LLMaoLLMao

    AI search visibility report · 2026-05-14

    How AI assistants see sedo.com

    sedo.com has an AI visibility score of 68/100. The site passed 24 of 34 tests. Its strongest areas are Content Freshness and Readability. The areas to improve are Schema.org Markup and Citation & Source Quality.

    How ChatGPT, Claude and Perplexity read sedo.com

    Readability75/100

    Result: average. 4 of 4 tests passed.

    Content is clear and professional, though some jargon (SedoMLS, gTLD) is used without immediate definition.

    Schema.org Markup20/100

    Result: weak. 1 of 5 tests passed.

    Significant weakness. No JSON-LD found in the analyzed snippet; relies on old meta tags.

    Authority & Trust Signals65/100

    Result: average. 4 of 5 tests passed.

    Strong brand presence and physical contact info, but lacks individual author credentials and structured trust signals.

    Citation & Source Quality50/100

    Result: weak. 3 of 4 tests passed.

    Good internal linking to case studies, but lacks outbound citations to primary industry data sources.

    Content Freshness90/100

    Result: strong. 4 of 4 tests passed.

    Excellent recency with 2026 reports and real-time auction data visible.

    Content Structure60/100

    Result: average. 2 of 4 tests passed.

    Clear sections but poor heading hierarchy (skipping H2s). Semantic HTML usage is moderate.

    Entity Definition65/100

    Result: average. 3 of 4 tests passed.

    Brand is well-defined, but individual experts and technical terms lack structured definitions.

    Technical Accessibility70/100

    Result: average. 3 of 4 tests passed.

    Good meta descriptions and social tags, but no specific AI crawler directives.

    How sedo.com can improve its AI visibility

    • Implement JSON-LD Schema (high priority)
    • Establish Author Entities (high priority)
    • Fix Heading Hierarchy (medium priority)
    • Optimize AI Crawler Access (medium priority)
    • Define Industry Entities (medium priority)

    How sedo.com compares to its competitors