wimp.com 64 C
🛡️ SEO 53 🤖 GEO 81 ⚡ Perf 39 🏗️ Arch 73

wimp.com — Global SEODiff Score 64/100

wimp.com
📊

At 76/100, the ACRI for wimp.com indicates strong fundamentals in AI extractability, surpassing the majority of indexed sites. In the infrastructure sector, wimp.com outperforms the average (57), suggesting strong competitive positioning in AI search. Its server-rendered architecture ensures AI crawlers receive complete HTML on first request, a key advantage for extractability. With a 2.2× bloat ratio, the page delivers its content without excessive boilerplate, giving AI systems a clean extraction path. Minimal structured data (1 block) limits the site's ability to communicate entity relationships to AI systems. The site maintains an open-door policy for AI crawlers — GPTBot, ClaudeBot, and other major agents are all allowed.

64
C — Global SEODiff Score
Comprehensive search visibility assessment
Strong foundations, but Performance (39) is your bottleneck.
🎯 Top Fix: Fix title tag length → +3 pts
🔬 Automated SEODiff Assessment · Snapshot: Feb 26, 2026 · 📋 API
Does your site score higher than wimp.com?
Run the same 40-signal audit on your own domain — free, instant results.
Scan Your Site Free →
🧮 Score Transparency — How is this calculated?
🛡️ Traditional SEO (25% weight)53 × 0.25 = 13.2
🤖 AI Readiness / GEO (40% weight)81 × 0.40 = 32.4
⚡ Performance (20% weight)39 × 0.20 = 7.8
🏗️ Architecture & Trust (15% weight)73 × 0.15 = 10.9
Weighted sum = 13.2 + 32.4 + 7.8 + 10.9
Global SEODiff Score = 64 (C)
📊 ACRI Sub-Scores (AI Readiness Detail)
100
Bot Access
avg 92
100
Rendering
avg 93
30
Structure
avg 35
42
Schema
avg 10
85
Tech Stack
avg 64
🔀
Visibility Delta: Google vs AI
Google (Tranco)
Top 4%
Rank #37133
+13 pts
Gap
AI (ACRI)
Top 16%
Score 76/100

wimp.com shows stronger AI visibility than traditional SEO ranking. Great AI foundation to build on. ACRI measures technical crawler readiness. Read the methodology →

Why wimp.com ranks here

Tech stackWordPress
RenderingSSR
Schema coverage1 blocks
Token bloat2.2×

Fastest improvements

  • You’re already in decent shape — the next moat is monitoring drift over time.
  • Create an llms.txt file so AI crawlers can discover your content structure without heavy crawling. Generate llms.txt →
  • Run a full entropy audit to find which DOM regions waste the most tokens. Run Entropy Audit →
🧪

JavaScript Rendering Check

We check what AI crawlers miss when they skip JavaScript execution.

Running headless browser to simulate AI extraction…
🛡️

Traditional SEO

53/100 25 % of Global Score 🟢 High Confidence

📝 Title Tag

92 chars
Too long

Optimal range: 30–60 characters for SERP display.

📋 Meta Description

43 chars
Too short

Optimal range: 120–160 characters for snippet control.

🔤 Heading Hierarchy

  • ✗ Exactly 1 <h1> tag — found 0
  • ✗ Has <h2> headings — found 0
  • ✓ <h2> not before <h1>

🔍 Indexability

  • ✓ Canonical tag present → https://www.wimp.com/
  • ✓ No noindex directive
  • ✓ Meta viewport set
  • ✓ HTML lang attribute → en-US
  • ✗ Hreflang tags
  • ✓ Googlebot allowed by robots.txt

🌐 Social / OpenGraph

  • ✓ og:title — Wimp.com
  • ✓ og:description — Amazing Videos, Funny Clips. Updated daily.
  • ✗ og:image
  • ✓ twitter:card — summary_large_image
📐 How the SEO Pillar score is calculated

SEO Pillar = Title (20 pts) + Meta Desc (20 pts) + Heading Hierarchy (20 pts) + Indexability (20 pts) + Social/OG (20 pts)

Each sub-score is derived from the checks above. Canonical tag, lang attribute, og:image, and a single H1 are the highest-impact items.

🤖

AI Readiness / GEO

81/100 40 % of Global Score 🟢 High Confidence

This pillar aggregates citation share, hallucination risk, bot access, schema health, and content extractability. The individual diagnostic sections below contribute to this score.

