This is the August 2026 edition of the E-E-A-T Analyzer benchmarks. Every figure below comes only from scans run inside that month, and none of them will change again — a rate you quote today will still be at this address years from now. For the current picture, go back to the tool's own page: that one is refreshed at every revision, and this one never is.

This is the first edition for the E-E-A-T Analyzer. There is no earlier month to compare against, so these figures are the baseline. Every edition after August 2026 will also show what moved since the one before it.

How the scores fell

This is how 1,436 scans spread across the five score bands in August 2026. The distribution banks up against the floor: most pages score badly, so even a modest result here puts you ahead of the majority.

  • 0–19
  • 20–39
  • 40–59
  • 60–79
  • 80–100
E-E-A-T Analyzern = 1,436
E-E-A-T Analyzer score distribution in August 2026, median 38/100, from 1,436 scans
E-E-A-T Analyzer — score distribution, August 2026. A frozen record, reusable under CC BY 4.0.
Score bandE-E-A-T
0–1922% · 317
20–3938% · 545
40–5927% · 384
60–7912% · 176
80–1001% · 14
Total runs1,436

Where sites got stuck

The checks that did not pass in E-E-A-T Analyzer scans during August 2026. What each check means and what to do about it is on the tool's own benchmark page; this page is the record of the month.

First-hand experience signals96%
Person / author schema91%
Author credentials / qualifications85%
Publish / update date84%
Reviews / testimonials84%
Named author / byline76%
Contact information55%
About page linked47%
Cites authoritative sources25%
Original media19%
Secure (HTTPS)0%
The checks that failed most often on the E-E-A-T Analyzer in August 2026, with their rates
E-E-A-T Analyzer — failed checks, August 2026. From 1,436 scans.
CheckDid not passWeight
First-hand experience signals96%Hard fail
Person / author schema91%Partial
Author credentials / qualifications85%Partial
Publish / update date84%Partial
Reviews / testimonials84%Partial
Named author / byline76%Hard fail
Contact information55%Partial
About page linked47%Partial
Cites authoritative sources25%Partial
Original media19%Partial
Secure (HTTPS)0%Hard fail

The weakest areas that month

Expertise49%
Experience49%
Authoritativeness1%
Trustworthiness0%

This month’s sample

In August 2026 the E-E-A-T Analyzer recorded 1,436 successful scans across 1,249 unique domains. Across the whole series that month there were 34,236 scans covering 5,586 sites.

How the sample is collected, how it is anonymized and where the method's limits lie govern the whole series, so they are set out once in the methodology on the hub.

ToolDomain endings in the sample
E-E-A-T.com 63% · .org 7% · .io 7% · .net 3% · other 21%

Frequently asked questions

What was the median E-E-A-T Analyzer score in August 2026?

In August 2026 the median was 38/100 and the mean was 36.0. 1% of scans reached 80 or above. These figures are frozen and will not change.

Which check failed most often in August 2026?

“First-hand experience signals”, which did not pass in 96% of scans, followed by “Person / author schema” at 91%.

Why is this page never updated?

Because a dated record is only useful if it stays put. Someone citing the August 2026 figures today has to find the same numbers at the same URL years from now. For the current picture, see this tool's own benchmark page, where the figures are refreshed at every revision.

Citing this edition

The figures on this page are free to reuse under CC BY 4.0. Suggested citation: SeoMods — E-E-A-T Analyzer benchmarks, August 2026 edition, https://seomods.com/seo-score-benchmarks/eeat-analyzer/august-2026.