Study · aiListing

What can AI assistants read on 54 Spanish companies’ websites?

More and more purchases, bookings and property searches start with a question to ChatGPT, Gemini or Perplexity. To answer, those assistants read companies’ websites. We audited 54 websites of Spanish online stores, hotel groups and real-estate agencies to see what they find when they do.

79/100average score
70%score A or B
44%publish no llms.txt
11%have no structured data at all

Key findings

Grade distribution

A 23
B 15
C 14
D 2
F 0

By category

Average score of the 54 sites in each part of the audit.

AI bot access 99
Structured data 55
Discoverability 77
Technical health 97
Content & metadata 84

What is most often missing

Share of sites where each finding appears.

No FAQPage schema 85%
No llms.txt published 44%
No Organization schema 33%
Page title too long or too short 28%
No H1 heading on page 24%
Images without alt text 19%
Incomplete Open Graph metadata 17%
No Schema.org structured data detected 11%
No Open Graph metadata 9%
Sitemap not at the conventional /sitemap.xml path 9%

By sector

SectorSitesAverageABCD/F
Online stores3285 2164 1
Hotel groups1470 085 1
Real-estate agencies873 215 0

Online stores: No FAQPage schema (84%); No rating markup on products (66%); No llms.txt published (28%).

Hotel groups: No FAQPage schema (79%); No llms.txt published (71%); Page title too long or too short (36%).

Real-estate agencies: No FAQPage schema (100%); No Organization schema (62%); No llms.txt published (62%).

Method

We selected 60 Spanish companies with their own website in three sectors where customers already ask AI assistants: online stores (mostly cosmetics, fashion and food), hotel groups, and real-estate agencies selling to foreign buyers. Before including each site we checked it was the brand’s real, working website.

Each site was analysed with aiListing’s public audit between 2026-10-28 and 2026-10-28: AI crawler access (robots.txt), Schema.org structured data on the homepage and on product pages, discovery files (sitemap, llms.txt), technical health (HTTPS, response time, content present in the HTML) and metadata. The score runs from 0 to 100 and the grade from A to F.

54 sites have a result. 2 could not be graded because they answered our auditor with a bot check or block page, or took too long; we do not count them as failures. 4 were excluded (store temporarily closed or result not reliable). Each company received its own result before publication, with the option to comment. Only aggregate figures are published here: no company is named or graded.

Limits. The audit measures what a website makes available to assistants, not whether an assistant recommends it — that also depends on reputation, reviews and what others publish about the brand. It is a snapshot; websites change.

Want to see your own site’s result? The audit is free and needs no signup. Comments on the study: [email protected].