Two websites, side by side: where AI engines make the choice.
Enter two URLs below and run a free head-to-head GEO audit. See which site is more visible to AI answer engines like ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Claude — scored across the same nine signal categories, side by side.
Baseline score and blockers.
Competing signal profile.
Where one domain wins trust.
See exactly which signals the higher-scoring site has that you don’t.
How comparison works
Each site is benchmarked against the same categories used in the standard GEO audit.
GEO Score across nine signal categories.
Citation-oriented content and source signals.
Technical access, structure, and AI discovery.
Need to evaluate more than two domains? Use competitor analysis.
When to run a head-to-head GEO comparison
Run a two-site comparison when you have one clear benchmark in mind. The most common cases are your own domain against a single competitor, a before-and-after on a site you have just changed, or two candidate pages competing for the same query. The point is isolation: with exactly two sites, every difference in the score is attributable to one of them, not averaged across a crowd.
It is the wrong tool when you want a market picture. If you are trying to understand how a whole category treats AI visibility, or to rank several domains at once, a single pair will mislead you. For that, use multi-competitor analysis. And if the comparison shows you're being cited less than a rival, see the citation gap workflow to find who AI cites instead. If you only need a baseline for one site, you do not need a comparison at all — run a single audit first, then compare once you have something to measure against.
What the 9 signal categories measure
models/config.py · CATEGORY_MAX_V2 · Σ = 100 pts
Both sites are scored on the same nine categories used in the standard GEO audit (rubric v2, the default since engine 4.19.0), weighted to a total of 100 points. The weights reflect how much each category influences whether an AI answer engine can reach, understand, and quote a page. Google AI readiness carries the most weight, followed by robots.txt, schema, and content. Access comes first in practice: if a bot cannot fetch an indexable page, the quality of the content never gets a chance to matter. The methodology page and the scoring rubric list every check.
| Category | Weight | What it checks |
|---|---|---|
| Google AI readiness | 20 | The technical conditions Google documents for its search and AI features: an indexable page, snippet controls, a single canonical, consistent dates, a byline, crawlable links, a viewport tag, and a declared sitemap. |
| robots.txt | 14 | Whether AI crawlers can reach the site and whether the file invites citation-oriented bots rather than blocking them by default. |
| Schema JSON-LD | 14 | Valid structured data — Organization, WebSite, Article, FAQ — that lets engines disambiguate entities and pull facts confidently. |
| Content | 14 | Heading hierarchy, front-loaded answers, lists, image alt text, and the numbers and links that make passages quotable. |
| Brand & entity | 12 | Naming coherence, knowledge-graph readiness, and about/contact clarity that tie pages to a recognizable entity. |
| Meta tags | 11 | Title, description, and Open Graph tags that keep the page identifiable. |
| llms.txt | 6 | Presence and quality of a root-level llms.txt: title, summary, sectioned links, and link depth that orient AI agents to the right pages. Google states that its AI features do not use this file. |
| Signals | 6 | Declared language, RSS, and freshness indicators that help engines judge currency. |
| AI discovery | 3 | Machine-readable endpoints such as /.well-known/ai.txt and JSON summaries that expose the site to AI tooling. |
The same weights apply to both sites, so the comparison is apples to apples. A site can score well on content yet lose the overall gap on a single blocked crawler — which is exactly the kind of imbalance a side-by-side view makes visible.
How to read the gap between two sites
Read the gap by category, not by the headline number. Two sites can sit ten points apart for very different reasons, and the reason determines the work. A gap concentrated in robots.txt or llms.txt is usually a technical fix you can ship in an afternoon. The same gap spread across content and brand signals reflects editorial and authority work that takes weeks.
Map each category difference to the band it falls into:
Most signals in place; the site is structurally ready to be cited.
Solid foundation with a few high-value gaps left to close.
Core pieces exist but several categories need work.
Crawlability or structure blocks visibility before content matters.
Then prioritize where the difference is largest and the effort is lowest. A losing site in the foundation band with a strong competitor in good territory should fix crawlability and structure before touching copy. If you want the full reasoning behind why these categories matter for AI engines specifically, the GEO vs SEO guide explains what changes when the interface is an answer rather than a list of links.
Comparison vs multi-competitor analysis
A two-site comparison and a multi-competitor analysis answer different questions. The comparison is built for depth on a single pair: it puts two domains side by side so the gap in each category is explicit and easy to act on. It is the right tool for a duel — you versus one rival, or one version of a page versus another.
Multi-competitor analysis is built for breadth. It runs a batch audit across several domains and surfaces the pattern — shared blockers, the signals the leaders have in common, and where a whole set of sites is weak. Use it when you are setting strategy for a category rather than closing a gap with one competitor. When a pattern points you back to a single contender, return here and run the head-to-head. See competitor AI visibility analysis for the multi-site view.
Comparison FAQ
What does a head-to-head GEO comparison actually measure?
It scores two sites across the same nine signal categories used in the standard GEO audit — Google AI readiness, robots.txt, schema, content, brand and entity signals, meta tags, llms.txt, freshness signals, and AI discovery — and shows the gap category by category. The output is a relative readiness picture, not a prediction that a specific model will cite either site.
Is the comparison free, and do I need an account?
The two-site comparison is free and runs without an account. It returns a side-by-side GEO score for each URL across all nine categories. Saving reports and tracking changes over time are account features, but the comparison itself is not gated.
When should I compare two sites instead of analyzing several competitors?
Use a two-site comparison when you have one clear benchmark — your domain against a single competitor, or a before-and-after on a redesign. When you need to see a market pattern across a set of domains, multi-competitor analysis is the better tool because it surfaces shared blockers and ranks several sites at once.
Does a higher GEO score guarantee more AI citations?
No. The score measures structural readiness — whether crawlers can reach the site, whether content is quotable, and whether entities are clear. Citation behavior in AI engines is probabilistic and changes as models are retrained. A stronger score removes friction; it does not force a citation.
Which AI engines does the comparison reflect?
The signals are engine-agnostic. They reflect the technical and content conditions that AI answer engines such as ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Claude rely on when they retrieve and cite sources — crawler access, structured data, quotable content, and entity clarity — rather than any single vendor’s ranking system.
How should I read a large gap between two sites?
Read it by category, not by the headline number. A 20-point gap concentrated in Google AI readiness or robots.txt is mostly a technical fix; the same gap spread across content and brand signals reflects slower editorial work. Start with the category where the difference is largest and the effort is lowest.
Close the gap, then keep it closed.
Fix the category with the largest gap first. Monitoring re-runs the same audit on a schedule, so you see when your site moves.