Methodology

LLMSE grades websites across six dimensions using automated analysis. Each analyzer produces a score from 0 to 100, mapped to a letter grade (A–F). This page explains how each grade is calculated.

Grade Thresholds

Each analyzer uses its own grade thresholds tuned to the nature of the metric:

Grade SEO EEAT AEO Readability WCAG GARM
A 90–100 90–100 85–100 60–100 90–100 80–100
B 80–89 80–89 70–84 50–59 80–89 60–79
C 70–79 70–79 55–69 30–49 70–79 40–59
D 60–69 60–69 40–54 10–29 60–69 20–39
F 0–59 0–59 0–39 0–9 0–59 0–19

SEO Analysis

Approach: Deduction-based. Every page starts at 100 points; issues found during analysis deduct from the score.

Critical issue — −15 points (e.g., missing title tag, no meta description)
Warning — −5 points (e.g., title too long, missing Open Graph tags)
Info — −1 point (e.g., missing optional attributes)

The analyzer runs 96+ checks across 20 categories including title tags, meta descriptions, headings, structured data, images, links, URL structure, security headers, and HTML validation. The final score is clamped to 0–100.

Learn more about SEO analysis

E-E-A-T Analysis

Approach: Weighted deduction across four pillars, each scored independently from 100.

Experience — 15% weight. First-hand experience signals (testimonials, case studies, original media)
Expertise — 25% weight. Author credentials, qualifications, and technical depth
Authoritativeness — 25% weight. Citations, awards, recognized authority signals
Trustworthiness — 35% weight. Security (HTTPS), contact information, privacy policies, transparency

Each pillar deducts points for issues (critical: −20, warning: −10, info: −3) and awards up to +20 bonus points for positive signals. The four pillar scores are combined using the weights above into a single overall score.

Learn more about E-E-A-T analysis

AEO Analysis

Approach: Additive scoring across 10 metrics that measure how well content is optimized for AI answer engines (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude).

15 pts Answer Format Detection — Q&A extractability patterns
13 pts Source Citations — Links to authoritative sources (.edu, .gov, research)
12 pts FAQ Schema — FAQPage structured data (neutral if no FAQ content)
11 pts Direct Answer Snippets — Short extractable answer blocks (<50 words)
10 pts Statistics & Data — Percentages, numbers, study findings
10 pts Schema Completeness — Organization, Article, and Author schema
9 pts Entity Clarity — Clear entity definitions and glossaries
8 pts HowTo Schema — HowTo structured data (neutral if no how-to content)
6 pts Content Freshness — "Last updated", copyright year, recency signals
6 pts Topical Authority — Content depth, heading breadth, link topology

A clickbait penalty of up to −10 points is applied for ALL CAPS headings, excessive punctuation, and known clickbait phrases. The final score is clamped to 0–100.

Learn more about AEO analysis

Readability Analysis

Approach: Direct measurement using the Flesch Reading Ease formula. Higher scores mean easier-to-read content.

A 60–100 (Easy) — 6th–8th grade level, ideal for web content
B 50–59 (Fairly Easy) — Some high school level
C 30–49 (Standard) — College level
D 10–29 (Difficult) — Graduate level
F 0–9 (Very Difficult) — Professional or academic prose

Thresholds are web-optimized: most successful web content scores 60+ (grade A) because general audiences prefer clear, concise writing. Additional metrics reported include Flesch-Kincaid grade level, reading time, word count, and difficult word count.

Learn more about readability analysis

WCAG Accessibility Analysis

Approach: Deduction-based. Starts at 100, deducts for accessibility issues found via 15 automated checks against WCAG 2.1 Level A criteria.

Critical issue (−15 pts) — Missing alt text, missing form labels, no page title, no lang attribute, empty links/buttons, viewport zoom blocked
Warning (−5 pts) — Heading hierarchy issues, missing ARIA labels, duplicate IDs, no skip navigation, missing table headers, missing landmarks, autoplay media
Info (−1 pt) — Positive tabindex values

Automated checks cover approximately 30–40% of WCAG 2.1 Level A criteria. Full compliance requires manual testing for interactive behaviors, color contrast, keyboard navigation, and screen reader compatibility.

Learn more about WCAG analysis

GARM Brand Safety Analysis

Approach: Category-based risk mapping using the GARM Brand Suitability Framework. LLMSE's 58-category taxonomy is mapped to GARM risk levels.

100 pts No Match — Content does not map to any sensitive GARM category (brand-safe)
80 pts Low Risk — Potentially sensitive but generally suitable for advertising
60 pts Medium Risk — Some content categories advertisers may wish to avoid
30 pts High Risk — Content that most advertisers would avoid
0 pts Floor — Not suitable for any advertising (e.g., explicit adult content)

The base risk score is adjusted by content sentiment: positive sentiment adds up to +15 points, negative sentiment deducts up to −20 points. The 11 GARM categories evaluated include adult content, arms and ammunition, crime, death/injury/military conflict, sensitive social issues, online piracy, hate speech, terrorism, drugs, spam, and obscenity.

Learn more about GARM analysis

Data Collection

All grades are computed from automated static analysis of HTML content fetched at classification time. LLMSE does not execute JavaScript or measure runtime performance. The analysis pipeline:

  1. Fetches the target URL and parses the HTML response
  2. Runs each analyzer independently against the parsed content
  3. Calculates scores and maps them to letter grades using the thresholds above
  4. Caches results in Redis for subsequent lookups

Technology detection (CMS, frameworks, server software), mail provider identification (MX records), and DNS provider identification (NS records) are performed separately during domain enrichment.

Limitations

  • Static analysis only — JavaScript-rendered content, client-side interactions, and runtime performance are not evaluated
  • WCAG coverage — Automated checks cover 30–40% of WCAG 2.1 Level A; full accessibility compliance requires manual testing
  • Point-in-time snapshot — Grades reflect the page content at the time of analysis and may change as sites are updated
  • Single-page scope — Each analysis evaluates the specific URL provided, not the entire website