AI search visibility report · 2026-10-27
How AI assistants see iiss.org
iiss.org has an AI visibility score of 39/100. The site passed 11 of 34 tests. Its strongest areas are Technical Accessibility and Citation & Source Quality. The areas to improve are Content Freshness and Schema.org Markup.
How ChatGPT, Claude and Perplexity read iiss.org
Readability15/100
Result: weak. 0 of 4 tests passed.
Extremely low readability scores due to very long, academic sentence structures.
Schema.org Markup0/100
Result: weak. 0 of 5 tests passed.
Total absence of JSON-LD or microdata prevents structured data extraction.
Authority & Trust Signals50/100
Result: weak. 2 of 5 tests passed.
Strong trust pages and contact info, but lacks machine-readable author credentials and social proof schema.
Citation & Source Quality74/100
Result: average. 3 of 4 tests passed.
Good use of internal and external links for claims, though lacks links to high-authority .gov or .edu domains.
Content Freshness0/100
Result: weak. 0 of 4 tests passed.
Visible dates are current (Oct 2026), but lack of schema prevents LLMs from reliably timestamping content.
Content Structure55/100
Result: weak. 1 of 4 tests passed.
Paragraphs are well-formed, but the site lacks semantic HTML tags and has multiple H1 elements.
Entity Definition33/100
Result: weak. 1 of 4 tests passed.
About page is present, but the lack of Person and Organization schema hinders entity linking.
Technical Accessibility95/100
Result: strong. 4 of 4 tests passed.
Excellent crawler access and social meta tags, with content fully accessible without JavaScript.
How iiss.org can improve its AI visibility
- Implement Core JSON-LD Schema (high priority)
- Add Machine-Readable Dates (high priority)
- Improve Content Readability (high priority)
- Optimize Semantic HTML Structure (medium priority)
- Define Author Entities (medium priority)
How iiss.org compares to its competitors
- SIPRI (sipri.org) — score 49/100
- CSIS (csis.org) — score 49/100
- Council on Foreign Relations (cfr.org) — score 63/100
- RAND Corporation (rand.org) — score 62/100
- Chatham House (chathamhouse.org) — score 71/100