[a1]
Eric Strate’s Free AEO Checker audits one public webpage for Answer Engine Optimization, GEO and AI search readiness using a proprietary page-level analysis of search fundamentals, entities, answer structure, evidence, structured data and citation readiness.
[f1]What do I receive after checking a page?
The free result includes an AEO Readiness Score, six category ratings and priority areas to investigate. The scoring methodology remains proprietary.
Evidence ↗[f2]Do I need an account, email address or AI API key?
No. The checker fetches one public HTML page per audit and requires no login, email gate or AI API. It does not perform a sitewide crawl.
Evidence ↗Free AEO Checker
Audit one webpage for Answer Engine Optimization, GEO, Google AI Overview and AI search readiness.
Paste a public webpage URL below. Get an AEO Readiness Score, six category ratings and prioritized fixes based on signals found on that page. Each finding explains the evidence, a recommended change and how to verify it. This free tool does not measure actual AI rankings or citations.
Public HTML pages only. One page is fetched per audit. No login, email gate, AI API or sitewide crawl. Submit the public page URL in the form on this page. The diagnostic is limited to the returned page HTML; information available only after signing in or elsewhere on the website is outside that single fetch.
- Free
- No account
- Single-page audit
- Evidence-based findings
- Citation readiness
Read what this score measures, the six diagnostic categories and how managed search differs.
Your Priority Action Plan
View additional findings
What was assessed, and what remains unverified
Turn These Findings Into Website Improvements
You can use the action plan to make changes with your team, or ask Eric to review the findings and help implement the priorities. The email button includes this page URL and your top findings so the conversation starts with specific work.
Want help implementing a finding? Explore WordPress AEO services or email Eric about your results. This free score does not measure actual AI visibility; that requires additional research [a17].
Email Eric About These FixesOpens your email app with an editable draft. Nothing is sent automatically. URL query strings and fragments are excluded from the draft.
[a13]
The Free AEO Checker evaluates six page-level areas: search foundation, entity clarity, answer readiness, evidence and trust, structured data, and citation readiness.
[f1]What search foundation signals are checked?
Returned-page titles, H1 structure, canonical declarations, Google indexing and snippet directives, and main-content availability. Actual indexing, robots.txt, CDN access, mobile rendering and performance remain outside this scan.
Evidence ↗[f2]What does entity clarity mean?
How clearly the page identifies its person, organization, service, product or primary subject across visible content and structured data.
Evidence ↗[f3]What makes a passage answer-ready?
Whether important service explanations, product details, business facts, and FAQs provide clear, self-contained information with enough context to remain useful.
Evidence ↗[f4]What evidence and trust signals are considered?
Trust checks depend on the page: business identity and service scope, product details and seller terms, location information, publisher or author context, and support for specific research, ranking or performance claims. An ordinary page does not automatically need a case study, original research or dated test results.
Evidence ↗[f5]What structured data signals are reviewed?
JSON-LD parsing, conflicts between entity identifiers and types, meaningful schema fields, and facts that still require a visible-content review. Missing schema is not an AI visibility blocker.
Evidence ↗[f6]What makes a page citation-ready?
Stable anchors, answer passages, source support, lists and tables, original evidence signals and clear section boundaries.
Evidence ↗What Does the Free AEO Checker Analyze?
The checker is designed around the parts of a webpage a publisher can actually improve. It does not claim access to proprietary Google, ChatGPT or other AI ranking systems. For ongoing measurement rather than a one-page diagnostic, see this AI visibility monitoring software example.
Search Foundation
Returned-page titles, H1 structure, canonical declarations, Google indexing and snippet directives, and main-content availability. Actual indexing, robots.txt, CDN access, mobile rendering and performance remain outside this scan. These signals are interpreted together: the title and H1 should identify the page’s purpose, and its canonical and indexing directives should agree with the intended public URL. A technically present tag is less useful when it describes a different subject.
Entity Clarity
How clearly the page identifies its person, organization, service, product or primary subject across visible content and structured data. A reader should be able to identify who offers the service and what the service is. For example, mismatched organization names or a service described only through vague pronouns create ambiguity that the visible page needs to resolve.
Answer Readiness
Whether important service explanations, product details, business facts, and FAQs provide clear, self-contained information with enough context to remain useful. A passage about service cost needs the relevant service, billing period and material conditions close to the price. A short number without those facts is easy to extract but can be misleading when separated from its page.
Evidence & Trust
Trust checks depend on the page: business identity and service scope, product details and seller terms, location information, publisher or author context, and support for specific research, ranking or performance claims. An ordinary page does not automatically need a case study, original research or dated test results. The useful question is whether a visitor can inspect the support for a factual claim. A dealership can demonstrate trust with accurate inventory and service information, while an ecommerce page can provide specifications, seller details and purchase policies. Pages claiming measured results should explain their method, dates and supporting sources.
