Head to head
hypotheses.org vs radiopaedia.org
radiopaedia.org is more readable to AI, 54 against 38 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 13 hours ago · full report
Scanned 10 hours ago · full report
Where the difference is by dimension
| Dimension | hypotheses.org | radiopaedia.org |
|---|---|---|
| Reach Whether AI crawlers and answer-engine fetchers are permitted to request the page at all. What h… |
24 / 40 | 30 / 40 |
| Readability Whether a fetcher that does not execute JavaScript receives the actual content, in markup an ex… |
8 / 25 | 11 / 25 |
| Structure Machine-readable markup that states the page's type, entities, canonical URL, and discrete fact… |
3 / 20 | 9 / 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 | hypotheses.org | radiopaedia.org |
|---|---|---|
| Answer engines blocked | 0 | 0 |
| Training crawlers blocked | 0 | 7 |
| Refuses AI agents at the edge | yes | yes |
| Words of text without JavaScript | 75 | 236 |
| Structured data | no | no |
| Sitemap | no | yes |
| llms.txt | no | no |
hypotheses.org blocks no tracked AI crawler in robots.txt.
radiopaedia.org blocks Amazonbot, Applebot-Extended, Bytespider, CCBot, ClaudeBot, Google-Extended, GPTBot, Meta-ExternalAgent.
Compare your own site
Free, no account. To watch a competitor and get an email when their crawler policy changes, see pricing.