AI search visibility report · 2026-06-10
How AI assistants see wiz.io
wiz.io has an AI visibility score of 63/100. The site passed 18 of 34 tests. Its strongest areas are Technical Accessibility and Content Freshness. The areas to improve are Readability and Citation & Source Quality.
How ChatGPT, Claude and Perplexity read wiz.io
Readability30/100
Result: weak. 0 of 4 tests passed.
Very low readability score due to extremely long, complex sentences and high technical density.
Schema.org Markup60/100
Result: average. 3 of 5 tests passed.
JSON-LD is present and valid, but it only covers a video. Core business and product schemas are missing.
Authority & Trust Signals60/100
Result: average. 3 of 5 tests passed.
Strong social proof with Fortune 100 logos and G2 badges, but lacks structured author credentials and comprehensive trust pages.
Citation & Source Quality48/100
Result: weak. 0 of 4 tests passed.
Lacks citations to authoritative external sources or primary data to verify technical claims.
Content Freshness75/100
Result: average. 3 of 4 tests passed.
Content is highly recent with 2026 dates, though it lacks a visible changelog or version history.
Content Structure72/100
Result: average. 3 of 4 tests passed.
Good use of semantic HTML and organization, but the heading hierarchy is broken with multiple H1 tags.
Entity Definition58/100
Result: weak. 2 of 4 tests passed.
Brand consistency is strong, but the lack of Person schema for experts and Organization schema on the homepage limits entity clarity.
Technical Accessibility100/100
Result: strong. 4 of 4 tests passed.
Excellent technical setup with full AI crawler access, social meta tags, and JS-independent content.
How wiz.io can improve its AI visibility
- Add Core Entity Schema Markup (high priority)
- Fix Heading Hierarchy (Single H1) (high priority)
- Improve Sentence Readability (medium priority)
- Implement Author/Person Schema for Testimonials (medium priority)
- Strengthen External Citations (low priority)
How wiz.io compares to its competitors
- Palo Alto Networks (Prisma Cloud) (paloaltonetworks.com) — score 74/100
- CrowdStrike (crowdstrike.com) — score 84/100
- Lacework (lacework.com) — score 47/100
- Aqua Security (aquasec.com) — score 70/100
- Sysdig (sysdig.com)