Head to head

diepresse.com vs natlawreview.com

natlawreview.com is more readable to AI, 85 against 80 out of 100. Both were measured with the same audit: robots.txt policy for 48 AI agents, live requests under four crawler user agents, and a JavaScript-free read of the homepage.

diepresse.com 80/10080diepresse.com

Scanned 1 hour ago · full report

natlawreview.com 85/10085natlawreview.com

Scanned 1 hour ago · full report

Where the difference is by dimension

Dimensiondiepresse.comnatlawreview.com
Reach
Whether AI crawlers and answer-engine fetchers are permitted to request the page at all. What h…
36 / 4036 / 40
Readability
Whether a fetcher that does not execute JavaScript receives the actual content, in markup an ex…
19 / 2523 / 25
Structure
Machine-readable markup that states the page's type, entities, canonical URL, and discrete fact…
16 / 2016 / 20
Attribution
Signals that let an answer engine name the author, date the content, resolve the publisher, and…
4 / 157 / 15

The measurements side by side

Measurementdiepresse.comnatlawreview.com
Answer engines blocked40
Training crawlers blocked110
Refuses AI agents at the edgenoyes
Words of text without JavaScript1,4573,796
Structured datayesyes
Sitemapyesyes
llms.txtnono

diepresse.com blocks anthropic-ai, Applebot-Extended, Bytespider, CCBot, ChatGPT-User, ClaudeBot, cohere-ai, Diffbot, FacebookBot, Google-Extended, GPTBot, ImagesiftBot, omgili, omgilibot, PerplexityBot, YouBot.

natlawreview.com blocks no tracked AI crawler in robots.txt.

Compare your own site

Free, no account. To watch a competitor and get an email when their crawler policy changes, see pricing.