// grow.contact / stats
Last verified:Info-gain 52%Here’s the short version: 63% of the top 390 AI companies still ship no usable llms.txt, 27% are effectively opaque to ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Claude, and only 13% clear the bar where AI engines cite by name. Every number below comes from the open Agent Readability Leaderboard and has a stable anchor — quote freely under CC BY 4.0.
grow.contact (2026). State of the Agent-Readable Web — live headline stats. grow.contact. Retrieved 1970-01-01, from https://grow.contact/stats
// Missing llms.txt
63%verified
63% of the top 390 AI companies have no llms.txt or one too thin for inference. This is the single cheapest agent-readability fix — and most of the industry still skips it.
63% of the top 390 AI companies are missing or under-serving llms.txt. Source: https://grow.contact/stats#missing-llms-txt (CC BY 4.0) Verifiable claim: https://grow.contact/api/public/data/claims.json#missing-llms-txtPermalink ↗
// Weak JSON-LD
67%verified
67% ship insufficient structured data for reliable AI citation. ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Google AI Overviews lean on JSON-LD to know who, what, and how much.
67% of top AI companies ship insufficient JSON-LD for reliable AI citation. Source: https://grow.contact/stats#weak-jsonld (CC BY 4.0) Verifiable claim: https://grow.contact/api/public/data/claims.json#weak-jsonldPermalink ↗
// Opaque to AI engines
27%verified
27% of the sample score below 55/100 — effectively invisible to ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Claude live search. Most are fixable in a single sprint.
27% of top AI companies are effectively opaque (score <55/100) to ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Claude. Source: https://grow.contact/stats#opaque (CC BY 4.0) Verifiable claim: https://grow.contact/api/public/data/claims.json#opaquePermalink ↗
// Clear the agent-native bar
13%verified
Only 13% of the sample clear 85/100 — the bar where a site is reliably cited across all four major AI search engines.
Only 13% of top AI companies clear the agent-native bar (score ≥85/100). Source: https://grow.contact/stats#agent-native (CC BY 4.0) Verifiable claim: https://grow.contact/api/public/data/claims.json#agent-nativePermalink ↗
// Fail the speed threshold
66%verified
66% of sites are slow enough that AI crawlers (which timeout in 1–5s) skip them outright. The penalty isn't a ranking drop — it's silence.
66% of top AI companies fail the first-byte speed threshold AI crawlers time out against. Source: https://grow.contact/stats#slow-ttfb (CC BY 4.0) Verifiable claim: https://grow.contact/api/public/data/claims.json#slow-ttfbPermalink ↗
// Weak semantic HTML
69%verified
69% miss core landmark elements (<main>, <article>, <nav>) AI scrapers use to extract content reliably. Cheap to fix; rarely audited.
69% of top AI companies ship HTML without the semantic landmarks AI scrapers rely on. Source: https://grow.contact/stats#weak-semantic (CC BY 4.0) Verifiable claim: https://grow.contact/api/public/data/claims.json#weak-semanticPermalink ↗
Dev Tools
118 companies
Infra
82 companies
Models
87 companies
Agents
103 companies
Framer AI
framer.com
JetBrains AI
jetbrains.com
Anthropic
anthropic.com
Fly.io
fly.io
Grafana
grafana.com
// Run your own number
The scanner that powers these stats is free and public. Drop a URL, get the same six-signal score, and a punch-list of what to fix to clear the agent-native bar.
// For journalists & analysts
Every figure on this page is recomputed from the same open dataset that powers the leaderboard. Use any of them with attribution — no email gate, no API key.