LLMaoLLMao

    AI search visibility report · 2026-05-14

    How AI assistants see moz.com

    moz.com has an AI visibility score of 86/100. The site passed 32 of 34 tests. Its strongest areas are Content Freshness and Technical Accessibility. The areas to improve are Citation & Source Quality and Readability.

    How ChatGPT, Claude and Perplexity read moz.com

    Readability80/100

    Result: strong. 4 of 4 tests passed.

    High clarity and professional tone, though some industry jargon is used without immediate definition.

    Schema.org Markup90/100

    Result: strong. 5 of 5 tests passed.

    Strong JSON-LD implementation including Organization, WebPage, and BreadcrumbList.

    Authority & Trust Signals85/100

    Result: strong. 5 of 5 tests passed.

    Strong trust signals with physical addresses and social proof, but lacks structured review data.

    Citation & Source Quality80/100

    Result: strong. 3 of 4 tests passed.

    Claims are backed by proprietary data (44 trillion links), though external citations on the homepage are minimal.

    Content Freshness100/100

    Result: strong. 4 of 4 tests passed.

    Excellent freshness with a 2026 modification date and current AI-focused content.

    Content Structure88/100

    Result: strong. 4 of 4 tests passed.

    Well-organized with clear sections and semantic HTML, though some heading levels are skipped.

    Entity Definition84/100

    Result: strong. 3 of 4 tests passed.

    Clear brand identity and Organization schema, but could benefit from more explicit term definitions.

    Technical Accessibility92/100

    Result: strong. 4 of 4 tests passed.

    Excellent meta tags and social metadata; robots.txt is generally permissive.

    How moz.com can improve its AI visibility

    • Implement Review/AggregateRating Schema (high priority)
    • Add DefinedTerm Schema for Core Services (medium priority)
    • Optimize Tabbed Content for LLM Crawlers (medium priority)
    • Standardize Heading Hierarchy (low priority)

    How moz.com compares to its competitors