Loading results...
Loading results...
Site ScoreHow effectively your page communicates, engages, and motivates action. Based on how well visitors understood your proposition, whether they stayed engaged, and how motivated they felt to click. AI Citability Index, Accessibility Score, and Search Rank Score are scored separately.
AI Citability IndexHow well AI search engines like ChatGPT, Claude, and Perplexity can find and quote your page. Checks 8 citability signals including structured data, content clarity, and crawler access. This is an index of citation-readiness signals, not a measurement of actual citations. Includes simple fixes for every issue found.
8 dimensions analyzed
Search RankingWill people find your page on Google and click it? Checks whether your search listing matches your page, whether visitors find what they expected, whether AI tools can quote you, and whether your share cards work. Separate from the AI Citability Index, which measures citation-readiness signals for ChatGPT/Perplexity.
Accessibility ScoreReduce your exposure to regulatory risk. Checks colour contrast, keyboard navigation, screen reader support, and touch targets. Flags accessibility issues and legal compliance gaps. Includes simple fixes for every issue found.
Click any page to expand the full findings, fixes, psychology, and visitor breakdown.
Bounce rate
24%
CTA Pull
37 / 100
Messaging
Aligned
Visitor understanding
What confused visitors
Hero headline 'Analytics that actually works' gives no category signal or audience specificity. The Skeptic archived the tab within 8 seconds on the homepage.
23 agentsThree competing CTAs above fold ('Start free', 'Watch demo', 'See integrations') created decision paralysis. The Analyst spent 40 seconds deciding which to click before navigating away.
19 agentsSocial proof section uses unrecognisable logos. The Corporate Buyer couldn't validate the 'trusted by 1,400 teams' claim, lowering trust on the homepage.
15 agentsWhy visitors left
Bounce rate
38%
CTA Pull
22 / 100
Messaging
Incomplete
Visitor understanding
What confused visitors
Case study cards on /customers lead with company names, not outcomes. The Researcher wanted to see '60% faster query time' before investing time in reading the story.
23 agentsTwo of three case studies on /customers contain no measurable results. The Analyst dismissed them as marketing copy and exited to find independent reviews.
19 agentsWhy visitors left
Bounce rate
61%
CTA Pull
28 / 100
Messaging
Contradictory
Visitor understanding
What confused visitors
No plan comparison table on the pricing page. The Corporate Buyer and The Analyst each spent over 90 seconds searching for a feature breakdown before exiting.
23 agentsPer-seat pricing model unexplained above fold on the pricing page. The Budget-Conscious Buyer assumed worst-case scaling cost and exited without contacting sales.
19 agentsEnterprise tier CTA on the pricing page ('Talk to us') has no indication of what enterprise includes, typical price range, or minimum seat count.
15 agentsWhy visitors left
Bounce rate
19%
CTA Pull
35 / 100
Messaging
Aligned
Visitor understanding
What confused visitors
Team section on /about links to LinkedIn profiles but doesn't display role titles inline. The Corporate Buyer wanted to verify engineering credentials before trusting infrastructure software.
23 agentsBounce rate
31%
CTA Pull
25 / 100
Messaging
Incomplete
Visitor understanding
What confused visitors
Feature names on the features page ('Ingestion orchestration', 'Schema drift detection') are jargon-heavy. The Non-Technical Visitor couldn't map any feature to a business outcome.
23 agentsNo screenshots or product GIFs on the features page. The Skeptic couldn't verify whether the UI matched their mental model of 'real-time analytics'.
19 agentsWhy visitors left
Bounce rate
44%
CTA Pull
40 / 100
Messaging
Incomplete
Visitor understanding
What confused visitors
Contact form on /contact has 7 fields including 'How did you hear about us?'. This caused significant drop-off: The Budget-Conscious Buyer was one step from completing a journey.
23 agentsNo expected response time stated anywhere on /contact. High-urgency visitors left to try a competitor with live chat.
19 agentsWhy visitors left
Good foundation with clear improvement opportunities. The recommendations below address the highest-leverage gaps.
Key finding
Three of six simulated visitor journeys ended in an exit. Not three random visitors: the Skeptic, Corporate Buyer, and Budget-Conscious Buyer, the archetypes most likely to become high-value, long-term customers. ExampleSite scored 62 out of 100. The product is solid and the site is technically sound. The problem is structural. These visitor types need to self-qualify before they will contact sales, and right now the site does not give them the means to do it.
