Head to head
floqast.app vs exteragram.app
exteragram.app is more readable to AI, 68 against 48 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.
Scanned 3 hours ago · full report
Scanned 3 hours ago · full report
Where the difference is by dimension
| Dimension | floqast.app | exteragram.app |
|---|---|---|
| Reach Whether AI crawlers and answer-engine fetchers are permitted to request the page at all. What h… |
39 / 40 | 40 / 40 |
| Readability Whether a fetcher that does not execute JavaScript receives the actual content, in markup an ex… |
2 / 25 | 17 / 25 |
| Structure Machine-readable markup that states the page's type, entities, canonical URL, and discrete fact… |
3 / 20 | 6 / 20 |
| Attribution Signals that let an answer engine name the author, date the content, resolve the publisher, and… |
1 / 15 | 1 / 15 |
The measurements side by side
| Measurement | floqast.app | exteragram.app |
|---|---|---|
| Answer engines blocked | 0 | 0 |
| Training crawlers blocked | 0 | 0 |
| Refuses AI agents at the edge | no | no |
| Words of text without JavaScript | 1 | 242 |
| Structured data | no | no |
| Sitemap | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | no |
floqast.app blocks no tracked AI crawler in robots.txt.
exteragram.app 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.