AI search visibility report · 2026-06-05
How AI assistants see betterproposals.io
betterproposals.io has an AI visibility score of 54/100. 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 Citation & Source Quality.
How ChatGPT, Claude and Perplexity read betterproposals.io
Readability55/100
Result: weak. 2 of 4 tests passed.
Sentence length is good, but the overall reading ease is too low (highly complex).
Schema.org Markup80/100
Result: strong. 5 of 5 tests passed.
Strong JSON-LD presence with multiple core schemas, though one block failed to parse.
Authority & Trust Signals30/100
Result: weak. 2 of 5 tests passed.
Strong contact and trust pages, but lacks verifiable publication dates and structured social proof (Review schema).
Citation & Source Quality17/100
Result: weak. 0 of 4 tests passed.
Lacks external authoritative links and inline citations for factual claims.
Content Freshness0/100
Result: weak. 0 of 4 tests passed.
No dates found in metadata or visible text, making it impossible for LLMs to verify recency.
Content Structure74/100
Result: average. 2 of 4 tests passed.
Excellent heading hierarchy, but lacks semantic sectioning tags.
Entity Definition58/100
Result: weak. 3 of 4 tests passed.
Good brand consistency and About page, but lacks Person schema for authors/founders.
Technical Accessibility100/100
Result: strong. 4 of 4 tests passed.
Excellent technical setup with full AI crawler access and strong social metadata.
How betterproposals.io can improve its AI visibility
- Implement Visible Publication Dates (high priority)
- Add Authoritative Outbound Citations (high priority)
- Enhance Author/Founder Entities (medium priority)
- Improve Semantic HTML Usage (medium priority)
- Optimize Content Readability (low priority)
How betterproposals.io compares to its competitors
- Proposify (proposify.com) — score 59/100
- PandaDoc (pandadoc.com) — score 85/100
- GetAccept (getaccept.com) — score 66/100
- Qwilr (qwilr.com) — score 40/100