Kuroma
AI Readiness benchmark for Medical Devices
Across 186 audited domains we have classified as Medical Devices, the median AI Readiness score is 42 out of 100. That is 1 points above the median for all 30,309 audited domains in the corpus (41).
How the scores are distributed
Half of the 186 audited Medical Devices domains score between 37 and 50. The corpus-wide interquartile range, across all 30,309 audited domains, is 36 to 49.
Which factors this industry fails most often
The rubric scores 19 factors. This table shows 15 of them: the rest were counted on fewer than 30 audits in this industry, which is too few to publish a rate from. 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. Media Accessibility is not scored on every kind of page: a rankings table or a paginated index has no question to answer and no image to caption. That row therefore leaves out every audit of a kind of page the factor does not apply to, and every audit that did not record a kind of page we could read. Every other row counts every audit in this industry that scored the factor.
| Factor | Fails in Medical Devices | Fails corpus-wide | Difference | Audits counted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Answer Box Potential AI Readiness · 7.2% of the total score |
98% | 97% | +1 | 186 |
| Media Accessibility On-Page Content · 1.8% of the total score · counted only on pages this factor applies to |
89% | 86% | +3 | 167 |
| Trust & Brand Signals Authority Signals · 9% of the total score |
83% | 83% | 0 | 186 |
| Structured Data Quality On-Page Content · 4.5% of the total score |
83% | 77% | +6 | 186 |
| External Citations & References Authority Signals · 9% of the total score |
68% | 70% | -2 | 186 |
| Schema Markup Completeness Technical Optimization · 1% of the total score |
60% | 63% | -3 | 186 |
| Content Freshness AI Readiness · 5.7% of the total score |
54% | 52% | +2 | 186 |
| Heading Hierarchy On-Page Content · 2.8% of the total score |
41% | 39% | +2 | 186 |
| AI Discoverability AI Readiness · 3% of the total score |
32% | 36% | -4 | 186 |
| Page Performance Indicators Technical Optimization · 2% of the total score |
20% | 18% | +2 | 186 |
| Content Depth & Comprehensiveness On-Page Content · 6.5% of the total score |
11% | 16% | -5 | 186 |
| AI Readability Score On-Page Content · 3% of the total score |
10% | 12% | -2 | 186 |
| Raw HTML Availability AI Readiness · 1.5% of the total score |
10% | 16% | -6 | 186 |
| Mobile Optimization Technical Optimization · 4% of the total score |
9% | 14% | -5 | 186 |
| Crawlability & Accessibility Technical Optimization · 13% of the total score |
0% | 0% | 0 | 186 |
Where Medical Devices diverges from everyone else
Relative to the whole corpus, this industry is distinctively weak on Structured Data Quality (+6 points), Media Accessibility (+3 points), Content Freshness (+2 points).
It is distinctively strong on Raw HTML Availability (-6 points), Content Depth & Comprehensiveness (-5 points), Mobile Optimization (-5 points).
Structured Data Quality: fails on 83% of the 186 Medical Devices 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.
Media Accessibility: fails on 89% of the 167 Medical Devices audits it was measured on
No study shows alt text lifts AI citations, and major AI fetchers request no images. Kept at reduced weight for one honest purpose: a text alternative must exist for content that is locked inside media.
Content Freshness: fails on 54% of the 186 Medical Devices 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.
How to read this
- What the sample is. The 186 domains we have audited and classified as Medical Devices. 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 2026-08-02. 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: 2026-08-02.
- 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.