Ranking tools tell you about blue links. These tell you whether ChatGPT, Perplexity and Google AI Overviews can read your page, are permitted to quote it, and can find an answer worth quoting — plus the conversion and unit-economics maths behind whether any of it pays. Fourteen tools, all free, all returning specific fixes rather than a grade.
Test whether GPTBot, ClaudeBot, PerplexityBot and Google-Extended can fetch a URL with the AI Bot Access Checker. Then see how an answer engine would treat the page itself with the AI Readiness Scanner, and run the Page Audit for about 30 indexability and technical checks. The Chrome extension runs the same kind of check on whichever page you are viewing. If a page cannot be fetched, nothing else on it matters yet.
The Schema Builder produces valid JSON-LD or checks markup you already have, and flags blocks search engines will silently discard. The NAP Consistency Checker compares the name, address and phone a site states in its copy, links and schema, and reports contradictions. Valid markup does not raise rankings on its own; it states facts in machine-readable form, so fix contradictions in your visible text first.
Find The Questions shows what customers ask, the Content and Readability Analyzer reviews wording without needing a keyword, and the Internal Link and Content Decay Finder finds weak links and decaying pages. The Unlinked Mention Finder shows who names you without linking, the Backlink Gap Analyzer compares link profiles, and Watchdog monitors SEO, AEO and GEO changes against competitors.
Score a landing page with the Landing Page Friction Score, check outreach with the Cold Email Checker, and test your numbers with the LTV:CAC Calculator, the Google Ads Spend Efficiency Calculator and the Review Deficit Calculator. For hands-on help with any of this, see our AEO and GEO consulting for small businesses.
Fourteen free tools and one paid product, grouped by the job they do. If you only run one, make it the AI Bot Access Checker — it takes five seconds and it is the check that makes every other one moot when it fails.
Three gates that decide whether an AI engine can quote you: can it fetch the page, is it permitted to excerpt it, and is there anything in the raw HTML to read. All 12 AI crawlers evaluated individually against your exact URL path — not a substring search for a bot name.
Scores how likely an answer engine is to quote your page across five pillars — extractability, geographic scope, evidence, authority and crawler access — and caps the score when the page physically cannot be cited.
Generate copy-paste JSON-LD for 8 types, or paste what you have and find out why Google ignores it. Broken structured data fails silently — no warning in Search Console, no error anywhere.
One click audits the page you are looking at — including JavaScript-rendered sites our web scanners physically cannot read. Requests no host permissions, so it is incapable of sending anything anywhere.
Crawls your site and finds where your own pages disagree about your name, address and phone — two numbers three pages apart, a suite that exists only in your schema, an address left behind after a move. No directory scraping.
Around 30 on-page and technical checks with a 0–100 health score: indexability, canonicals, titles by pixel width, heading structure, alt coverage, schema validity, sitemap and robots.
Crawls your site to find orphan pages nothing links to, click depth, stale content — and pages that already discuss your money page's topic without linking to it. The context is written; only the anchor is missing.
Real questions people asked in public communities about your topic, with the vote and answer counts that prove somebody cared. Not keyword-tool guesses — and we say plainly which sources returned nothing.
Flesch scoring, passive voice with the sentences quoted, length distribution and a pixel-accurate snippet preview. No focus keyword needed — leave it blank and it tells you what topics your draft actually reads as.
A 0–100 index of what stands between a visitor and your button: form burden, high-hesitation fields, competing actions, exit paths, reading difficulty and whether anything on the page lowers perceived risk.
Live SPF, DKIM and DMARC lookups on your sending domain — the half that actually decides inbox placement — plus copy review for what copy genuinely controls: whether a human replies.
Which month a customer stops costing you money. Gross-margin LTV, payback including the sales cycle, and a 36-month contribution curve — plus the levers derived from your own numbers.
Six numbers off your own account. Deliberately refuses to print one big invented waste figure — it separates what is exact arithmetic from what merely deserves review, and labels which is which.
Exactly how many reviews to pass a competitor, on both average rating and volume. Tells you when the target is mathematically unreachable at your current review quality — the answer most tools avoid giving.
Weekly crawls of up to 3 competitors across all three pillars. Every change arrives with an AI-written read on why they did it and what the counter-move is — not just a diff.
Pages that name you and forgot the link — the cheapest link you can earn. We fetch every page to prove it, which also catches nofollowed links and the redirect wrappers a search index never sees.
Referring domains that link to a competitor but not to you, ranked by authority. Needs a connected backlink data provider — there is no free backlink index, and we will not show you invented numbers.
Your homepage next to up to four competitors on SEO basics, AI-answer readiness and AI-crawler access, with the schema types and permissions they have that you lack. Measured from the public pages. No traffic guesses: an estimate source is optional and shown only if connected.
Your Google Maps ranking from every point around your business, as a heatmap, with the businesses that hold the top three. Every point is a paid lookup, so it needs a connected ranking provider and an access code, and it shows nothing invented.
Two tools people ask for that cannot be done honestly. Saying so is more useful than shipping them badly.
Auditing a GBP for post recency, photos and response times needs API access authorised by the profile owner, or scraping Google Maps — which breaks their terms and stops working the moment the markup changes. There is no version of this that works as an anonymous public tool, so we have not pretended otherwise.
Comparing your numbers against "the consensus in Google AI Overviews" would require reading AI Overviews at scale. It has no public API. We could ask one model what it thinks the range is and present that as consensus — but that is one model's guess wearing a lab coat, and you would be pricing against it. The AI Readiness scan does the part that is real: whether your page commits to numbers at all, and whether its scope is stated clearly enough to be quoted.
Most tools collapse them into one score. They need different page structures, so they get scored separately here.
Titles, canonicals, internal links, crawl and index control. The goal is a position in a list of results. Measured by Page Audit.
Question headings answered in the first sentence, tables, FAQ schema, committed numbers. The goal is the snippet or answer box. Measured by AI Readiness.
Crawler access, server-rendered content, explicit geographic scope, entity disambiguation. The goal is the footnote inside a generated answer. Also measured by AI Readiness.
Disallow: / under User-agent: GPTBot makes every other optimisation on this page worthless for ChatGPT — and it is usually added by accident, by a plugin, or by a developer who read one alarming article about AI training. The AI Readiness scan checks all 12 major AI crawlers individually, which is why it is the one to run first.Every finding in these reports includes the actual fix, and plenty of people take it from there — genuinely fine by us. If you would rather not spend the next three weekends on schema markup, book a trajectory call and we will walk your report line by line.