Free GEO website audit 2026: 11 AI search readiness checks ranked

A readiness check for AI search gives a technical answer: does the site let in the search bots of ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Claude, is the text visible without JavaScript, is there markup, and is the brand recognizable as an entity. It doesn’t tell you whether you’re already mentioned in answers. That’s a separate task, and some of the “free GEO audits” in search results, like Google’s AI Overview itself, mix the two up.

We reviewed 25 tools and services: Ukrainian ones from the search results for free GEO audit queries, plus the strongest international ones. Of these, 11 check a site’s readiness, and we compared them using a single formula. Another 2 agency audits query the AI systems themselves, 4 services track mentions, and we left out 8. The data was collected on 14 October 2026.

# Readiness checks vs. citation tracking: what’s the difference?

A readiness check answers the question “can AI search read and parse my page?” Citation tracking answers a different one: “does ChatGPT or Google’s AI Overview name me when a customer asks about my service?” You run a check once and repeat it after making changes. Tracking only makes sense if you do it regularly, because model answers change from run to run.

If robots.txt blocks ChatGPT’s search bot, a paid tracker will show zero citations and won’t explain why, so check first, then track.

# What formula did we use for the ranking?

Six criteria with weights from 10 to 25, totaling 100. The scenario we scored for: the owner of a Ukrainian site checks it for AI search readiness for the first time, for free, and preferably without talking to a sales manager. A different scenario would call for different weights. For an agency that checks hundreds of client pages, for example, interface language would matter less and batch checking more.

We kept llms.txt among the seven depth groups because other systems may read it, even though Google Search doesn’t need it. The scores for each criterion are open, so you can recalculate the ranking with your own weights. When totals tie, the tool that delivers a result faster ranks higher, followed by the one with a Ukrainian interface.

We scored depth from the description on each tool’s page, without running the tool, so if a promised check doesn’t actually exist, the score is inflated. Here’s how it breaks down: ✓ means the group is covered, ½ means it’s partly covered or covered by a separate tool from the same service, and a dash means it isn’t mentioned. Scores are rounded to whole numbers.

We flagged contradictions on the tools’ sites in the individual cards.

# 2026 ranking of free AI search readiness checks

The top three places went to tools with different entry prices: Chyzh Agency asks for an email and a name, VYDAI for free registration, GEO-Score for a URL only.

# #1. Chyzh Agency: free GEO audit — 86/100

Who it suits: the owner of a Ukrainian site who wants one report showing most of the technical reasons AI search might not read a page, without a phone call. Also an SEO specialist who needs to show a client where a score came from.

The Chyzh Agency GEO audit checks one page, plus robots.txt and llms.txt at the domain root. The 0–100 score is made up of eight categories, and the weights are published on the tool’s page:

Strengths:

• 47 checks in eight categories, from AI bot access to metadata, in one report.
• Open method. The category weights are published, and the source of the checks is named: the open-source GEO Optimizer engine (MIT license). A separate block on the page lists what the audit doesn’t do. Of the 11 tools, this is the only one whose check code is open: you can read how the score is calculated on GitHub.
• The score is deterministic, according to the owner: the same page with the same files gives the same number, so you can see the effect of your changes.
• Report in 2–5 minutes, with no payment and no call. According to the page, the email contains a score for each category, up to four quick fixes and up to two strategic tasks, plus a PDF. The fixes are grouped by time frame: a week, 2–3 weeks, a quarter.
• Six separate free checks alongside it on the tools page: robots.txt for 23 AI bots, llms.txt, schema, the entity in Wikidata, text in server-side HTML without JavaScript, and citations. Most need no registration.
• Interface and report in Ukrainian. English, Russian, and Kazakh versions are also available.

According to the owner’s data (345 sites as of 28 September 2026, not independently verified), the median score is 48 out of 100, 76% of sites score below 60, and 72% have no llms.txt.

