AI search visibility report · 2026-06-22
How AI assistants see slb.com
slb.com has an AI visibility score of 55/100. The site passed 18 of 34 tests. Its strongest areas are Technical Accessibility and Schema.org Markup. The areas to improve are Content Freshness and Authority & Trust Signals.
How ChatGPT, Claude and Perplexity read slb.com
Readability35/100
Result: weak. 0 of 4 tests passed.
Technical complexity and extremely long sentence structures (likely due to menu parsing) hinder LLM clarity.
Schema.org Markup74/100
Result: average. 4 of 5 tests passed.
Valid Organization schema present, but lacks content-specific schemas like Article or Product.
Authority & Trust Signals16/100
Result: weak. 1 of 5 tests passed.
Strong brand presence but lacks granular trust signals like author credentials, contact details, and publication dates.
Citation & Source Quality74/100
Result: average. 3 of 4 tests passed.
Good use of internal and external links for verification, though lacks high-authority .gov/.edu citations.
Content Freshness0/100
Result: weak. 0 of 4 tests passed.
Complete absence of date-based metadata or visible timestamps makes it difficult for LLMs to determine recency.
Content Structure73/100
Result: average. 3 of 4 tests passed.
Excellent heading hierarchy but relies on generic section tags rather than more descriptive semantic HTML.
Entity Definition65/100
Result: average. 3 of 4 tests passed.
Strong Organization schema and About page, but lacks individual author identification.
Technical Accessibility95/100
Result: strong. 4 of 4 tests passed.
Excellent technical setup with full AI crawler access and social metadata.
How slb.com can improve its AI visibility
- Add Publication and Modification Dates (high priority)
- Implement Author Person Schema (high priority)
- Expand Content-Specific Schema (medium priority)
- Improve Sentence-Level Readability (medium priority)
- Surface Contact Information and Trust Signals (medium priority)
How slb.com compares to its competitors
- Halliburton (halliburton.com) — score 47/100
- Baker Hughes (bakerhughes.com) — score 54/100
- Weatherford International (weatherford.com) — score 34/100
- NOV Inc. (nov.com) — score 45/100