Kuroma
AI Readiness benchmark for Pharma / Biotech
Across 500 audited domains we have classified as Pharma / Biotech, 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
Half of the 500 audited Pharma / Biotech domains score between 32 and 43. 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 Pharma / Biotech | 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 |
99% | 94% | +5 | 137 |
| Structured Data Quality On-Page Content · 4.5% of the total score |
97% | 96% | +1 | 500 |
| 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 |
96% | 85% | +11 | 132 |
| Unique Value Proposition AI Readiness · 5.1% of the total score |
96% | 94% | +2 | 500 |
| E-E-A-T Signals Authority Signals · 7% of the total score · counted only on pages in a language it measures in full |
94% | 89% | +5 | 137 |
| External Citations & References Authority Signals · 9% of the total score |
87% | 83% | +4 | 500 |
| Media Accessibility On-Page Content · 1.8% of the total score · counted only on pages this factor applies to |
86% | 87% | -1 | 453 |
| Trust & Brand Signals Authority Signals · 9% of the total score |
74% | 74% | 0 | 500 |
| Schema Markup Completeness Technical Optimization · 1% of the total score |
71% | 63% | +8 | 500 |
| Answer Box Potential AI Readiness · 7.2% of the total score |
69% | 68% | +1 | 500 |
| Crawlability & Accessibility Technical Optimization · 13% of the total score |
48% | 46% | +2 | 500 |
| Content Freshness AI Readiness · 5.7% of the total score |
46% | 49% | -3 | 500 |
| AI Discoverability AI Readiness · 3% of the total score |
32% | 34% | -2 | 500 |
| Heading Hierarchy On-Page Content · 2.8% of the total score |
28% | 28% | 0 | 500 |
| Page Performance Indicators Technical Optimization · 2% of the total score |
20% | 20% | 0 | 500 |
| Raw HTML Availability AI Readiness · 1.5% of the total score |
19% | 24% | -5 | 500 |
| Mobile Optimization Technical Optimization · 4% of the total score |
15% | 14% | +1 | 500 |
| Content Depth & Comprehensiveness On-Page Content · 6.5% of the total score |
12% | 14% | -2 | 500 |
| AI Readability Score On-Page Content · 3% of the total score |
6% | 8% | -2 | 489 |
Where Pharma / Biotech diverges from everyone else
Relative to the whole corpus, this industry is distinctively weak on Question Coverage & FAQ Presence (+11 points), Schema Markup Completeness (+8 points), Citation-Worthiness (+5 points).
It is distinctively strong on Raw HTML Availability (-5 points), Content Freshness (-3 points), AI Discoverability (-2 points).
Question Coverage & FAQ Presence: fails on 96% of the 132 Pharma / Biotech 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.
Schema Markup Completeness: fails on 71% of the 500 Pharma / Biotech audits it was measured on
Controlled tests show no AI-citation lift from schema.org markup, and Google states no special structured data is needed for AI features. Near-zero weight is kept only for classic rich results and Bing grounding.
Citation-Worthiness: fails on 99% of the 137 Pharma / Biotech audits it was measured on
Verifiable evidence units (statistics, quotes, sourced claims) causally improve citation in sandboxes, and confident wording is preferred over hedged wording. Effects shrink in competitive settings, so claims stay capped.
Audited Pharma / Biotech 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strand Life Sciences (strandls.com) | Grade A | 64/100 | 20 Aug 2026 |
| 宇津救命丸株式会社 (uzukyumeigan.co.jp) | Grade A | 58/100 | 15 Sep 2026 |
| 第一三共株式会社 (daiichisankyo.co.jp) | Grade B | 56/100 | 15 Sep 2026 |
| 台灣神隆股份有限公司 (scinopharm.com.tw) | Grade B | 53/100 | 20 Aug 2026 |
| オンチップ (on-chip.co.jp) | Grade B | 53/100 | 15 Sep 2026 |
| アッヴィ合同会社 (abbvie.co.jp) | Grade B | 52/100 | 15 Sep 2026 |
| 研究用試薬 (www.cosmobio.co.jp) | Grade B | 52/100 | 16 Sep 2026 |
| TOP (fasmac.co.jp) | Grade B | 51/100 | 15 Sep 2026 |
| Takeda Pharmaceuticals (takeda.com) | Grade B | 51/100 | 15 Sep 2026 |
| MSD 医療用医薬品 (msd.co.jp) | Grade B | 51/100 | 15 Sep 2026 |
| 生化学工業株式会社検索検索 (www.seikagaku.co.jp) | Grade B | 50/100 | 16 Sep 2026 |
| 昭和FX合同会社 (showayakuhinkako.co.jp) | Grade C | 49/100 | 15 Sep 2026 |
Browse every audited site in the public audit archive.
See the full ranked list of 50 Pharma / Biotech sites →
How to read this
- What the sample is. The 500 domains we have audited and classified as Pharma / Biotech. 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.