LLMaoLLMao

    AI search visibility report · 2026-06-05

    How AI assistants see proposify.com

    proposify.com has an AI visibility score of 59/100. The site passed 20 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 proposify.com

    Readability70/100

    Result: average. 3 of 4 tests passed.

    Sentence length is optimal, but the vocabulary is overly complex for general LLM summarization.

    Schema.org Markup74/100

    Result: average. 4 of 5 tests passed.

    Valid JSON-LD present but limited to Organization; missing Product and FAQ schemas.

    Authority & Trust Signals38/100

    Result: weak. 2 of 5 tests passed.

    Strong contact and trust pages, but lacks author credentials and social proof in schema format.

    Citation & Source Quality62/100

    Result: average. 2 of 4 tests passed.

    Good use of inline links for navigation, but lacks citations to authoritative external primary sources.

    Content Freshness0/100

    Result: weak. 0 of 4 tests passed.

    Complete lack of temporal signals (dates) in metadata or visible text.

    Content Structure69/100

    Result: average. 2 of 4 tests passed.

    Excellent heading hierarchy, but lacks semantic sectioning and a Table of Contents.

    Entity Definition65/100

    Result: average. 3 of 4 tests passed.

    Strong brand consistency and About page, but fails on author identification.

    Technical Accessibility93/100

    Result: strong. 4 of 4 tests passed.

    Excellent technical setup with full AI crawler access and social meta tags.

    How proposify.com can improve its AI visibility

    • Implement Visible Temporal Metadata (high priority)
    • Expand Schema.org Coverage (high priority)
    • Define Author Entities with Schema (medium priority)
    • Optimize Content for Readability (medium priority)
    • Strengthen External Citations (low priority)

    How proposify.com compares to its competitors