Kuroma Kuroma

basemail.ai scores 46/100 for AI Readiness

BaseMail (basemail.ai) scores 46/100 (grade C) on AI Readiness, audited 10 Aug 2026. Its strongest area is On-Page Content (61) and its weakest is Authority Signals (30); the biggest single gap is Citation-Worthiness at 10/100 (Limited use of specific statistics).

Audited URL: https://basemail.ai

46/100
Grade
C

This audit is 36 days old. AI answers change between audits, so what AI search sees today may differ from this card.

Updated 36 days ago

Is basemail.ai ready for AI search?

Partly: basemail.ai scores 46/100 (grade C). The two fixes that matter most are Increase Citation-Worthy Content and Improve Raw HTML Availability.

Category scores

This audit was scored on rubric version 2026-08-10, not the current 2026-08-13 rubric. Scores are only comparable within one rubric generation, so how much each check counts toward the total is left out. The checks on this page, their verdicts and their scores are exactly what that audit measured. A fresh audit of this site is scored on the current rubric.

On-Page Content 61
Technical Optimization 61
Authority Signals 30
AI Readiness 36

The 18 checks scored on this page

Every check this audit scored, with what it found on the page. 1 more check was not scored on this page and is listed below with no score.

On-Page Content

  • Content Depth & Comprehensiveness Partial 67/100

    Found: 1198 words, 53 paragraphs, 3 lists, 1 tables

  • Question Coverage & FAQ Presence Needs work 43/100

    FAQ section found (no schema). 2 question headings. 1 questions detected in content

    • No FAQ schema markup detected
    • Few question-based headings
  • Structured Data Quality Partial 60/100

    1 JSON-LD scripts. Schema types: WebApplication

  • AI Readability Score Partial 69/100

    Average 7 words/sentence. 0 long sentences. No text formatting.

  • Heading Hierarchy Pass 79/100

    H1: 1, H2: 11, H3: 19. Hierarchy issues.

    • Heading levels are skipped (H1 straight to H3)
  • Media Accessibility Not applicable

    Not scored on this page; its weight was spread across the other checks in this category

    Not scored on this page: no images, video or audio to make readable

Technical Optimization

Authority Signals

  • E-E-A-T Signals Fail 22/100

    Experience: 0/10. Expertise: 10/25. Authority: 0/10. Trust: 4/25

    • No author attribution found
    • No publication or update dates found
  • External Citations & References Needs work 43/100

    20 external links, 0 citation phrases, 2 statistics. No references section.

  • Trust & Brand Signals Fail 22/100

    Present: SSL

    • No privacy policy link found
    • No contact information easily accessible

AI Readiness

  • Answer Box Potential Pass 78/100

    1 definitions, 3 ordered lists, 1 comparison structures

  • Citation-Worthiness Fail 10/100

    0 original data indicators, 0 percentages, 0 quotes.

    • Limited use of specific statistics
  • Content Freshness Needs work 30/100

    References current year

    • No machine-readable date on the page, so AI cannot tell when it was written
  • Unique Value Proposition Needs work 28/100

    5 of 91 passages carry a figure, 0 set two figures against each other, 2 named versions or models.

  • AI Discoverability Not measured 36/100

    Score: 36/100

  • Raw HTML Availability Fail 10/100

    This page could only be read with a full browser; AI crawlers use none

    • This page could only be read with a full browser; AI crawlers use none, so they receive far less of it than a visitor does.

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. How the score works

Score your own site → Claim this card