This page is about one tool’s data: the All-in-One SEO Audit. For how it compares with the other two tools, how the scores are distributed and where your own score ranks, go to SEO Score Benchmarks — the methodology and privacy notes live there too.
Which checks fail
This tool runs a single URL through 45 checks. The list below shows the share of audits in which a check did not pass — the higher the percentage, the more widely that item is missing. Items marked “hard fail” cut the score sharply; “partial” ones remove a fraction of it.
| Check | Did not pass | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Author & date (E-E-A-T) | 91% | Partial |
| Healthy text-to-HTML ratio | 85% | Partial |
| llms.txt present | 71% | Partial |
| No fixed desktop widths | 64% | Partial |
| Question-style headings | 60% | Partial |
| All images have ALT text | 55% | Partial |
| Structured data for AI | 53% | Partial |
| Structured data (Schema.org) | 53% | Partial |
| Title length optimal (30–60) | 53% | Partial |
| Meta description length (70–160) | 50% | Partial |
| Extra security headers | 49% | Partial |
| X-Content-Type-Options | 49% | Partial |
Which category is weakest?
The audit’s checks are grouped into eight categories. The share below is how often each category came out as the lowest-scoring one in an audit.
The conclusion is clean: the weakest link is images & media (55%), followed by social & structured data (26%). Between them they account for more than two thirds of all audits. Performance and indexability barely appear in this ranking at all — hosting and crawling are largely solved. And the concrete reason images top the list is a single item: 55% of scans found at least one image with no ALT text.
Security headers are still being ignored
Extra security headers are missing in 49% of audits and X-Content-Type-Options in 49%. Both are a single line of server configuration. They are not direct ranking factors, but they are measured as trust signals and cost close to nothing to fix — which usually makes them the cheapest points on the whole report.
Scores are not broken — they are eroded
Not one of the twelve most-missed checks is a hard fail — every one of them costs partial credit. The average audit passes 31.2 of 45 checks, draws a warning on 12.5, and outright fails only 1.3, with 0.67 critical items. That is why the median sits at 76 rather than at 89: what holds pages back is not a fault but dozens of small gaps nobody ever closed. The encouraging part is that this kind of loss is recoverable, and because each item is individually small, progress on it is fast.
Frequently asked questions
What is the average SEO audit score?
The arithmetic mean on the All-in-One SEO Audit is 73.1/100 and the median is 76/100. The median is higher because the distribution is stacked toward the top and a handful of very low scores drag the mean down. Compare yourself against the median — with a skewed distribution like this, the average misleads.
Which SEO check fails most often?
Author & date (e-e-a-t) tops the list at 91% of audits, followed by healthy text-to-html ratio (85%) and llms.txt present (71%). What the three have in common is that none of them is a server or infrastructure problem — each is information that has to be written onto the page by hand. Most of the points lost in an audit today are lost to text nobody wrote, not to something that broke.
Are security headers worth fixing for SEO?
They are not direct ranking factors, but the audit scores them as trust signals and they cost almost nothing to add. Extra security headers are missing in 49% of audits and X-Content-Type-Options in 49% — both a single line of server configuration. The fact that they are missing this often means easy points are still sitting on the table.
The sample, the methodology, the anonymization and the CC BY 4.0 licence are all set out in the methodology section on the hub.