Poor12.7%

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 2,667 pages, 95.6% of which carried the agentic category, with a confidence margin of ±1.03.

▲ +1.7
AWCS over 4 months

10.0%12.7%

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=2,667 · coverage 95.6% · margin ±1.03 pp.

53% of the score
Read on its full scale

Poor20.1%

Read: 4 months, up▲ +3.3 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=2,789 · coverage 100.0% · margin ±1.00 pp.

27% of the score
Guide on its full scale

Very poor7.2%

Guide: 4 months, no significant change= −0.5 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=2,667 · coverage 95.6% · margin ±1.03 pp.

20% of the score
Act on its full scale

Very poor2.0%

Act: 4 months, no significant change= +0.4 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=2,789 · coverage 100.0% · margin ±1.00 pp.

multiplies the rest
Reachable on its full scale

Excellent97.4%

Reachable: 4 months, no significant change= −0.1 pp

By major version

Does upgrading help? 28 majors of Font Awesome clear the sample gate, oldest first. Each one is measured on its own sites, so a version with few of them carries a wide margin — the tooltip has it.

Font Awesome 1

What Font Awesome 1 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Font Awesome 1 was detected, on its own sample. Swapping one version for another does not change a site by itself — this says what sites on that version score, which is what makes «does upgrading help?» answerable at all.

n=3 · coverage 100.0% · margin ±30.60.

Font Awesome 1 on its full scale

Poor17.8%

Font Awesome 1: 3 months, no significant change= +17.8
Font Awesome 01

What Font Awesome 01 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Font Awesome 01 was detected, on its own sample. Swapping one version for another does not change a site by itself — this says what sites on that version score, which is what makes «does upgrading help?» answerable at all.

n=2 · coverage 100.0% · margin ±37.48.

Font Awesome 01 on its full scale

Very poor0.0%

Font Awesome 01: 2 months, no significant change= 0.0
Font Awesome 2

What Font Awesome 2 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Font Awesome 2 was detected, on its own sample. Swapping one version for another does not change a site by itself — this says what sites on that version score, which is what makes «does upgrading help?» answerable at all.

n=2 · coverage 100.0% · margin ±37.48.

Font Awesome 2 on its full scale

Weak26.7%

Font Awesome 2: 4 months, no significant change= +11.0
Font Awesome 02

What Font Awesome 02 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Font Awesome 02 was detected, on its own sample. Swapping one version for another does not change a site by itself — this says what sites on that version score, which is what makes «does upgrading help?» answerable at all.

n=1 · coverage 100.0% · margin ±53.00.

Font Awesome 02 on its full scale

Very poor0.0%

Font Awesome 3

What Font Awesome 3 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Font Awesome 3 was detected, on its own sample. Swapping one version for another does not change a site by itself — this says what sites on that version score, which is what makes «does upgrading help?» answerable at all.

n=10 · coverage 100.0% · margin ±16.76.

Font Awesome 3 on its full scale

Very poor0.0%

Font Awesome 3: 4 months, no significant change= −4.5
Font Awesome 4

What Font Awesome 4 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Font Awesome 4 was detected, on its own sample. Swapping one version for another does not change a site by itself — this says what sites on that version score, which is what makes «does upgrading help?» answerable at all.

n=476 · coverage 97.3% · margin ±2.43.

Font Awesome 4 on its full scale

Poor12.2%

Font Awesome 4: 4 months, no significant change= +1.0
Font Awesome 5

What Font Awesome 5 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Font Awesome 5 was detected, on its own sample. Swapping one version for another does not change a site by itself — this says what sites on that version score, which is what makes «does upgrading help?» answerable at all.

n=108 · coverage 94.7% · margin ±5.10.

Font Awesome 5 on its full scale

Poor11.7%

Font Awesome 5: 4 months, no significant change= +0.5
Font Awesome 6

What Font Awesome 6 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Font Awesome 6 was detected, on its own sample. Swapping one version for another does not change a site by itself — this says what sites on that version score, which is what makes «does upgrading help?» answerable at all.

n=287 · coverage 95.3% · margin ±3.13.

Font Awesome 6 on its full scale

Poor17.5%

Font Awesome 6: 4 months, no significant change= +0.4
Font Awesome 7

What Font Awesome 7 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Font Awesome 7 was detected, on its own sample. Swapping one version for another does not change a site by itself — this says what sites on that version score, which is what makes «does upgrading help?» answerable at all.

n=13 · coverage 92.9% · margin ±14.70.

