AI Readiness benchmark for Gaming

Across 817 audited domains we have classified as Gaming, the median AI Readiness score is 35 out of 100. That is 4 points below the median for all 30,738 audited domains in the corpus (39).

How the scores are distributed

Half of the 817 audited Gaming domains score between 27 and 40. 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, E-E-A-T Signals and Question Coverage & FAQ Presence 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.

Where Gaming diverges from everyone else

Relative to the whole corpus, this industry is distinctively weak on Content Depth & Comprehensiveness (+17 points), Heading Hierarchy (+14 points), Trust & Brand Signals (+12 points).

Content Depth & Comprehensiveness: fails on 31% of the 817 Gaming audits it was measured on

Deep, comprehensive pages are far more likely to be cited than shallow ones, and missing information is a leading diagnosed cause of zero-citation failures. Coverage of the topic matters, not raw length.

Heading Hierarchy: fails on 42% of the 817 Gaming audits it was measured on

Heading-scoped sections match how retrieval systems chunk pages, so clean hierarchy helps at the retrieval and chunking stage even though it is neutral at the answer-generation stage.

Trust & Brand Signals: fails on 86% of the 817 Gaming audits it was measured on

On-page trust badges are untested as a class; the evidenced trust channel is off-site reviews. Retained for publisher accountability (who publishes this, declared where a machine can read it) and for basic legitimacy signals such as contact routes and published policies.

Audited Gaming 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.

Browse every audited site in the public audit archive.

See the full ranked list of 50 Gaming sites →

How to read this

• What the sample is. The 817 domains we have audited and classified as Gaming. 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.

Other industry benchmarks

All industry benchmarks