AI search visibility report · 2026-10-26
How AI assistants see carnegieendowment.org
carnegieendowment.org has an AI visibility score of 39/100. The site passed 8 of 34 tests. Its strongest areas are Technical Accessibility and Content Structure. The areas to improve are Content Freshness and Schema.org Markup.
How ChatGPT, Claude and Perplexity read carnegieendowment.org
Readability35/100
Result: weak. 0 of 4 tests passed.
Very low readability scores due to extremely long sentences and complex academic language.
Schema.org Markup0/100
Result: weak. 0 of 5 tests passed.
Complete absence of JSON-LD or other structured data formats.
Authority & Trust Signals40/100
Result: weak. 1 of 5 tests passed.
Contact info is partial. Trust pages and publication dates are missing or incomplete. Author credentials lack structured data.
Citation & Source Quality32/100
Result: weak. 0 of 4 tests passed.
Lacks authoritative outbound links and formal inline citations for factual claims.
Content Freshness0/100
Result: weak. 0 of 4 tests passed.
No machine-readable publication or modification dates detected in the analyzed content.
Content Structure66/100
Result: average. 2 of 4 tests passed.
Good semantic HTML usage, but multiple H1 tags and poor paragraph structure lower the score.
Entity Definition53/100
Result: weak. 2 of 4 tests passed.
About page exists, but lacks Organization schema. Author identification is weak without structured data.
Technical Accessibility85/100
Result: strong. 3 of 4 tests passed.
Excellent crawler access and JS independence, but meta description is too long.
How carnegieendowment.org can improve its AI visibility
- Add JSON-LD Schema Markup (high priority)
- Enhance Author Identification (high priority)
- Implement Visible and Machine-Readable Dates (medium priority)
- Improve Content Readability (medium priority)
- Optimize Meta Description Length (low priority)
How carnegieendowment.org compares to its competitors
- Council on Foreign Relations (cfr.org) — score 63/100
- Brookings Institution (brookings.edu) — score 64/100
- Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) (csis.org) — score 49/100
- Chatham House (chathamhouse.org) — score 71/100
- RAND Corporation (rand.org) — score 62/100