Structured Data
JSON-LD parsing, conflicts between entity identifiers and types, meaningful schema fields, and facts that still require a visible-content review. Missing schema is not an AI visibility blocker. A JSON block can be syntactically valid while naming the wrong business or describing an offer absent from the page. Inspect the published facts alongside the markup and check that referenced identifiers resolve to the intended elements.
Citation Readiness
Stable anchors, answer passages, source support, lists and tables, original evidence signals and clear section boundaries. An addressable pricing table or dated result gives a reader a specific support target. A generic section heading or an unsupported assertion offers less to inspect, even when an anchor exists.
[a14]
Yes. The Free AEO Checker also functions as a page-level GEO checker and AI search audit because AEO, GEO and AI search optimization overlap around discoverability, entity understanding, useful answers, evidence and retrieval structure.
[f1]Does the checker create a separate score for every AI-search acronym?
No. AEO, GEO and AI search readiness share the same page-level diagnostic. The tool does not create a separate score just to match each acronym.
Evidence ↗Is This Also a Free GEO Checker and AI Search Audit?
Yes, with an important qualification. Answer Engine Optimization and Generative Engine Optimization describe overlapping work around search and AI-assisted discovery. This free AEO tool therefore evaluates many of the same page-level factors someone may be looking for when searching for a GEO checker, AI search readiness checker, AEO audit tool or generative search optimization tool.
I do not create separate scores simply to match every acronym. The same page still needs a strong technical foundation, useful information, clear entities and content that can be retrieved without losing important context. One page-level finding can affect several search experiences. For example, an unclear service description remains an information problem regardless of which acronym is used to describe the optimization work.
[a15]
The checker evaluates page-level factors relevant to Google AI Overview readiness, but it cannot predict or guarantee inclusion because third-party tools do not have access to Google’s internal ranking or AI Overview selection systems.
[f1]Can the checker predict a Google AI Overview placement?
No. It reviews observable search-readiness factors and cannot measure an internal Google AI Overview score or guarantee inclusion.
Evidence ↗[f2]Does Google require special AI markup, llms.txt or a fixed chunk size?
No. Google’s guidance says special AI files or markup and fixed content chunking are unnecessary for its generative search features. The checker focuses on broadly applicable page signals.
Evidence ↗Does the AEO Checker Test Google AI Overview Readiness?
It evaluates factors that can matter to a page’s overall search readiness, including technical accessibility, useful content, entities, answer structure and supporting evidence. It does not claim to measure an internal Google AI Overview score. A page-level diagnostic can inspect the information it receives. Observing an actual AI Overview placement requires the returned search result and its context, which this single-page score does not establish.
That is why this tool treats AEO and GEO as extensions of good search practice rather than rewarding unsupported tactics such as special AI-only markup, mandatory llms.txt files or arbitrary content chunk sizes. For the Google-specific requirements in this answer, see the official AI features documentation. The checker examines observable page quality and accessibility; its score does not establish any platform’s adoption of a custom publishing convention.
Read Google Search Central’s generative AI optimization guidance.
[a16]
The AEO Readiness Score is a proprietary 0–100 page-level assessment combining six categories. It measures observable webpage signals, not a hidden score used by Google, ChatGPT, Perplexity or another answer engine.
[f1]Are the results repeatable?
The same HTML is evaluated against the same internal framework, making before-and-after comparisons more useful.
Evidence ↗[f2]Does page type affect the analysis?
A homepage, service page and article do not need identical signals, so the analysis accounts for page context.
Evidence ↗[f3]Does the score measure actual AI mentions or citations?
The score cannot measure off-page authority, real AI citations, prompt demand, private analytics or a search engine’s internal decisions.
Evidence ↗What Is an AEO Readiness Score?
The score uses a demanding page-level rubric. Excellent starts at 95/100 and requires balanced category strength with no high-priority findings. Basic tag presence or valid JSON alone cannot earn a top result. Applicable unverified checks retain their scoring weight and earn no credit; genuinely inapplicable checks are excluded. Weak core categories limit the overall rating, and explicit Google indexing or snippet restrictions limit the score to 39 or lower. Pages with insufficient main content receive no numeric score. Even 100 describes only the assessed page signals; it does not establish a perfect website, actual indexing or AI visibility.
Repeatable
The same HTML is evaluated against the same internal framework, making before-and-after comparisons more useful. For a useful comparison, keep the URL and submitted page context consistent and record the audit date and website change. A revised page can produce a revised diagnostic; a repeatable score should not be interpreted as a forecast of AI recommendations.
Page-Type Aware
A homepage, service page and article do not need identical signals, so the analysis accounts for page context. A service page needs to explain its offer and how to proceed, while an article needs to resolve its subject and support its claims. The category result should therefore be interpreted in light of what that page is meant to do.
Deliberately Limited
The score cannot measure off-page authority, real AI citations, prompt demand, private analytics or a search engine’s internal decisions. Checking those outcomes requires separate sources, such as saved AI answers, off-page references or the site’s analytics. They cannot be established from the submitted page HTML alone.
