Free AI Visibility Checker

An AI visibility checker audits whether AI systems like ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity and Google's AI surfaces can access, read and quote your pages. This one checks the technical prerequisites: whether AI crawlers are allowed in your robots.txt, whether you publish an llms.txt, whether your content is structured so an answer can be extracted from it, whether you declare structured data, and whether your content exists in the raw HTML before JavaScript runs.

Mention trackers query ChatGPT or Perplexity with prompts and count how often your brand appears. That tells you the outcome. This tool tells you the cause: whether AI systems can technically reach and parse your content in the first place. If a crawler is blocked or your content only renders client-side, no amount of content work will get you cited. Run this first, then use a mention tracker to measure the result.

Not directly. GPTBot collects data for training OpenAI's models. ChatGPT's search feature uses a separate crawler called OAI-SearchBot. You can block GPTBot to opt out of training while remaining fully visible in ChatGPT Search — as long as OAI-SearchBot is allowed. Many sites blocked every OpenAI agent at once and unintentionally removed themselves from ChatGPT's search results.

GPTBot crawls content that may be used to train OpenAI's foundation models. OAI-SearchBot crawls content to surface websites in ChatGPT's search results. They are separate user agents with separate robots.txt rules. Anthropic makes the same split: ClaudeBot is for training, Claude-SearchBot builds Claude's search index, and Claude-User fetches pages when a user's question needs them.

No major AI provider has publicly confirmed that it consumes llms.txt in production. It is a proposed standard from Answer.AI, not a ratified one. This tool scores it because it costs nothing to publish, the format is stable, and the exercise of choosing your most important pages is independently useful. Treat it as cheap optionality rather than a guaranteed ranking factor — and be sceptical of any tool that promises otherwise.

The three most common technical causes, in order: AI search crawlers are blocked in robots.txt; the page is client-rendered so the raw HTML a crawler receives is nearly empty; or the content has no clear heading structure and no self-contained answers, so there is no clean passage to quote. This audit checks all three. Beyond the technical layer, being cited also depends on topical authority and whether your page is genuinely the best answer.

Mostly, with important exceptions. OpenAI, Anthropic and Google document that their crawlers honour robots.txt. However, OpenAI notes that robots.txt may not apply to ChatGPT-User, and Perplexity states that user-initiated fetches generally fall outside robots.txt. Some crawlers, notably Bytespider, have been widely reported to ignore it. If you need enforcement rather than a request, block at the edge or firewall level.

Answer extractability measures how easily a model can lift a clean, self-contained passage out of your page. In practice that means one clear H1, logical H2/H3 sections without skipped levels, headings phrased the way people actually ask questions, and a direct 2–3 sentence answer immediately after each heading. Pages structured this way get quoted; walls of undifferentiated prose don't, even when the information is there.

No. The audit runs on request and the result is returned directly to your browser. Nothing is written to a database, there is no account, no email capture, and no log of audited URLs. The ?url= parameter in the address bar exists purely so you can share a link that re-runs the same audit.

Yes — free, unlimited, and no signup. It runs entirely deterministic checks against public files and your page's HTML, with no AI API calls behind it, so there is no per-check cost to pass on and no reason to gate it.