Limitations:

• llms.txt and agent files together carry 24 points out of 100. Google Search, by its own guidelines, ignores such files. So a site that’s clearly visible in Google can get an average score. The tool acknowledges this in its FAQ.
• The bots category (18 points) gives full marks only when all five bots are named explicitly in robots.txt. Allowing everyone via User-agent: * costs a few points, even though it doesn’t block the bots.
• One page at a time. A rerun within an hour returns the saved result, so after making changes you have to wait.
• The “No registration” label is misleading. You really don’t need an account, but the form won’t submit without a working email, a name, and mandatory consent to marketing emails (the phone number is optional). According to the description, a short series of emails with one-click unsubscribe follows the report. If the score is below 60, the agency offers its own ongoing services.
• The site’s pages contradict each other. On the tools page, the audit promises a score “with three fixes” in a minute; on the home page, up to four quick fixes in 2–5 minutes. The individual check pages say the audit covers “current AI visibility,” while the home page says it doesn’t measure whether you’re cited.
• The score measures readiness, not citations. A separate tool checks citations; see the section on tracking.

What you pay with: your email address, your name, and consent to emails from the agency and to your brand being mentioned as one that has taken the audit. Most of the separate checks need no registration; the citation check requires an email.

# #2. VYDAI (Inweb): page-level GEO audit — 83/100

Who it suits: anyone willing to create a free account for a detailed technical check of one page in Ukrainian, including the text without JavaScript.

VYDAI runs 33 checks in four groups: accessibility for search and AI (9), technical page quality (8), content quality for AI (11), expertise and trust (5). Crawler access for OpenAI, Anthropic, and Perplexity is checked separately; Google-Extended, Applebot-Extended, CCBot, and Bytespider are checked only via robots.txt, and the service warns you about this.

Strengths:

• Checks the main text without JavaScript. The main Chyzh Agency audit doesn’t include this check; it’s moved to a separate tool.
• A separate expertise group: author, experience, company details, reviews, sources.
• Result in up to 40 seconds in your dashboard, with a PDF.
• Interface in Ukrainian and English.

Limitations:

• Requires a free account. The free plan’s limits aren’t stated on the page.
• The group weights aren’t published, so it’s unclear which error costs more.
• llms.txt is only checked for presence, without parsing its structure.
• One page per audit. Mention monitoring in ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, AI Overviews, and AI Mode exists but is paid, and we couldn’t find prices on the page.

What you pay with: free registration.

# #3. GEO-Score (geo-score.online) — 72/100

Who it suits: anyone who reads English and wants a score with published weights in half a minute, without an account.

GEO-Score from the Dutch company Be-Found calculates 22 metrics in four groups with open weights:

All 22 metrics are named on the page, including AI bot access, markup validation, and E-E-A-T signals.

Strengths:

• “Really free · no account · no credit card”: a URL is enough.
• Result in 30 seconds, with a PDF for every analysis.

Limitations:

• English and Dutch only.
• The page contradicts itself: the FAQ talks about “6 factors,” while the description lists 22 metrics.
• Checks of llms.txt and text without JavaScript aren’t confirmed. A full-site audit is paid: €4.99 one-off or €29.99 per month.

What you pay with: nothing.

# #4. WebAudit Lab (0audit.com): AI search readiness — 71/100

Who it suits: anyone who needs a content check of a page in Ukrainian without giving any contact details.

The WebAudit Lab tool checks how well a page’s text lends itself to being cited in fragments:

• accessibility and text that can be extracted from the code;
• headings and short answers;
• entities, authorship, dates, and sources.

Structured data is checked by a separate tool in the same suite. The principle stated on the page: “Evidence instead of scores.”

Strengths:

• A URL is enough, and the interface is in Ukrainian (among 18 languages).
• A focus on content, which purely technical checks lack.

Limitations:

• AI bot access in robots.txt and llms.txt isn’t mentioned, so you’ll have to check the technical side elsewhere.
• The owner is anonymous: no legal entity is listed, and the only contacts are an X account and a Telegram bot.
• One page per report. The time to result isn’t stated on the page.

