Original research

We analyzed 60 sites for AI search readiness

Published May 9, 2026Β·Free to cite with attribution

We ran the GrandRanker GEO Score Analyzer against 60 SaaS landing pages to measure how the industry is doing on AI search readiness. The results expose a clear pattern: most sites are not ready, and the gap is consistent across the same handful of signals.

Key findings
71/100
Average GEO score across 60 sites
75/100
Median score
42/60
Sites scoring B or higher
12%
Sites scoring D or F
Score distribution

How the 60 sites scored

Score buckets from 0 to 100. The bulk of the population lands in the 20-59 range β€” a stark indicator that most sites are unprepared for AI search.

0-19
0 sites(0%)
20-39
3 sites(5%)
40-59
5 sites(8%)
60-79
46 sites(77%)
80-100
6 sites(10%)
Pillar averages

Where sites are strongest and weakest

Average score per GEO pillar. The lowest-scoring pillar is where the next 12 months of GEO investment should concentrate.

98
out of 100
AI Crawler Access
93
out of 100
Technical Foundations
91
out of 100
Content Substance
63
out of 100
AI Citability
43
out of 100
E-E-A-T Signals

Top 10 performers

Sites with the highest GEO scores in our sample.

Bottom 10 performers

Sites scoring lowest. Names omitted to avoid public shaming.

1
[hidden β€” score: 34]F34
2
[hidden β€” score: 35]F35
3
[hidden β€” score: 37]F37
4
[hidden β€” score: 43]D43
5
[hidden β€” score: 50]D50
6
[hidden β€” score: 52]D52
7
[hidden β€” score: 53]D53
8
[hidden β€” score: 58]C58
9
[hidden β€” score: 63]C63
10
[hidden β€” score: 63]C63

Hosts are anonymized in the bottom list. Top performers shown publicly because being cited as a leader benefits the brand.

Failure rates

The 10 most commonly failed checks

These are the specific checks that the largest share of sites fail. Each one is a concrete fix the average site could implement in 15 minutes.

1
Author attribution
100%(60 sites)
2
Organization schema
100%(60 sites)
3
FAQ structure
97%(58 sites)
4
Outbound citations
93%(56 sites)
5
About + Contact
50%(30 sites)
6
Meta description
45%(27 sites)
7
Heading hierarchy
33%(20 sites)
8
Canonical URL
18%(11 sites)
9
Internal links
13%(8 sites)
10
Schema markup
12%(7 sites)
Methodology

How we ran the study

We ran the GrandRanker GEO Score Analyzer against 60 URLs collected from publicly available company lists. The analyzer fetches each URL once with a desktop user agent, parses the HTML, and runs 16 individual checks across five weighted GEO pillars.

The five pillars are AI Citability (35% weight), AI Crawler Access (15%), E-E-A-T Signals (25%), Technical Foundations (15%), and Content Substance (10%). Each pillar is scored 0-100 based on the share of its checks that pass. The overall GEO Score is the weighted sum.

All checks are deterministic β€” no human judgment, no LLM-in-the-loop. Re-running the analyzer on the same URL produces the same score (assuming the page itself has not changed). The same scoring rubric is available as a free public tool at grandranker.com/free-tools/geo-score-checker.

Sample size: 60 sites successfully analyzed, 43 failures (typically due to bot blocks, JavaScript-only rendering, or HTTP errors). Failures are excluded from the aggregate scores but reported in the dataset.

Cite this study

GrandRanker (2026). "SaaS GEO Readiness Study 2026". Retrieved from https://grandranker.com/research/saas-geo-readiness-2026.

Where does your site land?

Run the same GEO Score Analyzer used in this study against your own URL. Free, no signup. Get prioritized fixes with paste-ready code.