Agentic Web Census

August 2026by Omitsis

English

August 2026 · Lighthouse 13.4.1

Is your site ready for AI agents?

One URL, one report: what an AI agent can read on your site, what guides it, what it can act on — scored the same way as the census below, so the two compare.

The Agentic Web Census Score

Every figure over time

Poor19.9%

AWCS

What the AWCS is, and how it is measured

Ours, not Google’s. Lighthouse scores its own category at 57.3% for the same month; we do not publish that as ours, because it weighs a rendering metric at half and its weights are conditional and undocumented.

Measured on 14,373 pages, 95.8% of which carried the agentic category, with a confidence margin of ±0.44.

Pages an agent can parse 53%  +  Sites with a valid llms.txt 27%  +  Sites exposing tools 20%
      ×  Agents that can reach the site
the formulaThree parts add up and the fourth multiplies, because it is a precondition: an agent that cannot fetch the page can do nothing with how readable the page is.

▲ +0.8
AWCS over 4 months

14.3%19.9%

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=14,374 · coverage 95.8% · margin ±0.44 pp.

53% of the score
Read on its full scale

Weak30.4%

Read: 4 months, up▲ +1.3 pp
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=14,373 · coverage 95.8% · margin ±0.44 pp.

27% of the score
Guide on its full scale

Poor13.1%

Guide: 4 months, no significant change= +0.1 pp
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=14,374 · coverage 95.8% · margin ±0.44 pp.

20% of the score
Act on its full scale

Very poor5.1%

Act: 4 months, up▲ +0.6 pp
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=15,009 · coverage 100.0% · margin ±0.43 pp.

multiplies the rest
Reachable on its full scale

Excellent96.0%

Reachable: 4 months, no significant change= −0.2 pp

Technologies

All 1,799 technologies

How to read these figures

The colour says what a bar IS, not how it scores: the accent is the one this page is about, grey is everything it is compared with, and the hollow bar is the web overall — the ruler, not a rival. Whether a figure is above or below the rest of the web is in the number and in the arrow beside it.

Every figure here comes from a sample, not from counting every site — so it carries a margin: how much it could move if we had happened to sample different pages. A figure measured on a thousand pages has a wide margin; one measured on a hundred thousand has a narrow one. It matters for one thing: two figures that differ by less than the wider of their margins are not one above the other, they are tied. That is why nothing here has a position number.

Three of the four dimensions add up. The fourth multiplies: how much of the site is reachable by the AI agents we track. It works that way because it is a precondition, not an improvement — if an agent cannot fetch the page, its accessibility tree does not matter — so a site that turns away every agent scores zero however good the rest of it is. Blocking used to EARN points here, under the reasoning that having decided was a sign of maturity. In an index that measures how ready a site is for AI agents, that was backwards. And it is not a value judgement: readiness is a matter of fact, and whether you want to be ready is your call. A low score here means you chose to be closed, not that you did something wrong.

The census also measures analytics tags, payment processors and protocol features, whose figure describes their customers rather than themselves — which is why they are not on this list.

What a platform is worth to an agent. Best first.

PlatformAWCSMonth by month
React

React

Sample
n=2,044
Coverage
96.5%
Margin
±1.17
The web overall
19.9%

Two figures closer together than ±1.17 are tied, not ranked.

React: 27.2%27.2%
React: 4 months, up▲ +1.8
Cart Functionality

Cart Functionality

Sample
n=2,551
Coverage
97.7%
Margin
±1.05
The web overall
19.9%

Two figures closer together than ±1.05 are tied, not ranked.

Cart Functionality: 26.6%26.6%
Cart Functionality: 4 months, up▲ +1.8
GoDaddy

GoDaddy

Sample
n=1,245
Coverage
98.1%
Margin
±1.50
The web overall
19.9%

Two figures closer together than ±1.50 are tied, not ranked.

GoDaddy: 26.6%26.6%
GoDaddy: 4 months, no significant change= +0.9
Amazon Web Services

Amazon Web Services

Sample
n=1,632
Coverage
94.6%
Margin
±1.31
The web overall
19.9%

Two figures closer together than ±1.31 are tied, not ranked.

Amazon Web Services: 22.2%22.2%
Amazon Web Services: 4 months, up▲ +2.8
GSAP

GSAP

Sample
n=1,240
Coverage
96.4%
Margin
±1.51
The web overall
19.9%

Two figures closer together than ±1.51 are tied, not ranked.

GSAP: 21.0%21.0%
GSAP: 4 months, no significant change= +0.5
LiteSpeed

LiteSpeed

Sample
n=948
Coverage
98.7%
Margin
±1.72
The web overall
19.9%

Two figures closer together than ±1.72 are tied, not ranked.

LiteSpeed: 15.4%15.4%
LiteSpeed: 4 months, no significant change= −0.0
Apache HTTP Server

Apache HTTP Server

Sample
n=2,374
Coverage
96.5%
Margin
±1.09
The web overall
19.9%

Two figures closer together than ±1.09 are tied, not ranked.

Apache HTTP Server: 13.7%13.7%
Apache HTTP Server: 4 months, no significant change= +0.9
Elementor

Elementor

Sample
n=1,450
Coverage
92.7%
Margin
±1.39
The web overall
19.9%

Two figures closer together than ±1.39 are tied, not ranked.