What you pay with: nothing, just a URL.

# #5. SEOptimer — 69/100

Who it suits: anyone who already uses a classic SEO audit in English and wants to add AI checks to it.

The free SEOptimer audit has over 100 checks, and every report now includes a GEO block:

• llms.txt;
• text visible after rendering;
• identity markup: Organization, LocalBusiness, Person.

There’s also a free llms.txt validator and an AI crawler block checker. The latter checks GPTBot, OAI-SearchBot, ClaudeBot, PerplexityBot, Google-Extended, and CCBot.

Strengths:

• A URL is enough, and the result is instant.
• Classic SEO and AI checks in one report.

Limitations:

• English only.
• There’s no full list of GEO checks and no weights. The daily limits of the free audit aren’t stated.
• Queries to ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Perplexity are only in the paid GEO audit at $29 per month, with no free trial.

What you pay with: nothing.

# #6. 2UA: Chrome extension — 69/100

Who it suits: anyone who wants to instantly check any open page, their own or a competitor’s, without filling anything in.

AI SEO & GEO Readiness Checker from 2-ua.com runs 12 deterministic checks and gives a 0–100 score. Among the things it checks:

• AI bots in robots.txt;
• HTTPS, title, description, H1, canonical;
• brand consistency;
• schema (Organization, Product, Service);
• headings with the answer up front, lists, and FAQs;
• links to “About us,” contacts, and pricing;
• author and date;
• sitemap;
• llms.txt.

Strengths:

• You don’t have to hand over anything: install the extension, open a page, get a score.
• Covers six of the seven signal groups, missing only the check for text without JavaScript.

Limitations:

• Brand new: version 0.2.1 of 19 August 2026, six users, no ratings in the store.
• No Ukrainian, though Russian is among its ten languages.
• The time to result isn’t stated in the description.
• As with any extension, review the permissions it asks for before installing it.

What you pay with: nothing.

# #7. Starosta Agency: free GEO audit — 64/100

Who it suits: anyone willing to give a phone number who wants a report where the technical side weighs less than brand signals and how ready fragments are to be cited.

The Starosta Agency audit promises over 50 parameters in six categories with published weights:

According to the page, “AI citability” means an assessment of fragments, answer blocks, and bot access, not measured citations. The page also promises a check of GPTBot, ClaudeBot, and PerplexityBot access and a ready-made llms.txt.

Strengths:

• The broadest coverage description among the agency audits, with weights.
• A full PDF report with no payment or commitment, and an interface in Ukrainian.

Limitations:

• A name and phone number are mandatory, and the form has no email field. The report delivery channel isn’t stated.
• Two contradictions on the page:
  • the headline promises a report “within 24 hours,” the team block “within 48 hours”;
  • “a fully automated audit by our AI agent” sits next to “I personally check every report.”
• The page doesn’t make clear whether the audit actually queries AI systems.

What you pay with: your name and phone number.

# #8. Frase: Agent Readiness Checker — 62/100

Who it suits: a technical specialist who needs to check AI agent access specifically, including the firewall and server-side rendering.

Agent Readiness Checker checks three groups:

• access: whether the server delivers content without JavaScript, whether the firewall lets bots through, what robots.txt says;
• discovery: sitemap, llms.txt, Link headers;
• parsing: structured data, a Markdown version.

Strengths:

• Checks both rendering and access through the firewall.
• A URL is enough, the result is instant, and all findings are free.

Limitations:

• English only. It doesn’t check content or brand signals.
• A compiled report with ready-made fixes is available only on the trial plan. Paid plans start at $39 per month.

What you pay with: nothing.

# #9. Geoptie: free GEO audit — 60/100

Who it suits: anyone who reads English and wants a quick overview across six areas.

The free Geoptie audit scores six areas:

• citation readiness;
• query relevance;
• knowledge graph and markup;
• content authority;
• technical optimization;
• competitive position.

Judging by the page code, the tool checks more than 12 AI bots.

Strengths:

• A URL is enough, “No signup required,” and the result comes in under a minute.

