Head to head

healthworkforce.com.au vs brisbanetimes.com.au

brisbanetimes.com.au is more readable to AI, 75 against 57 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.

healthworkforce.com.au 57/10057healthworkforce.com.au

Scanned 10 hours ago · full report

brisbanetimes.com.au 75/10075brisbanetimes.com.au

Scanned 10 hours ago · full report

Where the difference is by dimension

Dimensionhealthworkforce.com.aubrisbanetimes.com.au
Reach
Whether AI crawlers and answer-engine fetchers are permitted to request the page at all. What h…
24 / 4026 / 40
Readability
Whether a fetcher that does not execute JavaScript receives the actual content, in markup an ex…
19 / 2522 / 25
Structure
Machine-readable markup that states the page's type, entities, canonical URL, and discrete fact…
9 / 2020 / 20
Attribution
Signals that let an answer engine name the author, date the content, resolve the publisher, and…
1 / 153 / 15

The measurements side by side

Measurementhealthworkforce.com.aubrisbanetimes.com.au
Answer engines blocked08
Training crawlers blocked015
Refuses AI agents at the edgeyesyes
Words of text without JavaScript1,3152,637
Structured datanoyes
Sitemapyesyes
llms.txtnono

Compare your own site

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