LLMaoLLMao

    AI search visibility report · 2026-05-22

    How AI assistants see remote.com

    remote.com has an AI visibility score of 85/100. The site passed 32 of 34 tests. Its strongest areas are Content Freshness and Schema.org Markup. The areas to improve are Citation & Source Quality and Technical Accessibility.

    How ChatGPT, Claude and Perplexity read remote.com

    Readability85/100

    Result: strong. 4 of 4 tests passed.

    Professional and clear, though some industry jargon (EOR, PEO) is used without immediate definition.

    Schema.org Markup90/100

    Result: strong. 5 of 5 tests passed.

    Comprehensive JSON-LD including Organization, WebSite, WebPage, and Person.

    Authority & Trust Signals80/100

    Result: strong. 5 of 5 tests passed.

    Strong social proof and contact info, but lacks structured review data.

    Citation & Source Quality70/100

    Result: average. 3 of 4 tests passed.

    Good internal linking to resources, but lacks external authoritative citations for legal claims.

    Content Freshness95/100

    Result: strong. 3 of 4 tests passed.

    Excellent. dateModified is current (May 2026) and blog content is highly relevant.

    Content Structure85/100

    Result: strong. 4 of 4 tests passed.

    Well-organized with clear sections, though some heading levels are skipped in the product grid.

    Entity Definition90/100

    Result: strong. 4 of 4 tests passed.

    Strong Organization and Person schema. Brand identity is very consistent.

    Technical Accessibility80/100

    Result: strong. 4 of 4 tests passed.

    Meta description and social tags are perfect, but 'noindex' tag is a major issue.

    How remote.com can improve its AI visibility

    • Implement Review/Rating Schema (high priority)
    • Remove Noindex Meta Tag (high priority)
    • Define Proprietary Entities on Page (medium priority)
    • Add Primary Source Citations for Compliance Claims (medium priority)
    • Refine Heading Hierarchy for Products (low priority)

    How remote.com compares to its competitors