Kuroma
AI Readiness benchmark for Restaurant Tech
Across 481 audited domains we have classified as Restaurant Tech, the median AI Readiness score is 37 out of 100. That is 2 points below the median for all 30,738 audited domains in the corpus (39).
How the scores are distributed
Half of the 481 audited Restaurant Tech domains score between 31 and 42. 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 Restaurant Tech | 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 |
96% | 94% | +2 | 98 |
| Structured Data Quality On-Page Content · 4.5% of the total score |
96% | 96% | 0 | 481 |
| 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 | 98 |
| 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 |
94% | 85% | +9 | 93 |
| Unique Value Proposition AI Readiness · 5.1% of the total score |
92% | 94% | -2 | 481 |
| Media Accessibility On-Page Content · 1.8% of the total score · counted only on pages this factor applies to |
88% | 87% | +1 | 431 |
| External Citations & References Authority Signals · 9% of the total score |
87% | 83% | +4 | 481 |
| Trust & Brand Signals Authority Signals · 9% of the total score |
83% | 74% | +9 | 481 |
| Answer Box Potential AI Readiness · 7.2% of the total score |
70% | 68% | +2 | 481 |
| Schema Markup Completeness Technical Optimization · 1% of the total score |
65% | 63% | +2 | 481 |
| Content Freshness AI Readiness · 5.7% of the total score |
52% | 49% | +3 | 481 |
| Crawlability & Accessibility Technical Optimization · 13% of the total score |
47% | 46% | +1 | 481 |
| AI Discoverability AI Readiness · 3% of the total score |
37% | 34% | +3 | 481 |
| Heading Hierarchy On-Page Content · 2.8% of the total score |
32% | 28% | +4 | 481 |
| Page Performance Indicators Technical Optimization · 2% of the total score |
25% | 20% | +5 | 481 |
| Raw HTML Availability AI Readiness · 1.5% of the total score |
25% | 24% | +1 | 481 |
| Content Depth & Comprehensiveness On-Page Content · 6.5% of the total score |
17% | 14% | +3 | 481 |
| Mobile Optimization Technical Optimization · 4% of the total score |
17% | 14% | +3 | 481 |
| AI Readability Score On-Page Content · 3% of the total score |
9% | 8% | +1 | 466 |
Where Restaurant Tech diverges from everyone else
Relative to the whole corpus, this industry is distinctively weak on Question Coverage & FAQ Presence (+9 points), Trust & Brand Signals (+9 points), E-E-A-T Signals (+6 points).
It is distinctively strong on Unique Value Proposition (-2 points).
Question Coverage & FAQ Presence: fails on 94% of the 93 Restaurant Tech 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.
Trust & Brand Signals: fails on 83% of the 481 Restaurant Tech 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.
E-E-A-T Signals: fails on 95% of the 98 Restaurant Tech 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.
Audited Restaurant Tech 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 대구 레스토랑 가식(佳食) (gasik.kr) | Grade A+ | 79/100 | 20 Aug 2026 |
| 경주 마장동숯불구이 (majangdong-gj.com) | Grade A | 69/100 | 20 Aug 2026 |
| Restaurant Technology (spoton.com) | Grade A | 63/100 | 20 Aug 2026 |
| オンカジ入金不要ボーナスおすすめサイトトップ5を紹介 (kohikan.jp) | Grade A | 60/100 | 15 Sep 2026 |
| tabelog.com | Grade B | 57/100 | 15 Sep 2026 |
| 株式会社あみやき亭 (amiyakitei.co.jp) | Grade B | 56/100 | 15 Sep 2026 |
| 山形 お菓子の杵屋本店EC / TOPページ (kineya.co.jp) | Grade B | 55/100 | 15 Sep 2026 |
| スーパー (super-nintendo-world.usj.co.jp) | Grade B | 53/100 | 15 Sep 2026 |
| 寿し常 (sushitsune.co.jp) | Grade B | 53/100 | 15 Sep 2026 |
| なだ万 American ExpressJCBMastercardVisa (nadaman.co.jp) | Grade B | 53/100 | 15 Sep 2026 |
| 株式会社テンポスホールディングス (tenpos.co.jp) | Grade B | 52/100 | 15 Sep 2026 |
| 株式会社サガミホールディングス (sagami-holdings.co.jp) | Grade B | 51/100 | 15 Sep 2026 |
Browse every audited site in the public audit archive.
See the full ranked list of 50 Restaurant Tech sites →
How to read this
- What the sample is. The 481 domains we have audited and classified as Restaurant Tech. 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.