Limitations:

• The page contradicts itself: “No signup required,” but to see all the issues and download the PDF, you have to sign in.
• No Ukrainian (Russian is available). No weights and no list of checks.
• Paid plans start at $41 per month.

What you pay with: nothing for a partial report, an account for the full one.

# #10. OtterlyAI: AI bot simulation — 60/100

Who it suits: anyone who suspects that the server or firewall is blocking AI bots, even though robots.txt is fine.

AI Crawler Simulation from the Austrian company OtterlyAI sends real HTTP requests on behalf of eight agents: GPTBot, ChatGPT-User, OAI-SearchBot, Googlebot, GoogleOther, PerplexityBot, ClaudeBot, Grok. The tool doesn’t read robots.txt itself, as the page states. Next to it is GEO Content Check: it scores text by URL or pasted snippet and delivers the result in any of more than 30 languages, including Ukrainian.

Strengths:

• One of the few free tools that can see server-level blocking. robots.txt checks can’t do that.
• The content check’s findings are available in Ukrainian.

Limitations:

• Narrow: it doesn’t check llms.txt, schema, or metadata.
• The interface is in English. Whether the full result requires registration isn’t confirmed.
• The company makes its money from a paid tracker starting at $29 per month.

What you pay with: nothing; the page has only a URL field.

# #11. SEOquick: site audit — 58/100

Who it suits: anyone who needs to crawl not just one page but an entire small site, in Ukrainian.

The SEOquick audit is primarily a classic one: title, meta, H1, canonical, robots, schema, Open Graph, Core Web Vitals, hreflang. Since October 2026, it also checks llms.txt and generates one together with sitemap.xml, and it evaluates entity markup, authors, and sources.

Strengths:

• Crawls multiple pages: 20 at once, up to 1000 after you connect Search Console. Most other tools look at a single page.
• Result in 15–60 seconds, interface in Ukrainian, Russian, and English.

Limitations:

• A contradiction about registration. The audit page promises “one audit without registration,” while the form on the home page requires a name, email, and phone number and creates an account.
• Whether it separately checks AI bots in robots.txt and text without JavaScript isn’t confirmed.
• PDF report only with an account; monitoring comes through the agency’s ongoing services.

What you pay with: according to the audit page, nothing; through the form on the home page, your name, email, and phone number.

# What you pay for “free”: a comparison table

Seven of the 11 tools ask for nothing but a URL. A phone number is mandatory only at Starosta Agency and, through the form on its home page, at SEOquick.

None of the 11 describes how it measures citations. Starosta Agency, SEOquick (after registration), and Geoptie promise AI visibility data but don’t explain where it comes from; the Chyzh Agency home page states outright that the audit doesn’t measure citations.

# Agency audits that actually ask AI

Two free audits from the search results don’t check the site’s files. Instead, they put questions to the AI systems themselves and look at who appears in the answers. That’s why we didn’t include them in the readiness ranking.

• seomarket, express measurement.
  • 10 queries across four AI systems and a basic technical check, in 1–2 days.
  • Requires a name, email, and phone number.
  • The full audit covers 25–30 queries and takes 5–10 business days; pricing goes through a manager.
  • The page has some lines in Russian, and in one place it promises “30+” queries, while its table lists 10 for the express version.
• digital®evolution, sample audit.
  • A manual review of one product or service for one market and in one language.
  • A set of commercial questions in Google, ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, competitor visibility, the main gap, and one priority action.
  • Report in 1–3 business days, only for businesses with active sales.
  • Requires a name, a work email, and a product description.

Both options are useful if your site’s readiness is already in order and the only question is whether AI systems pick you. But each is a one-off sample.

# If you need mention tracking, not a site check

Impressions are fully free to see only for Google, in the Search Console report; the other services show part of the results or ask for contact details.