🔗

Citation Alternatives

Research
💡
Insight: In the infrastructure sector, safely.co.jp (ACRI: 90) currently has stronger AI extractability. AI models tend to prefer sources with higher semantic structure and schema coverage. Domains with ACRI < 40 see 3.5× more hallucinations. Read the research →
wimp.com
59
Your ACRI Score
90
Industry Peer ACRI
AI models prioritize pages with strong semantic structure and schema coverage. safely.co.jp has schema coverage of 3 blocks and uses WordPress. Improve your score by implementing the remediation patches below.
📊 Side-by-Side Comparison →
🚨

Hallucination Risk

Research

Is AI lying about your brand? This panel measures how likely LLMs are to hallucinate facts when extracting information from your page.

Analyzing hallucination risk…

🤖 Bot Access Matrix

GPTBot (OpenAI)
Allowed
ClaudeBot (Anthropic)
Allowed
CCBot (Common Crawl)
Allowed
Google-Extended
Allowed
Googlebot
Allowed

👻 Rendering (Ghost Ratio) Docs

Ghost Ratio 0%
0% — Safe 50% 100% — Risk
Status Server-Side Rendered (Safe)
Rendering Type SSR

📊 Structure & Information Density Docs

Structure Grade 30/100 — Low
Structured Elements 29 elements (29 lists, 0 rows, 0 headers)
Total Words1106
Raw Density2.6%
💡Low structure score (30/100). Your content appears as a wall of text with few structured HTML elements. You have 29 list items, 0 table rows, 0 table headers. Convert features into <ul> lists and data into <table> elements to help AI models extract structured information.

🏷️ Schema Health Docs

Organization Schema ✅ Present
Product / Service Schema ⚠️ Not Found
Total Schema Blocks1 block(s) — Basic (low value for AI)

Schema Coverage Map

3/7 schema types detected
✅ Organization
❌ Product/Service
✅ Breadcrumb
❌ FAQ
❌ Article
✅ WebSite
💡Product / Service schema missing. AI models don't know this is a SaaS product. Add Product or SoftwareApplication schema so AI understands what you offer and can surface pricing/features.
💡FAQ schema missing. Adding FAQPage schema lets AI models directly extract Q&A pairs for Featured Snippets and chatbot answers.

📐 AI Efficiency Metrics Docs

65
AI Extractability
Medium
Crawl Cost
None
Blocklist Risk
Extractability65/100 — AI models can partially extract answers from this page
Crawl CostMedium (50/100) — moderate for AI crawlers to process
Blocklist RiskNone — 0 of 5 AI crawlers blocked

Token Bloat Research

45%
🗑️ 55%
Useful Content (94.9 KB)Bloat (110.1 KB)
Token Bloat Ratio2.2× — Lean

Multimodal Readiness

Visual Context0% Optimized for Vision
Image Alt Coverage0 / 120 images have alt text

TDM Rights

TDM-Reservation HeaderNot set
X-Robots-Tag: noaiNot set
💡Only 0% of images have alt text. Add descriptive alt attributes so multimodal AI (ChatGPT Vision) can understand your images.

🔥 Structural Entropy Check Research

70 Entropy
Fair Token Bloat: Medium
Noise Ratio: 53.7% · SNR: 0.86 · Signal: 24288 / Noise: 28182 tokens

🔬 AI-Crawler Simulation

See your website the way AI crawlers do. CSS stripped, structure labeled, content chunked.

🌐
This is what humans see — styled, branded, visual.
Toggle to "AI Agent View" to see what GPTBot, ClaudeBot, and other AI crawlers actually extract from this page.
🤖

AI Answer Preview

NEW

See how AI models summarize your site. Left: your actual content. Right: what the LLM extracts and says about you.

Simulating AI extraction…

🔧 Tech Stack

FrameworkWordPress
AI-Readiness Score85/100
Servernginx
CDN
HTTP Status200
Load Time1514 ms
Raw HTML Size205.0 KB
Visible Text Size94.9 KB

Performance & Speed

39/100 20 % of Global Score 🟢 High Confidence

⏱️ Time to First Byte

1514 ms
Slow — bots may time out or deprioritise

Google considers <200 ms "good". AI crawlers may have even shorter timeouts.

📦 Page Weight

1502
DOM nodes
205 KB
HTML payload
Moderate weight — acceptable for most scenarios

🗄️ Cache & CDN

  • ✓ Cache-Control header → max-age=300, must-revalidate
  • ✗ CDN cache status
  • ✗ CDN detected

🔬 Tracker Tax

2
tracker scripts
1
third-party domains
0.0%
token overhead
Minimal tracker load — clean signal for bots
googletagmanager.com
📐 How the Performance Pillar score is calculated

Perf Pillar = TTFB (35 pts) + Page Weight (25 pts) + Cache/CDN (20 pts) + Tracker Tax (20 pts)

TTFB <200 ms = full marks. DOM >3000 or payload >300 KB incurs heavy penalties. Tracker scripts beyond 5 reduce score.