The pricing page (44/100) has no comparison table and no trust signals. The Corporate Buyer arrived expecting enterprise feature detail and recognisable customer names. They found neither and left. Messaging is the second gap: the homepage speaks in outcomes, but the features page reverts to engineering terminology, losing non-technical evaluators before they reach pricing at all. Social proof exists on the site but is practically hidden. Case studies require navigating a Resources dropdown. Neither the pricing nor the contact page carries a single testimonial, despite being the two pages where purchase intent is at its highest.
The three visitors who converted already understood the data observability category. That familiarity carried them through the friction. The archetypes who exited had no such grounding. Three fixes address this directly: a comparison table on the pricing page, trust signals on /pricing and /contact, and a quantified outcome on every case study card. None of them require a redesign. Each one targets the specific reason a specific archetype left.
50 behavioral profiles per scored page ran independently, each with a distinct cognitive load level, emotional valence, device context, and trust threshold calibrated from 200+ peer-reviewed papers on cognition and persuasion.
Each profile processed your headline, CTA, trust signals, and page structure, firing behavioral events: confusion triggers, distrust signals, or confidence reinforcements. No two profiles share the same starting state.
The site score is the statistical aggregate of all independent decisions across every scored page. Issues affecting many profiles across multiple pages rank highest.
How your pages work as a system, who they work for, and where the friction is.
Messaging, content coverage, navigation, and trust signal consistency across your site.
Core terms like 'data pipeline', 'analytics', and 'observability' appear inconsistently across pages. Visitors who enter via Features then visit Pricing encounter noticeably different terminology for the same product.
Missing a dedicated customer evidence page with quantified metrics and a self-service ROI tool. Both are ranked as high-value content by enterprise buyer archetypes. Missing: dedicated social proof page, ROI calculator or savings estimator.
Primary nav includes Pricing and Features, which is good. The 'Customers' link is buried inside a 'Resources' dropdown, making social proof hard to find for evaluating buyers.
Fraction of pages with at least one trust signal. Missing on high-stakes pages: /pricing, /contact.
Performance by visitor type
| Visitor Type | Understanding | CTA Pull | Bounce | Weakest Page |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Startup FounderTime-pressed decision maker balancing cost and speed. Needs to see clear value quickly. | 74% | 68 / 100 | 18% | /pricing |
| ResearcherReads everything thoroughly, opens multiple tabs, and compares options. Won't convert without complete information but will bookmark for later. | 70% | 42 / 100 | 24% | /pricing |
| Analytical AnalystData-driven evaluator who digs into details. Needs numbers, benchmarks, and technical depth. | 64% | 38 / 100 | 32% | /pricing |
| Corporate BuyerEvaluates products for business use. Needs ROI justification, compliance info, and team pricing. | 51% | 18 / 100 | 58% | /pricing |
| SkepticQuestions claims and looks for proof before trusting. Needs reviews, credentials, and guarantees. | 41% | 12 / 100 | 71% | /customers |
| Budget Conscious | 45% | 14 / 100 | 64% | /pricing |
Startup FounderTime-pressed decision maker balancing cost and speed. Needs to see clear value quickly.
Understanding
CTA Pull
Bounce
18%Weakest page
/pricing
ResearcherReads everything thoroughly, opens multiple tabs, and compares options. Won't convert without complete information but will bookmark for later.
Understanding
CTA Pull
Bounce
24%Weakest page
/pricing
Analytical AnalystData-driven evaluator who digs into details. Needs numbers, benchmarks, and technical depth.
Understanding
CTA Pull
Bounce
32%Weakest page
/pricing
Corporate BuyerEvaluates products for business use. Needs ROI justification, compliance info, and team pricing.
Understanding
CTA Pull
Bounce
58%Weakest page
/pricing
SkepticQuestions claims and looks for proof before trusting. Needs reviews, credentials, and guarantees.
Understanding
CTA Pull
Bounce
71%Weakest page
/customers
Budget Conscious
Understanding
CTA Pull
Bounce
64%Weakest page
/pricing
Why visitors leave
105 exitsConfidence TrajectoryHow visitor confidence changed across all pages. Averaged across every simulated visitor on every scored page.
Information overload
31%felt overwhelmed
Quick decisions
36%used System 1 (intuitive)
Top confidence breakers
Top confidence builders
Trust Signal EffectivenessWhich trust signal categories visitors believed vs dismissed across all pages.
