Kuroma
AI Readiness benchmark for Data & Analytics
Across 144 audited domains we have classified as Data & Analytics, the median AI Readiness score is 47 out of 100. That is 8 points above the median for all 30,738 audited domains in the corpus (39).
How the scores are distributed
Half of the 144 audited Data & Analytics domains score between 40 and 53. The corpus-wide interquartile range, across all 30,738 audited domains, is 32 to 45.
Which factors this industry fails most often
The rubric scores 19 factors. A factor counts as failed here when a site scores below 50 out of 100 on it. The last column is how many audits each rate was calculated from. Question Coverage & FAQ Presence and Media Accessibility are not scored on every kind of page: a rankings table or a paginated index has no question to answer and no image to caption. Citation-Worthiness, Question Coverage & FAQ Presence and E-E-A-T Signals lean on English-language patterns, so on a page written in another language they are scored out of a smaller total. Those rows therefore leave out every audit of a page the factor was not scored on the same scale, and every audit that did not record enough about the page for us to tell. Every other row counts every audit in this industry that scored the factor.
| Factor | Fails in Data & Analytics | Fails corpus-wide | Difference | Audits counted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Structured Data Quality On-Page Content · 4.5% of the total score |
99% | 96% | +3 | 144 |
| Citation-Worthiness AI Readiness · 7.5% of the total score · counted only on pages in a language it measures in full |
92% | 94% | -2 | 107 |
| Unique Value Proposition AI Readiness · 5.1% of the total score |
92% | 94% | -2 | 144 |
| Question Coverage & FAQ Presence On-Page Content · 6.5% of the total score · counted only on pages this factor applies to, in a language it measures in full |
87% | 85% | +2 | 107 |
| Media Accessibility On-Page Content · 1.8% of the total score · counted only on pages this factor applies to |
83% | 87% | -4 | 134 |
| E-E-A-T Signals Authority Signals · 7% of the total score · counted only on pages in a language it measures in full |
79% | 89% | -10 | 107 |
| External Citations & References Authority Signals · 9% of the total score |
63% | 83% | -20 | 144 |
| Content Freshness AI Readiness · 5.7% of the total score |
58% | 49% | +9 | 144 |
| Answer Box Potential AI Readiness · 7.2% of the total score |
44% | 68% | -24 | 144 |
| Trust & Brand Signals Authority Signals · 9% of the total score |
43% | 74% | -31 | 144 |
| Schema Markup Completeness Technical Optimization · 1% of the total score |
42% | 63% | -21 | 144 |
| Crawlability & Accessibility Technical Optimization · 13% of the total score |
41% | 46% | -5 | 144 |
| Raw HTML Availability AI Readiness · 1.5% of the total score |
28% | 24% | +4 | 144 |
| AI Discoverability AI Readiness · 3% of the total score |
25% | 34% | -9 | 144 |
| Heading Hierarchy On-Page Content · 2.8% of the total score |
19% | 28% | -9 | 144 |
| Page Performance Indicators Technical Optimization · 2% of the total score |
19% | 20% | -1 | 144 |
| Content Depth & Comprehensiveness On-Page Content · 6.5% of the total score |
10% | 14% | -4 | 144 |
| Mobile Optimization Technical Optimization · 4% of the total score |
8% | 14% | -6 | 144 |
| AI Readability Score On-Page Content · 3% of the total score |
4% | 8% | -4 | 139 |
Where Data & Analytics diverges from everyone else
Relative to the whole corpus, this industry is distinctively weak on Content Freshness (+9 points), Raw HTML Availability (+4 points), Structured Data Quality (+3 points).
It is distinctively strong on Trust & Brand Signals (-31 points), Answer Box Potential (-24 points), Schema Markup Completeness (-21 points).
Content Freshness: fails on 58% of the 144 Data & Analytics audits it was measured on
Freshness is the only unanimous causal gatekeeper across engines in the 2026 evidence base, and AI-cited content skews measurably fresher at web scale. Google AI Overviews is the documented exception.
Raw HTML Availability: fails on 28% of the 144 Data & Analytics audits it was measured on
No major AI crawler executes JavaScript, so content that only appears after scripts run is invisible to AI search. This is among the best-evidenced technical findings in the audit.
Structured Data Quality: fails on 99% of the 144 Data & Analytics audits it was measured on
Rescoped to extractable data structures in the HTML itself (tables and lists), which measurably improve machine extraction. This is distinct from schema.org markup, which shows no AI-citation lift in controlled tests.
Audited Data & Analytics sites with a public report card
Each of these sites has a public AI Readiness report card from a real audit. Scores are point-in-time; the card shows what was measured and when.
| Site | Grade | Score | Audited |
|---|---|---|---|
| Synaptica (synaptica.global) | Grade A | 72/100 | 20 Aug 2026 |
| kx.com | Grade A | 71/100 | 20 Aug 2026 |
| ZoomInfo (zoominfo.com) | Grade A | 67/100 | 20 Aug 2026 |
| Splunk (splunk.com) | Grade A | 65/100 | 20 Aug 2026 |
| EcoVadis (ecovadis.com) | Grade A | 64/100 | 20 Aug 2026 |
| Train and Deploy Industry‑Leading Generative and Traditional AI (innodata.com) | Grade A | 63/100 | 20 Aug 2026 |
| データ分析を民主化するスマート (smart-analytics.jp) | Grade B | 54/100 | 15 Sep 2026 |
| 株式会社フィスコ (www.fisco.co.jp) | Grade B | 52/100 | 16 Sep 2026 |
| GMOリサーチ&AI株式会社 (gmo-research.jp) | Grade B | 52/100 | 15 Sep 2026 |
| 提供企業數位轉型所需的一切 (newwave.tw) | Grade B | 51/100 | 20 Aug 2026 |
| 市場調査 (intage.co.jp) | Grade B | 50/100 | 15 Sep 2026 |
| ダイナミックマッププラットフォーム株式会社 (www.dynamic-maps.co.jp) | Grade B | 50/100 | 16 Sep 2026 |
Browse every audited site in the public audit archive.
See the full ranked list of 21 Data & Analytics sites →
How to read this
- What the sample is. The 144 domains we have audited and classified as Data & Analytics. That is a sample of the industry, not a census: it is the set of sites our crawler has reached and scored, and it carries whatever bias that selection has.
- Rubric version 2026-08-13. Every figure here comes from audits scored on this single rubric generation. Scores from different generations measure different things, so they are never mixed. Compatible generations: 2026-08-13.
- Why there are no company names. These are aggregates. We do not publish which domains sit at the bottom of a distribution, and the queries behind this page cannot return a domain name.
- Publishing floor. We publish an industry only once it reaches 100 audited domains, and a factor's failure rate only once 30 audits in the industry count toward that factor. Below either floor the number would move with a handful of sites, so we withhold it.
- What the audit can and cannot see. This audit measures citation readiness: how easily AI engines can crawl, extract, and quote these pages. It cannot see the off-site brand footprint (mentions, reviews, third-party coverage) that gates whether AI engines retrieve a brand at all; Kuroma's visibility scans and off-site signals track that side. Read the full methodology.