Very poor5.8%

AWCS

What the AWCS is, and how it is measured

The figures the index is made of, with their own series: a technology whose index is flat can still have moved on one dimension.

Measured on 100 pages, 97.1% of which carried the agentic category, with a confidence margin of ±5.30.

Read

What Read measures

Lighthouse builds the accessibility tree an agent would traverse and scores the page pass or fail. The denominator is only the pages the audit could evaluate: a notApplicable or an error is excluded rather than counted as a failure, and the fraction that could be evaluated is published beside it as the coverage.

n=100 · coverage 97.1% · margin ±5.30 pp.

53% of the score
Read on its full scale

Poor11.0%

—
Guide

What Guide measures

The llms-txt audit passing: a file is served AND Lighthouse considers it valid. The denominator is every sampled page, so this is a fraction of the whole web and not of the sites that have a file. This is the figure the index uses, because a broken file does not guide an agent.

n=103 · coverage 100.0% · margin ±5.22 pp.

27% of the score
Guide on its full scale

Very poor1.0%

—
Act

What Act measures

A count, not a percentage: how many sampled sites register WebMCP tools that an agent can call. It is the audit that defines the Act dimension — the other two WebMCP audits measure how good those tools are, not whether they exist.

n=100 · coverage 97.1% · margin ±5.30 pp.

20% of the score
Act on its full scale

Very poor0.0%

—
Reachable

What Reachable measures

Read from the robots.txt of the sampled sites: of the AI agents we track, how many are NOT disallowed. Gradual and not a yes or no — turning away one agent out of seventeen is not the same as turning away all of them. A site with no robots.txt blocks nobody, so it counts as fully reachable: that is a measurement, not a gap. This is the only figure that MULTIPLIES the index instead of adding to it, because it is a precondition: if an agent cannot fetch the page, nothing else about the page matters. One caveat we would rather state than hide: a blanket Disallow under User-agent: * is not counted, because the corpus-wide measurement cannot see it either, and we would rather be consistent than clever.

n=103 · coverage 100.0% · margin ±5.22 pp.

multiplies the rest
Reachable on its full scale

Excellent95.1%

—

Against the rest of Video players

The 10 technologies in this category with a published index, and the web overall for scale. Flowplayer is the highlighted bar.

All sites
All sites: 21.0%
21.0%
VideoJS
VideoJS: 20.9%
20.9%
Wistia
Wistia: 17.5%
17.5%
Vimeo
Vimeo: 16.9%
16.9%
Plyr
Plyr: 15.6%
15.6%
YouTube
YouTube: 15.0%
15.0%
Twitch Player
Twitch Player: 13.5%
13.5%
MediaElement.js
MediaElement.js: 11.5%
11.5%
jPlayer
jPlayer: 8.3%
8.3%
JW Player
JW Player: 6.1%
6.1%
Flowplayer
Flowplayer: 5.8%
5.8%
0%25%50%75%100%
Every Video players technology the census can publish, against the web overall (21.0%). The scale is always 0–100%.

What else we measure here

44.3%
Google's category score

Google's category score

Sample
n=100
Coverage
97.1%
22.3%
Sites with an AI crawler policy

Sites with an AI crawler policy

Sample
n=103
Coverage
100.0%
95.1%
Agents that can reach the site

Agents that can reach the site

Sample
n=103
Coverage
100.0%
11.0%
Pages an agent can parse

Pages an agent can parse

Sample
n=100
Coverage
97.1%
33.0%
Sites serving an llms.txt

Sites serving an llms.txt

Sample
n=103
Coverage
100.0%
1.0%
Sites with a valid llms.txt

Sites with a valid llms.txt

Sample
n=103
Coverage
100.0%
0
Sites exposing tools

Sites exposing tools

Sample
n=100
Coverage
97.1%

How this was measured