Back to Blog

Every "free SEO audit" tool I've used in the last decade has the same problem. It's either a 90-second pitch for a paid tier, or it's a binary checklist that gives you 100/100 the second you have a meta description and a sitemap. Neither tells you what AI engines like ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, or Google AI Overviews actually look at when they decide whether to quote your site as a source.

So we built one. It runs 13 checks, allows partial credit where the signal is graduated, and converts 66 possible points to a percentage across four tiers: Strong, Decent, Behind, and Invisible. Here's how it works.

What It Checks

The audit fetches the URL you submit, plus your domain's llms.txt, robots.txt, and sitemap.xml. It then runs 13 checks across structured data, crawl and discovery, and page fundamentals.

Structured data gives machines explicit, machine-readable context. The audit checks supported schema types and their completeness, but it does not treat schema as proof that a page will rank or be cited. Structured data must match visible page content.

The FAQ parity check is intentionally small. FAQ structured data is not a Google ranking factor, and rich-result eligibility is limited. The audit awards parity only when matching questions and answers are visible, and penalizes schema-only markup.

The llms.txt check is optional and worth 2 of 66 points. Google does not use llms.txt for ranking, and support across AI systems is not universal. A useful file can still summarize a site and point compatible systems toward canonical pages.

The robots check separates search and user-retrieval agents from model-training crawlers. It evaluates OAI-SearchBot, ChatGPT-User, Claude-SearchBot, Claude-User, and PerplexityBot. Blocking a training crawler is a policy choice and does not automatically fail retrieval access.

The page checks measure observable technical signals. The content check confirms that crawlable text exists. There is no ideal word count, and the audit does not grade originality, usefulness, or intent satisfaction.

How the Scoring Works

Total possible: 66 points before penalties. The raw score is converted to a percentage and grouped into four technical-readiness tiers.

• Strong (at least 85%). The assessed technical foundation is in place. Review remaining gaps and validate content quality separately.
• Decent (65 to 84%). Several technical signals are present, with specific gaps still worth correcting.
• Behind (40 to 64%). Important technical gaps remain. Prioritize critical and important findings first.
• Invisible (under 40%). The audited page is missing much of the measured technical foundation.

The percentage is a technical heuristic, not a prediction of rankings or citations. Two pages with the same score can have different gaps, so the report also groups findings by severity: Critical, Important, and Nice to have.

What It Doesn't Tell You

Three honest limits up front.

It's a single-URL audit, not a site crawl. Run it on your homepage, priority service pages, and recent editorial pages for a fuller picture. Domain-level signals such as llms.txt, sitemap, and robots are checked from the submitted domain. Page-level signals are specific to the URL you submit.

It can't see your actual citation rate. The audit grades whether your site is set up to be quotable, not whether AI engines are actually quoting you. For real citation tracking, you need to monitor branded queries across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, and Claude over time. We compared the six best Perplexity rank tracker tools side-by-side here, including a free DIY method that gets you most of the value at zero cost.

It doesn't grade content quality. A technically complete page can still be generic or unhelpful. The audit confirms that crawlable content exists, but originality, usefulness, accuracy, and intent satisfaction require human review.

Run It on Your Site

The audit is at fifteenthmeridian.com/tools/aeo-audit. No email, no signup, no demo data. Drop in a URL, get a report in under 10 seconds. If you score below 65%, the report will tell you exactly which checks to fix first and what the breakdown means.

For full transparency, we use the same checks on our own pages before release. We do not add FAQ schema where matching questions and answers are not visible, and we do not invent structured data to raise a score.

If you want help closing the gaps on your own pages, our SEO and AEO retainer covers schema buildout, llms.txt structure, AI mention tracking, and the content production that turns a Decent score into a Strong one. Reach out if you want to talk through it.

Related Reading

• Best Perplexity rank tracker tools (2026): 6 compared, plus free DIY.
• llms.txt Explained: What It Does, Who Uses It, and What It Does Not Do.
• AEO vs SEO: what's actually different, and what to do about it.
• How to get cited by ChatGPT in 2026.
• What is AEO? The complete reference.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does the AEO audit check?

Thirteen technical checks: optional llms.txt discovery, AI search and user-retrieval crawler access in robots.txt, JSON-LD schema presence, visible FAQ parity, Organization or LocalBusiness depth, Article or BlogPosting completeness when applicable, named authorship, a single H1, meta description quality, Open Graph tags, sitemap quality, crawlable page content, and BreadcrumbList schema. The checks total 66 possible points before any penalties.

How is this audit different from a free SEO audit?

Three differences. First, it focuses on technical signals tied to crawl access, structured data, accountability, and sharing metadata. Second, checks allow partial credit and apply only where relevant. Third, the on-page report requires no email or signup. It is a technical heuristic, not a prediction of rankings or citations.

Why is llms.txt optional and worth only 2 points?

llms.txt is an optional discovery file. Google does not use it for ranking, and support across AI systems is not universal, so the audit gives it 2 of 66 points. A useful file can still summarize the site and point compatible systems toward canonical pages, but it is not a substitute for crawlable content, robots access, or supported structured data.

Will adding FAQ schema improve my AEO score even without visible Q&A on the page?

No. The audit only credits FAQPage parity when matching questions and answers are visible. FAQ structured data is not a Google ranking factor, and rich-result eligibility is limited. Schema-only markup does not represent the page, so the audit penalizes it instead of rewarding it.

How often should I run the audit?

Run it before major page or template changes and periodically on priority pages. Schema, robots rules, metadata, and sitemap state can drift as a site changes. Rechecking catches those technical changes.

Does the audit tell me whether AI engines are actually citing my site?

No. The audit evaluates observable technical signals. It cannot measure or predict citations. Track actual mentions across the AI products and queries that matter to your audience.