[a17]
The Free AEO Checker evaluates observable signals on one public webpage. Managed WordPress AEO services go beyond the score with a wider site review, buyer-question and competitor research, prioritized improvements and ongoing implementation. Explore WordPress AEO services.
[f1]Why does managed onboarding examine more than a page score?
A single-page score cannot establish business visibility, competitors, citations or the wider website constraints. The included onboarding audit evaluates those conditions so monthly implementation follows a useful baseline.
Evidence ↗[f2]Does the managed service include website implementation?
Yes. Agreed WordPress technical, content, internal-linking, entity and schema improvements are implemented through the managed service. The initial audit and roadmap are included in onboarding.
Evidence ↗[f3]Do I need to purchase a separate paid audit first?
No. You can begin the managed WordPress service directly. The initial SEO and AI visibility audit is included in onboarding; the Free AEO Checker remains available for a quick page-level diagnostic.
Evidence ↗What Is the Difference Between the Free Checker and Managed Search?
The free checker answers a narrow but useful question:
The included onboarding audit investigates the wider business question:
That requires research beyond the submitted webpage, including buyer-intent prompt testing, competitive investigation, citation and source analysis, website review and professional interpretation. For example, the page may read clearly while competitors have stronger corroborating sources or the wider site has access problems. Those conditions need research beyond one submitted URL.
The free checker remains useful for a page-level diagnostic. Managed search combines a broader initial audit with strategy, agreed implementation and continuing progress review.
The managed WordPress service includes implementation. Agreed technical, content, internal-linking, entity and schema improvements are part of a coordinated SEO, GEO and AEO work plan. The initial audit and roadmap are included in onboarding. Explore WordPress AEO services.
You can begin managed WordPress AEO services without buying a separate paid audit. The initial SEO and AI visibility baseline is included in onboarding and guides the ongoing improvements.
[a18]
The Free AEO Checker was built by Eric Strate, an SEO and AI-search strategist whose search experience dates to 2012 and who created the Web Answer Retrieval Protocol (WARP).
[f1]What search experience informs the checker?
Eric Strate has worked in SEO since 2012. His work combines technical SEO, search intent, entity clarity, AI-search testing and publishing experiments such as WARP.
Evidence ↗[f2]Why distinguish observable page issues from AI platform decisions?
A useful audit can identify observable webpage problems. It should keep those findings separate from claims about private ranking or AI selection decisions that a third-party tool cannot verify.
Evidence ↗Who Built the Free AEO Checker?
The tool was built by Eric Strate, an SEO and AI-search strategist with search experience dating to 2012. My work combines technical SEO, search intent, entity clarity, AI-search testing and publishing experiments such as WARP rather than treating AEO as a replacement for traditional search fundamentals.
That distinction is important because a useful AEO audit should separate observable webpage problems from claims that no third-party tool can verify. A missing title, a conflicting business name and an unresolving link can be inspected on a page. A claim about an engine’s private source-selection logic needs different evidence and cannot be inferred from that inspection alone.
[a19]
This page uses WARP, Eric Strate’s experimental publishing architecture linking stable publisher-authored answers to optional nested follow-up questions and specific visible evidence passages, with matching semantic markup and a separate relationship map.
[f1]How do the answer, follow-up and evidence links work?
Open an A citation for the canonical answer, expand an F question for a narrower answer, then use its Evidence link to reach the supporting passage in the page body.
Evidence ↗[f2]Does using WARP increase this checker’s score?
No. The Free AEO Checker does not evaluate, reward or recommend WARP as part of its score. This page uses WARP as an optional publishing experiment.
Evidence ↗[f3]Does WARP guarantee AI retrieval, citations or rankings?
No. WARP is an independent experimental proposal, not a Google ranking factor, Schema.org standard or industry requirement. Retrieval and citation gains require separate evidence.
Evidence ↗A Live Answer Architecture Experiment
This page implements the Web Answer Retrieval Protocol (WARP). Each canonical answer has a stable A identifier. Optional F follow-up questions sit inside that answer’s citation panel and link to visible, uniquely addressable E evidence passages. The HTML, standard JSON-LD and separate WARP relationship map describe the same published content. On this page, the six diagnostic-category follow-ups point to the passages explaining what each category means and how to interpret it. Those supporting passages add context to the short responses.
WARP is optional and remains experimental. The Free AEO Checker does not evaluate, reward or recommend WARP as part of its audit score. This page uses WARP only as a live publishing experiment while the checker evaluates broadly applicable page-level signals. An implementation example demonstrates how the content is published. It does not establish that WARP caused a score increase or that an AI system consumed its custom map.
Want Help With Your Next Steps?
The checker gives you a starting point. If you want help reviewing the findings, prioritizing improvements or putting them into practice, you can contact Eric with the URL you checked.
If the checker looks good but AI assistants still recommend competitors, explore why your business may not appear in AI search recommendations. A page-readiness score and business recommendation visibility are different measurements.
For ongoing WordPress optimization, explore WordPress AEO Services. You can review the full scope and pricing there when you are ready.