 of 4 tests passed.

    Excellent heading hierarchy and semantic HTML usage. Organization is clear.

    Entity Definition58/100

    Result: weak. 2 of 4 tests passed.

    Good brand consistency and about page, but lacks Person schema for authors.

    Technical Accessibility55/100

    Result: weak. 2 of 4 tests passed.

    Good JS independence and meta descriptions, but actively blocks AI crawlers and lacks social meta.

    How ft.com can improve its AI visibility

    • Unblock AI Crawlers in robots.txt (high priority)
    • Simplify Sentence Structure for LLM Parsing (high priority)
    • Implement NewsArticle and Person Schema (high priority)
    • Enhance Author Bylines with Structured Data (medium priority)
    • Add Social Meta Tags (Open Graph) (medium priority)

    How ft.com compares to its competitors