Font Awesome 7 on its full scale

Weak26.7%

Font Awesome 7: 4 months, up▲ +22.1
Font Awesome 20

What Font Awesome 20 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Font Awesome 20 was detected, on its own sample. Swapping one version for another does not change a site by itself — this says what sites on that version score, which is what makes «does upgrading help?» answerable at all.

n=3 · coverage 100.0% · margin ±30.60.

Font Awesome 20 on its full scale

Very poor0.0%

Font Awesome 20: 3 months, no significant change= 0.0
Font Awesome 25

What Font Awesome 25 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Font Awesome 25 was detected, on its own sample. Swapping one version for another does not change a site by itself — this says what sites on that version score, which is what makes «does upgrading help?» answerable at all.

n=1 · coverage 100.0% · margin ±53.00.

Font Awesome 25 on its full scale

Very poor0.0%

Font Awesome 25: 2 months, no significant change= 0.0
Font Awesome 26

What Font Awesome 26 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Font Awesome 26 was detected, on its own sample. Swapping one version for another does not change a site by itself — this says what sites on that version score, which is what makes «does upgrading help?» answerable at all.

n=1 · coverage 100.0% · margin ±53.00.

Font Awesome 26 on its full scale

Very poor0.0%

Font Awesome 26: 3 months, no significant change= 0.0
Font Awesome 33

What Font Awesome 33 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Font Awesome 33 was detected, on its own sample. Swapping one version for another does not change a site by itself — this says what sites on that version score, which is what makes «does upgrading help?» answerable at all.

n=1 · coverage 100.0% · margin ±53.00.

Font Awesome 33 on its full scale

Very poor0.0%

Font Awesome 44

What Font Awesome 44 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Font Awesome 44 was detected, on its own sample. Swapping one version for another does not change a site by itself — this says what sites on that version score, which is what makes «does upgrading help?» answerable at all.

n=1 · coverage 100.0% · margin ±53.00.

Font Awesome 44 on its full scale

Very poor0.0%

Font Awesome 71

What Font Awesome 71 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Font Awesome 71 was detected, on its own sample. Swapping one version for another does not change a site by itself — this says what sites on that version score, which is what makes «does upgrading help?» answerable at all.

n=1 · coverage 100.0% · margin ±53.00.

Font Awesome 71 on its full scale

Very poor0.0%

Font Awesome 82

What Font Awesome 82 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Font Awesome 82 was detected, on its own sample. Swapping one version for another does not change a site by itself — this says what sites on that version score, which is what makes «does upgrading help?» answerable at all.

n=1 · coverage 100.0% · margin ±53.00.

Font Awesome 82 on its full scale

Very poor0.0%

Font Awesome 93

What Font Awesome 93 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Font Awesome 93 was detected, on its own sample. Swapping one version for another does not change a site by itself — this says what sites on that version score, which is what makes «does upgrading help?» answerable at all.

n=1 · coverage 100.0% · margin ±53.00.

Font Awesome 93 on its full scale

Fair53.3%

Font Awesome 111

What Font Awesome 111 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Font Awesome 111 was detected, on its own sample. Swapping one version for another does not change a site by itself — this says what sites on that version score, which is what makes «does upgrading help?» answerable at all.

n=1 · coverage 100.0% · margin ±53.00.

Font Awesome 111 on its full scale

Very poor0.0%

Font Awesome 128

What Font Awesome 128 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Font Awesome 128 was detected, on its own sample. Swapping one version for another does not change a site by itself — this says what sites on that version score, which is what makes «does upgrading help?» answerable at all.

n=1 · coverage 100.0% · margin ±53.00.

Font Awesome 128 on its full scale

Very poor0.0%

Font Awesome 239

What Font Awesome 239 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Font Awesome 239 was detected, on its own sample. Swapping one version for another does not change a site by itself — this says what sites on that version score, which is what makes «does upgrading help?» answerable at all.

n=1 · coverage 100.0% · margin ±53.00.

Font Awesome 239 on its full scale

Fair53.3%

Font Awesome 440

What Font Awesome 440 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Font Awesome 440 was detected, on its own sample. Swapping one version for another does not change a site by itself — this says what sites on that version score, which is what makes «does upgrading help?» answerable at all.

n=1 · coverage 100.0% · margin ±53.00.