Converted
Exited
What's costing the most conversions across all pages, and how to fix it.
Start here
Pricing page: /pricing
No comparison table and no trust signals on /pricing mean high-consideration buyers cannot self-qualify. Two of six tracked personas exited the pricing page without contacting sales. The Corporate Buyer found no enterprise proof at all.
Fix: Add a three-column feature comparison table (Starter / Growth / Enterprise) directly on /pricing. Place two recognisable customer logos above the tier cards. Add a one-sentence per-seat model explanation beside each price.
Pricing page: /pricing
Why
No comparison table and no trust signals on /pricing mean high-consideration buyers cannot self-qualify. Two of six tracked personas exited the pricing page without contacting sales. The Corporate Buyer found no enterprise proof at all.
Fix
Add a three-column feature comparison table (Starter / Growth / Enterprise) directly on /pricing. Place two recognisable customer logos above the tier cards.
Add a one-sentence per-seat model explanation beside each price.
Homepage hero: /
Why
The current headline on / ('Analytics that actually works') gives no category signal or audience specificity. The Skeptic exited in under 8 seconds. Non-technical visitors couldn't determine whether ExampleSite was for them.
Fix
Rewrite the homepage hero to name the category and primary user type: 'Real-time pipeline analytics for data engineering teams.' Remove two of the three above-fold CTAs. Keep only 'Start free'.
Case study cards: /customers
Why
Two of three case studies on /customers have no quantified outcomes. The Analyst dismissed them as marketing copy. The Budget-Conscious Buyer left the site after failing to find any ROI figure to justify internal budget spend.
Fix
Add a headline metric to every case study card on /customers (e.g. '43% faster reporting').
Lead with the outcome before the company name. If metrics are unavailable, use a direct quote about business impact instead.
Contact form: /contact
Why
Seven form fields on /contact, including 'How did you hear about us?', caused the Budget-Conscious Buyer to abandon at the last step of a 5-page journey. High-intent visitors treated the form as a qualification barrier.
Fix
Reduce /contact to 4 fields: name, email, company, message. Move 'How did you hear about us?' to the post-submission page. Add 'We respond within 1 business day' below the submit button.
Trust signals: /pricing and /contact
Why
Both /pricing and /contact are key conversion points with zero trust signals. Visitors deciding whether to buy or enquire have no proof that others have succeeded. WhyIQ flagged both as high-stakes pages without trust.
Fix
Add one testimonial (name, role, company logo) to the /pricing page sidebar. Add a three-logo trust bar above the /contact form. Create a dedicated /customers page with metrics-led case study cards.
Feature language: /features
Why
Feature names on /features like 'Ingestion orchestration' are meaningless to non-technical evaluators. The Non-Technical Visitor couldn't assess relevance and exited before reaching pricing.
Fix
Rewrite each feature name on /features as a user outcome. Add one annotated product screenshot per feature group. Add a 'Who uses this?
' micro-label (e.g. 'Data engineers', 'Analytics managers') per feature card.
Watch different buyer types move through your pages, each with distinct patience and trust thresholds.
Why this section matters
Multi-page journeys expose problems that single-page scores hide. A high-scoring homepage can still lose buyers if the pricing page fails them.
50%
Simulated conversion
4.0
Avg pages visited
The Founder
Quickest to convert
Journey narrative
Landed on the homepage, immediately navigated to Features to validate the product category, then cross-checked pricing. Spent time on the About page reviewing founder credentials. Returned to pricing and submitted the 'Talk to us' form after reading a case study. The journey was longer than ideal but intent remained high throughout.
Page-by-page breakdown
Read the hero, unclear on use case. Navigated to Features for specifics.
Feature set matched use case. Looked for pricing next.
No comparison table. Moved to About to validate company credibility before committing.
Founding team had credible backgrounds. Trust increased enough to return to pricing.
Submitted 'Talk to us' form for enterprise plan discussion.
Journey narrative
Landed on the homepage with moderate scepticism about AI-adjacent analytics tools. The headline didn't establish clear differentiation, so navigated directly to Customers to look for proof. Found case studies without metrics. Left without exploring pricing.
Page-by-page breakdown
Headline too generic. Needed proof before investing more time.
Case studies lacked quantified outcomes. No comparison with known tools.
Feature names felt like jargon without context. Exited to evaluate a competitor with a demo.