• Search Console’s Generative AI report. Free, Google only: impressions in AI Overviews and AI Mode by date, page, device, and country.
• Ahrefs AI Visibility Checker.
  • Interface in Ukrainian; a brand name is enough, no registration.
  • Mentions and citations in ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Copilot, AI Overviews, and AI Mode, based on the Brand Radar database.
  • The free version shows only the first five results in each section.
• HubSpot AI Search Grader.
  • How GPT-5.4 mini, Perplexity, and Gemini perceive a brand across five dimensions, from sentiment to share of voice. This is brand perception, not citations of your domain.
  • In English. To open the full report, you have to fill in a form.
• Chyzh Agency citation checker.
  • Up to three of your queries at once in ChatGPT, AI Overviews, and Gemini.
  • Shows separately whether you’re cited as a source or only mentioned in the text.
  • Requires an email; in beta, with a daily limit.

# What Google’s AI Overviews show on this topic: snapshot of 14 October 2026

AI Overviews on this topic rely mostly on English-language services and blogs: of 152 domains across 19 overviews, only 18 are in the .ua zone. We sent Google 20 queries in Ukrainian about checking a site for AI search (region Ukraine, desktop) and, for each one, saved what the AI Overview showed and which sources it relied on. We got results for 19 queries; for one, the API returned an error. All 19 had an AI Overview.

• Few domains in the .ua zone. The 19 overviews name 152 different domains, only 18 of them in the .ua zone. Some Ukrainian-language pages sit on other domains (for example, serpstat.com/uk/ or sitechecker.pro/ua/); the rest are in English.
• The overview separates the two tasks but mixes up the tools. For the query “сервіс перевірки сайту для chatgpt” (“website checker service for ChatGPT”), it splits services into mention trackers and technical audits, but files Ahrefs AI Visibility Checker, which doesn’t check sites, under technical audits. At the end, the overview asks the user what they mean.
• Some answers are outdated. For the query “перевірка сайту для ai overviews” (“website check for AI Overviews”), the overview claims Search Console has no separate AI Overview data. That’s no longer true: Search Console now has such a report.
• One source for the whole query. For the query “перевірка сайту на готовність до ai пошуку” (“checking a website for AI search readiness”), the overview relies only on the 2UA extension with six users.
• The overview doesn’t say what the tools ask in return. For the query “безкоштовний geo аудит сайту” (“free GEO website audit”), it names Starosta Agency, VYDAI, and digital®evolution but doesn’t mention that one asks for a phone number, another for registration, and the third accepts only businesses with sales.

The snapshot is a one-off: AI Overviews change from day to day and from user to user.

# How can you check your site yourself in 10 minutes?

Without paid tools or signing up for any auditor, you can check the five things that break most often.

1. robots.txt.
   • Open yoursite.ua/robots.txt and find the rules for OAI-SearchBot (ChatGPT search), Claude-SearchBot, PerplexityBot, and Googlebot.
   • Blocking GPTBot concerns OpenAI model training and doesn’t remove the site from ChatGPT search.
   • Google-Extended doesn’t affect Google Search, including AI Overviews.
2. Text without JavaScript. Open the page via view-source: in your browser and search (Ctrl+F) for a sentence from the first paragraph. If it’s not in the code, a bot that doesn’t render pages will see an empty page.
3. Markup. Test the page in the Rich Results Test and the schema.org validator. Look for Organization, Article, or Product with filled-in fields, not empty templates.
4. Answer up front. Does the first paragraph answer the page’s main question, without an introduction about the company’s history? That makes the page easier for people to read and for other AI systems to parse. Google notes separately that you don’t need to split text into chunks specifically for its AI features.
5. The Search Console report. Open the Generative AI performance report and see which pages already have impressions in AI Overviews and AI Mode (the report shows them combined).

If all five items check out, an automated audit will mostly find minor issues. If even one fails, start there, not with llms.txt.

# What can no free tool see?

No free tool sees a site the way a real bot from a real IP address sees it, and none knows what an AI system will show a specific customer.