🏗️

Architecture & Trust

73/100 15 % of Global Score 🟢 High Confidence

🗺️ Sitemap & Robots

  • ✓ Sitemap declared in robots.txt → https://www.wimp.com/sitemap.xml
  • ✓ Googlebot allowed
  • ✓ GPTBot allowed
  • ✓ ClaudeBot allowed

🔗 Linking

272
internal links
1
external links
Good internal linking — helps crawlers discover content

🔒 Security & Trust

  • ✗ HSTS header (Strict-Transport-Security)
  • ✓ Content-Security-Policy header
  • ✓ HTTP status 200 OK (got 200)

♿ Accessibility Signals

  • ✓ HTML lang attribute → en-US
  • ✓ Meta viewport for mobile
  • ✗ Single H1 for screen readers
📐 How the Architecture Pillar score is calculated

Arch Pillar = Sitemap & Robots (30 pts) + Linking (25 pts) + Security (25 pts) + Accessibility (20 pts)

Having a valid sitemap, allowing AI bots, HSTS, and a good internal link count are the highest-impact items.

🏅 AI-Verified Trust Badge

Your site scores 59/100. Reach 80+ to unlock the green "AI-Verified" badge. Fix the issues below to improve your score.

AI-Verified badge for wimp.com
Pending Audit — score below 80 threshold
<a href="https://seodiff.io/radar/domains/wimp.com" rel="noopener"><img src="https://seodiff.io/api/v1/badge?domain=wimp.com" alt="AI-Verified by SEODiff" width="280" height="52"></a>

💡 Paste in your site footer, GitHub README, or email signature. Badge updates automatically as your score changes.

🔗 Similar infrastructure Sites

Domains with a similar tech stack, industry, and AI readiness profile to wimp.com. Compare side-by-side.

Domain ACRI AI Score Tech Stack Token Bloat Schema
wimp.com (this site) 59 76 WordPress 2.2× 1
1xbet-saw.top 59 65 WordPress 2.2× 1 Compare →
1xbet-gdt.top 59 65 WordPress 2.2× 1 Compare →
konsom.ru 59 78 WordPress 2.2× 1 Compare →
best.org.ph 59 72 WordPress 2.2× 1 Compare →
farmaprom.pl 59 76 WordPress 2.2× 1 Compare →
Compare All 5 Similar Sites →
🩹

Remediation Patches

COPY-PASTE

Auto-generated code fixes tailored to wimp.com. Copy and paste these into your codebase to improve AI visibility. These patches are mathematically proven to increase extraction accuracy →

Add FAQ Schema
Medium Impact ⏱ 10 min
FAQ schema lets AI models directly extract Q&A pairs. This is the easiest way to get featured in AI responses.
html
<script type="application/ld+json">
{
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "FAQPage",
  "mainEntity": [
    {
      "@type": "Question",
      "name": "What is Wimp?",
      "acceptedAnswer": {
        "@type": "Answer",
        "text": "Add your answer here — describe what Wimp does in 1-2 sentences."
      }
    },
    {
      "@type": "Question",
      "name": "How does Wimp work?",
      "acceptedAnswer": {
        "@type": "Answer",
        "text": "Explain the key features and how users interact with Wimp."
      }
    }
  ]
}
</script>
📈

Projected Impact

ROI EST.

If you apply the patches above, here's the estimated improvement for wimp.com:

Current Score
76
Projected Score
79
Improvement
+3 pts
Add FAQ schema +3 pts

*Estimates based on SEODiff's scoring model. Actual results depend on implementation quality.

📋 Data Export

Download scores and metadata for audits, client reports, or CI/CD pipelines. Exports contain computed metrics only (no copyrighted content).

All data is generated automatically and updated with each crawl. JSON exports contain scores and metadata only (no copyrighted content).

Is this your company?

Monitor your AI visibility score weekly and get alerted when changes happen.

Start Free →

🧭 Self-Diffing (Private Layer)

For owned domains, combine this world snapshot with private drift + regression history.
Template Drift
Track in My Site
Drift → Traffic Impact
In development coming soon
Regression Incidents
Track in My Site
Internal Linking
Deep Audit graph
Semantic Structure
GEO view in Deep Audit
Content Quality
Thin/duplicate tracking

🕒 History

Score over timeAvailable in My Site history
Drift eventsTemplate timeline + incidents
Drift → Revenue AttributionComing soon
Schema/rendering/extractability changesTracked per scan in project history