AI Readiness benchmark for Medical Devices

Across 190 audited domains we have classified as Medical Devices, the median AI Readiness score is 38 out of 100. That is 1 points below the median for all 30,738 audited domains in the corpus (39).

How the scores are distributed

Lower quartile33a quarter of the 190 score below this
Median38the midpoint of the 190
Upper quartile44a quarter score above this
050100

Half of the 190 audited Medical Devices domains score between 33 and 44. 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.

Factor Fails in Medical Devices Fails corpus-wide Difference Audits counted
Citation-Worthiness
AI Readiness · 7.5% of the total score · counted only on pages in a language it measures in full
97% 94% +3 65
Unique Value Proposition
AI Readiness · 5.1% of the total score
97% 94% +3 190
E-E-A-T Signals
Authority Signals · 7% of the total score · counted only on pages in a language it measures in full
95% 89% +6 65
Structured Data Quality
On-Page Content · 4.5% of the total score
95% 96% -1 190
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
92% 85% +7 63
External Citations & References
Authority Signals · 9% of the total score
86% 83% +3 190
Media Accessibility
On-Page Content · 1.8% of the total score · counted only on pages this factor applies to
85% 87% -2 182
Answer Box Potential
AI Readiness · 7.2% of the total score
73% 68% +5 190
Trust & Brand Signals
Authority Signals · 9% of the total score
66% 74% -8 190
Schema Markup Completeness
Technical Optimization · 1% of the total score
60% 63% -3 190
Content Freshness
AI Readiness · 5.7% of the total score
51% 49% +2 190
Crawlability & Accessibility
Technical Optimization · 13% of the total score
43% 46% -3 190
AI Discoverability
AI Readiness · 3% of the total score
30% 34% -4 190
Raw HTML Availability
AI Readiness · 1.5% of the total score
25% 24% +1 190
Heading Hierarchy
On-Page Content · 2.8% of the total score
24% 28% -4 190
Page Performance Indicators
Technical Optimization · 2% of the total score
24% 20% +4 190
Content Depth & Comprehensiveness
On-Page Content · 6.5% of the total score
11% 14% -3 190
Mobile Optimization
Technical Optimization · 4% of the total score
8% 14% -6 190
AI Readability Score
On-Page Content · 3% of the total score
7% 8% -1 188

Where Medical Devices diverges from everyone else

Relative to the whole corpus, this industry is distinctively weak on Question Coverage & FAQ Presence (+7 points), E-E-A-T Signals (+6 points), Answer Box Potential (+5 points).

It is distinctively strong on Trust & Brand Signals (-8 points), Mobile Optimization (-6 points), AI Discoverability (-4 points).

Question Coverage & FAQ Presence: fails on 92% of the 63 Medical Devices audits it was measured on

Covering the sub-questions users actually ask is the single strongest diagnosed lever: contextual gaps and intent divergence explain most zero-citation failures. FAQ formatting by itself is not the lever; answering the questions is.

E-E-A-T Signals: fails on 95% of the 65 Medical Devices audits it was measured on

No study tests author bios as a causal AI-citation lever; the real authority channel is off-site brand footprint. On-page bylines and dates are kept as best-practice hygiene at reduced weight.

Answer Box Potential: fails on 73% of the 190 Medical Devices audits it was measured on

The real mechanism is passage self-containment: heading-scoped sections that stand alone match retrieval chunking, and fixing context-severed passages measurably cuts retrieval failures.

Audited Medical Devices 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
Acibadem Hospitals Group (acibademinternational.com) Grade A 67/100 20 Aug 2026
株式会社トミー精工 (bio.tomys.co.jp) Grade B 56/100 15 Sep 2026
【公式】体成分分析装置InBody(インボディ) (inbody.co.jp) Grade B 54/100 15 Sep 2026
碁仕科技 (g4.com.tw) Grade B 54/100 20 Aug 2026
マツヨシ【松吉医科器械】医療 (matsuyoshi.co.jp) Grade B 53/100 15 Sep 2026
シスメックス (www.sysmex.co.jp) Grade B 53/100 16 Sep 2026
株式会社ニッシン (nissin-dental.jp) Grade B 52/100 15 Sep 2026
本多電子株式会社 (honda-el.co.jp) Grade C 49/100 15 Sep 2026
朝日インテック株式会社 (asahi-intecc.co.jp) Grade C 48/100 15 Sep 2026
ニプロ株式会社 (www.nipro.co.jp) Grade C 48/100 16 Sep 2026
テクノメディカ (technomedica.co.jp) Grade C 48/100 15 Sep 2026
皇妍時尚整形外科診所 (drsu520.com.tw) Grade C 48/100 20 Aug 2026

Browse every audited site in the public audit archive.

See the full ranked list of 28 Medical Devices sites →

How to read this

Audit your own site →

Other industry benchmarks

Manufacturing / Industrial Food & Beverage / CPG Travel / Hospitality Consulting / Professional Services Automotive / Mobility DTC / Consumer Brands Publishing / News Media Gaming Streaming / Video Pharma / Biotech Restaurant Tech AI / Machine Learning

All industry benchmarks