This is the combined readiness check: it runs the generative, answer-engine, structural and trust dimensions in a single pass and produces one number for all of them. That breadth makes it the best single starting point of the AI tools — not because it goes deeper than the specialised ones, but because it tells you which of them is worth running next.
Here is where that sits. The median is 64/100, which ranks it 13 of the 25 measures in this dataset. The middle half of results falls between 39 and 78 — a band 39 points wide. That is wide: sites genuinely diverge here, which is to say getting ahead is still possible.
How the scores are distributed
An average on its own misleads. The chart below splits all 1,430 scans into five score bands, totalling 100%. The spread is wide and fairly even, which is what a measure looks like while it is still being adopted unevenly.
- 0–19
- 20–39
- 40–59
- 60–79
- 80–100
| Score band | GEO & AEO |
|---|---|
| 0–19 | 9% · 134 |
| 20–39 | 16% · 227 |
| 40–59 | 16% · 231 |
| 60–79 | 37% · 532 |
| 80–100 | 21% · 306 |
| Total runs | 1,430 |
The grade mix
The same data as letters: A+ 95–100, A 85–94, B 75–84, C 65–74, D 50–64 and F below 50.
Where your score stands
Because this score averages several disciplines, a middling result is ambiguous by design: it can mean everything is mediocre or that two areas are excellent and one is broken. The category breakdown below is therefore more informative than the number above it. Use the score to decide whether to look, and the categories to decide where.
| Tool | 10th | 25th | Median | 75th | 90th | Mean | Lowest | Highest |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GEO & AEO | 20 | 39 | 64 | 78 | 86 | 58.4 | 10 | 100 |
How to read it: 39 is bottom-quartile, 64 is a typical page, 78 starts the upper quartile and 86 or above is the top 10%. These thresholds apply to this tool only.
The checks that fail most
The list mixes disciplines on purpose, and reading it that way is the point: the same page can be perfectly crawlable and completely unattributable, or beautifully structured and stale. Grouping the failures by category rather than reading them top to bottom is what turns this list into a plan.
| Check | Did not pass | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| TL;DR / summary block | 85% | Partial |
| FAQ / Q&A schema | 84% | Partial |
| Article / BlogPosting schema | 80% | Partial |
| Tables / definition lists | 73% | Partial |
| Breadcrumb schema | 71% | Partial |
| llms.txt file present | 71% | Partial |
| Images have ALT text | 67% | Partial |
| Exactly one H1 per page | 66% | Partial |
| Publish / update dates | 62% | Partial |
| Freshness signals | 62% | Partial |
| Author / byline present | 57% | Partial |
| Organization / WebSite schema | 51% | Partial |
“Hard fail” means the check’s full weighting is lost; “partial” means only part of the score is. Rates are the share of scans in which the check ran and did not pass.
The weakest areas
This tool groups its checks into categories. The chart below shows how often each category was the lowest-scoring one in a scan — which area is most often the weak link. It is not the average score in that category; it is how often it came last.
“Structured Data (Schema)” was the weakest area in 71% of scans.
What to fix first
Find your weakest category first and fix inside it rather than picking off the highest-percentage checks across the whole list. A category is weak because several related things are missing, and those usually share one cause — one absent schema block, one template that never printed a date — so working inside a category closes several checks per change.
A typical scan passes 20.2 of 35 checks and leaves 14.8 open items behind. What drags a score down is usually not one catastrophe but accumulated small omissions.
Run the GEO & AEO Readiness Checker on your own page
Month by month
The figures on this page are replaced at every refresh. At the end of each month a permanent edition is published for that month and never edited again — which is the only reason this series can be compared at all. One edition has been published so far; when the second lands this section will set the two months side by side.
| Edition | Median | vs. previous | Scored 80+ | Issues/run | Runs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| August 2026 | 64 | baseline | 21% | 14.8 | 1,430 |
Frequently asked questions
Should I run this or the individual GEO and AEO checks?
Run this one first. It covers the same ground at less depth and tells you which dimension is dragging the score down; then run the specialised tool for that dimension, which will explain the failures in more detail than a combined report can. Running all three on a page in good shape mostly produces agreement.
Why do the AI tools disagree with each other?
Because they weight the same signals differently, on purpose. A checker built around citability cares most about attribution; one built around answer extraction cares most about structure. A page can be strong on one and weak on the other, and the disagreement between the two scores is itself information about which kind of preparation is missing.
Is AI readiness worth the effort if my traffic is all classic search?
Most of the work overlaps, which makes the question easier than it looks. Server-rendered content, clear headings, named authors, visible dates and valid structured data are all long-standing SEO recommendations that happen to be exactly what generative engines need. The genuinely AI-specific additions — llms.txt, a summary block — are small on top of that.
What is a good score on the GEO & AEO Readiness Checker?
In this dataset the median is 64/100, so scoring 64 puts you exactly in the middle. 78 is the start of the upper quartile and 86 or above is the top 10%; below 39 is the bottom quarter. Those thresholds are specific to this tool — the 25 measures in this dataset have very different medians, so 70 here and 70 elsewhere do not mean the same thing.
Which check fails most often on the GEO & AEO Readiness Checker?
“TL;DR / summary block”, which did not pass in 85% of scans. None of this tool's checks are scored as hard fails; every one of them loses partial credit instead.
Questions that govern the whole series — how the sample is collected, how sites are anonymized, how often the figures are refreshed — are answered in the methodology on the hub.
Using this data
The figures, tables and charts on this page are free to reuse under CC BY 4.0; the only condition is a link back to this page. Suggested citation: SeoMods — GEO & AEO Readiness Checker benchmarks, 2 September 2026, https://seomods.com/seo-score-benchmarks/geo-aeo-checker. If you need to cite by date, use the August 2026 edition instead: this page changes at every refresh and that one never does.