Elementor: 13.1%13.1%
Elementor: 4 months, no significant change= +0.7

Markets

All 560 suffixes

What this axis can and cannot tell you

It cannot tell you about governments or universities: the suffixes that reliably identify an institution are small populations, and none of them reaches the publication threshold. And a suffix is not a sector — a .com can be anything, so nothing here should be read as an industry.

The same score, by domain suffix.

SuffixAWCSMonth by month
.net

.net

Sample
n=281
Coverage
94.6%
Margin
±3.16
The web overall
19.9%

Two figures closer together than ±3.16 are tied, not ranked.

.net: 22.5%22.5%
.net: 4 months, up▲ +3.5
.co.uk

.co.uk

Sample
n=385
Coverage
96.5%
Margin
±2.70
The web overall
19.9%

Two figures closer together than ±2.70 are tied, not ranked.

.co.uk: 21.7%21.7%
.co.uk: 4 months, no significant change= +1.3
.com

.com

Sample
n=6,447
Coverage
95.8%
Margin
±0.66
The web overall
19.9%

Two figures closer together than ±0.66 are tied, not ranked.

.com: 20.7%20.7%
.com: 4 months, down▼ −0.9
.org

.org

Sample
n=447
Coverage
95.3%
Margin
±2.51
The web overall
19.9%

Two figures closer together than ±2.51 are tied, not ranked.

.org: 19.1%19.1%
.org: 4 months, up▲ +3.1
.de

.de

Sample
n=669
Coverage
98.0%
Margin
±2.05
The web overall
19.9%

Two figures closer together than ±2.05 are tied, not ranked.

.de: 19.1%19.1%
.de: 4 months, no significant change= −0.3
.com.br

.com.br

Sample
n=314
Coverage
93.2%
Margin
±2.99
The web overall
19.9%

Two figures closer together than ±2.99 are tied, not ranked.

.com.br: 17.6%17.6%
.com.br: 4 months, no significant change= −3.0
.it

.it

Sample
n=282
Coverage
98.3%
Margin
±3.16
The web overall
19.9%

Two figures closer together than ±3.16 are tied, not ranked.

.it: 12.7%12.7%
.it: 4 months, no significant change= −1.9
.ru

.ru

Sample
n=361
Coverage
98.6%
Margin
±2.79
The web overall
19.9%

Two figures closer together than ±2.79 are tied, not ranked.

.ru: 9.8%9.8%
.ru: 4 months, no significant change= −0.2

AI agents

All 17 agents

Who is named in a robots.txt, and whether the rule lets them through.

AgentSites naming itMonth by month
GPTBot

gptbot

Sample
n=15,009
Coverage
100.0%
Margin
±0.43 pp
The web overall
19.9%

Two figures closer together than ±0.43 pp are tied, not ranked.

GPTBot: 8.6%8.6%
GPTBot: 4 months, no significant change= −0.0 pp
ClaudeBot

claudebot

Sample
n=15,009
Coverage
100.0%
Margin
±0.43 pp
The web overall
19.9%

Two figures closer together than ±0.43 pp are tied, not ranked.

ClaudeBot: 7.6%7.6%
ClaudeBot: 4 months, no significant change= −0.0 pp
CCBot

ccbot

Sample
n=15,009
Coverage
100.0%
Margin
±0.43 pp
The web overall
19.9%

Two figures closer together than ±0.43 pp are tied, not ranked.

CCBot: 7.4%7.4%
CCBot: 4 months, no significant change= +0.1 pp
Bytespider

bytespider

Sample
n=15,009
Coverage
100.0%
Margin
±0.43 pp
The web overall
19.9%

Two figures closer together than ±0.43 pp are tied, not ranked.

Bytespider: 7.0%7.0%
Bytespider: 4 months, no significant change= +0.1 pp
Google-Extended

google-extended

Sample
n=15,009
Coverage
100.0%
Margin
±0.43 pp
The web overall
19.9%

Two figures closer together than ±0.43 pp are tied, not ranked.

Google-Extended: 7.0%7.0%
Google-Extended: 4 months, no significant change= −0.2 pp
Amazonbot

amazonbot

Sample
n=15,009
Coverage
100.0%
Margin
±0.43 pp
The web overall
19.9%

Two figures closer together than ±0.43 pp are tied, not ranked.

Amazonbot: 6.9%6.9%
Amazonbot: 4 months, no significant change= −0.2 pp
meta-externalagent

meta-externalagent

Sample
n=15,009
Coverage
100.0%
Margin
±0.43 pp
The web overall
19.9%

Two figures closer together than ±0.43 pp are tied, not ranked.

meta-externalagent: 6.7%6.7%
meta-externalagent: 4 months, no significant change= +0.2 pp
Applebot-Extended

applebot-extended

Sample
n=15,009
Coverage
100.0%
Margin
±0.43 pp
The web overall
19.9%

Two figures closer together than ±0.43 pp are tied, not ranked.

Applebot-Extended: 6.4%6.4%
Applebot-Extended: 4 months, no significant change= +0.1 pp

Reports

All 4 reports

Each month frozen, so a citation stays true.

MonthAWCSMonth by month
August 2026
August 2026: 19.9%19.9%
August 2026: 4 months, up▲ +0.8
July 2026
July 2026: 19.1%19.1%
July 2026: 3 months, up▲ +2.6
June 2026
June 2026: 16.5%16.5%
June 2026: 2 months, up▲ +2.3
May 2026
May 2026: 14.3%14.3%
—