Journey narrative
Arrived via LinkedIn ad expecting enterprise-grade positioning. Navigated straight to Pricing to check whether an enterprise tier existed. The enterprise option had no feature list, no minimum seat guidance, and no named customer logos. Exited immediately.
Page-by-page breakdown
Looking for enterprise signals. None visible above fold.
Enterprise tier lacked detail. No proof that the product serves companies of their scale.
Journey narrative
High-intent visit from a founder already familiar with the data observability category. Went directly to Pricing, found the Starter plan sufficient for team size, and converted via the homepage CTA. The most efficient journey of all simulated visitors.
Page-by-page breakdown
Skimmed hero, navigated to Pricing immediately. Already familiar with the tool category.
Free Starter plan visible. Feature list sufficient for early-stage needs.
Clicked 'Start free'. Converted via homepage CTA after pricing confirmation.
Journey narrative
Highly cost-sensitive visitor needing to justify spend internally. Spent time on all key pages looking for cost-benefit framing. Found no ROI calculator, no case study metrics, and no efficiency claims. Exited to request quotes from two competitors.
Page-by-page breakdown
Looking for a cost anchor or efficiency claim. Found none above fold.
Per-seat pricing felt ambiguous. Not sure if cost would scale linearly.
Looking for a time-saving metric to justify purchase internally.
Hoped case studies would include ROI figures. They didn't.
7-field contact form was the final barrier. Exited rather than complete it.
Journey narrative
Thorough, methodical evaluation. Read every major page, cross-referenced pricing with features, returned to About to validate engineering team depth. Converted on the contact form after the longest journey of all simulated visitors.
Page-by-page breakdown
Read all above-fold content, scrolled to integrations section: found 40+ connectors.
Reviewed all feature categories. Found schema drift detection credible.
Sought quantitative validation. Two of three case studies lacked metrics.
No comparison table. Spent 90 seconds reconstructing feature differences from memory.
Checked engineering leadership credentials before deciding to proceed.
Completed 7-field form despite friction. High intent overcame the barrier.
Where visitors exit most
How citation-ready your site is for ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Gemini.
out of 100
Weakest area: Schema coverage
Per-dimension averages
Top recommendations across pages
Add Organization + WebSite JSON-LD to every page
Appears on 6 pages
Add FAQPage schema to /pricing with 5 common questions
Appears on 2 pages
Add Review + AggregateRating schema to /customers
Appears on 2 pages
Site-wide strategic moves
· off-site work that compounds over weeksThese are not page-level fixes. They lift AI citability by building presence on the platforms ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, and Gemini draw their citations from. They live in a separate queue because shipping them at the per-page level would feel non-actionable.
Build multi-platform brand presence· flagged on 6 pages
Sites mentioned on 4+ platforms are 2.8x more likely to appear in AI responses. Brand search volume is the strongest single citation predictor (r=0.334).
Create comparative content for AI citation· flagged on 6 pages
Comparative listicles account for 32.5% of all AI citations. "vs" and "alternatives" pages compound as evergreen citation sources.
Technical SEO, structured data, and crawlability signals across all scanned pages.
out of 100
Weakest area: Schema & Rich Results
Per-dimension averages
Most common gaps
61% avg pass rateTop recommendations across pages
Add Product and FAQ JSON-LD schema to /pricing and /features
Appears on 2 pages
highSet og:image on every page (1200x630px, under 1MB)
Appears on 4 pages
highShorten meta descriptions to under 155 characters
Appears on 3 pages
mediumWCAG 2.1 compliance and legal exposure across all scanned pages.
out of 100
The score reflects the proportion of elements that pass each WCAG check. The counts below are findings to address. Repeated failures across pages collapse into a single systemic issue.
Critical findings
3
Block conversions for some visitors. Highest legal-risk surface.
Findings
2unique
Across 17 page occurrences. Many repeat across pages.
Site-wide issues· repeating across pages
Contrast ratio 1.73:1 fails WCAG AA
Pricing (a.nav-link)
Measured: 1.73:1 · Required: 4.5:1
Page-specific issues· isolated to particular pages
Touch target 32x32px below 44x44px minimum
Submit (button[aria-label='Submit'])
Measured: 32x32px · Required: 44x44px
Per-dimension averages
Potentially applicable laws
Report limitations
Ready to scan your real site?
This is a sample report. Run a free scan on your homepage to see what 50 simulated visitors really think.