• Rules for real bots. Most tools read only robots.txt and don’t see a Cloudflare or other protection rule that returns 403 to bots. Simulations like OtterlyAI send a request on a bot’s behalf, but from their own address. So they can’t reproduce a rule that a CDN applies only to bots’ real IP addresses either.
• The rest of the site. Almost all of them check the one page you enter. The home page and a service page can have different scores.
• What people will actually see. ChatGPT answers and AI Overviews are personalized and change over time. One run through an API gives one sample; each customer may see something different.
• Private knowledge graphs. Google, OpenAI, and Anthropic have their own picture of brands, and no service has access to it. Only public traces can be checked: Wikidata, Wikipedia, sameAs.
• Content quality. A structure score won’t tell you whether the text is useful. In its guidelines on generative AI features, Google advises betting on unique, expert content rather than on individual AEO/GEO tricks.

# What does Google say about llms.txt and special markup?

Google Search ignores llms.txt: its guidelines on generative AI features (updated 10 July 2026) say such a file neither hurts nor helps visibility, and that there’s no need to split text into small chunks for AI. For AI Overviews and AI Mode, a page must be indexed and eligible to be shown with a snippet, and the site itself must not be opted out of generative AI features in Search Console. Special markup “for AI” isn’t needed either, and Google has removed the FAQ rich result from search.

That doesn’t make llms.txt harmful. The format is described on llmstxt.org as a community proposal, and other systems may read it. But a tool that puts llms.txt first among the reasons you’re missing from Google’s AI Overviews contradicts Google’s own documentation.

# Red flags: when to skip a “free audit”

• They promise a guaranteed mention in ChatGPT or an AI Overview. Nobody controls model answers.
• The report comes only after a call with a sales manager. Then it’s a sales consultation, not a tool.
• There’s neither a list of checks nor weights. A score of “67 out of 100” with no breakdown gives you nothing to fix.
• They check only GPTBot and draw conclusions about ChatGPT search from that.
• They pass off a readiness score as citations, for example “your AI visibility is 40%,” even though they never sent a single query to an AI system.

# What should you do after the check?

1. Check the page that’s supposed to bring in customers, not just the home page. Next to it, check a competitor’s page from Google’s top results.
2. Fix whatever blocks reading: blocked search bots, empty HTML without JavaScript, missing title and canonical.
3. Add Organization and Article markup with filled-in fields, and put the answer to the main question in the first paragraph.
4. Rerun the check with the same tool. A score only means something compared with the previous run of the same tool.
5. Only then turn on tracking: the Search Console report for Google and, if needed, a mention tracker for ChatGPT and Perplexity.

If there are still no citations after the technical fixes, the problem is no longer the site but what other sources write about you. We covered how this works for small businesses in our guide to GEO for small businesses. To see who in Ukraine does this work end to end, check the ranking of GEO agencies (in Ukrainian).

# What we left out and why

• seo-a. Its GEO audit page says the cost is “calculated individually,” so it isn’t confirmed to be free.
• Semrush. Site Audit has an AI search category and is available with a free account for up to 100 pages. But it’s a full SEO crawl for specialists, set up as a separate project and in English, not a one-page check in a minute, so it’s overkill for the ranking’s scenario.
• SE Ranking. Only the robots.txt check for AI bots is free, up to five per day; the tools in the ranking do the same without that limit.
• Sitechecker and Seobility. No free GEO audit; AI features are only on paid plans.
• Mangools AI Search Grader, geochecker.net. Mostly brand mentions; they don’t check the site as a whole. Of services like these, we described the ones that show the most for free.
• geo.v.ua. This is a page of agency packages at $500–3000, not a tool.

# Methodology

The data was collected on 14 October 2026 from the tools’ public pages. We didn’t submit any contact forms or buy any paid plans, so depth is assessed from what each tool promises on its page. Search results snapshot: 20 queries in Google (Ukraine, Ukrainian language, desktop) with AI Overviews, via the DataForSEO API. The formula’s weights are an editorial decision for the scenario “owner of a Ukrainian site, first free check.” We review the ranking when a tool changes its terms or method.