Font Awesome 440 on its full scale

Very poor0.0%

Font Awesome 440: 2 months, no significant change= 0.0
Font Awesome 470

What Font Awesome 470 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Font Awesome 470 was detected, on its own sample. Swapping one version for another does not change a site by itself — this says what sites on that version score, which is what makes «does upgrading help?» answerable at all.

n=1 · coverage 100.0% · margin ±53.00.

Font Awesome 470 on its full scale

Very poor0.0%

Font Awesome 549

What Font Awesome 549 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Font Awesome 549 was detected, on its own sample. Swapping one version for another does not change a site by itself — this says what sites on that version score, which is what makes «does upgrading help?» answerable at all.

n=1 · coverage 100.0% · margin ±53.00.

Font Awesome 549 on its full scale

Fair53.3%

Font Awesome 669

What Font Awesome 669 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Font Awesome 669 was detected, on its own sample. Swapping one version for another does not change a site by itself — this says what sites on that version score, which is what makes «does upgrading help?» answerable at all.

n=1 · coverage 100.0% · margin ±53.00.

Font Awesome 669 on its full scale

Very poor0.0%

Font Awesome 758

What Font Awesome 758 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Font Awesome 758 was detected, on its own sample. Swapping one version for another does not change a site by itself — this says what sites on that version score, which is what makes «does upgrading help?» answerable at all.

n=1 · coverage 100.0% · margin ±53.00.

Font Awesome 758 on its full scale

Fair53.3%

Font Awesome 858

What Font Awesome 858 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Font Awesome 858 was detected, on its own sample. Swapping one version for another does not change a site by itself — this says what sites on that version score, which is what makes «does upgrading help?» answerable at all.

n=1 · coverage 100.0% · margin ±53.00.

Font Awesome 858 on its full scale

Fair53.3%

Font Awesome 2016

What Font Awesome 2016 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Font Awesome 2016 was detected, on its own sample. Swapping one version for another does not change a site by itself — this says what sites on that version score, which is what makes «does upgrading help?» answerable at all.

n=1 · coverage 100.0% · margin ±53.00.

Font Awesome 2016 on its full scale

Very poor0.0%

Font Awesome 002104

What Font Awesome 002104 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Font Awesome 002104 was detected, on its own sample. Swapping one version for another does not change a site by itself — this says what sites on that version score, which is what makes «does upgrading help?» answerable at all.

n=1 · coverage 100.0% · margin ±53.00.

Font Awesome 002104 on its full scale

Fair53.3%

Measured, and not part of the index

These are signals, not scores. They are kept apart on purpose: mixed in with the dimensions, a low one reads as a bad grade for something the index never counted.

49.7%
Google's category score

Google's category score

Sample
n=2,665
Coverage
95.5%

The score Lighthouse gives the agentic-browsing category, read from the report as published. We republish it as a declared reference and never as a figure of ours: it includes cumulative-layout-shift — a rendering metric — at half the weight, and its weights are conditional and undocumented. A number whose calculation we do not control is not a number we cite as our own.

Google's category score: 4 months, up▲ +2.3
6.4%
Sites with an AI crawler policy

Sites with an AI crawler policy

Sample
n=2,789
Coverage
100.0%

Not a Lighthouse audit: it is read from the robots.txt of the sampled sites, checking whether the file names any of the AI crawlers we track. It measures HAVING AN EXPLICIT POLICY and not permitting: blocking AI crawlers is a legitimate decision, and penalising it would be a value judgement dressed up as a measurement. What is a sign of maturity is having decided.

Sites with an AI crawler policy: 4 months, no significant change= −0.3 pp
32.0%
Sites serving an llms.txt

Sites serving an llms.txt

Sample
n=2,789
Coverage
100.0%

The same llms-txt audit as the figure below, read differently: this one counts SOMETHING being served at /llms.txt, valid or not. Read that literally, because the distance between the two figures is large and it is the interesting part: of the pages that serve something, fewer than two in five serve a file that parses. Our reading — and we cannot verify it without fetching those files ourselves, which we do not do — is that a good share of the rest are soft 404s: a server answering 200 with an HTML error page. So the figure to cite is the valid one below, and this one is best read as an upper bound. Pages whose audit errored are excluded from both, and the coverage says how many that was.

Sites serving an llms.txt: 4 months, no significant change= −0.7 pp

Against the rest of Font scripts

The 13 technologies in this category with a published index, and the web overall for scale. Font Awesome is the highlighted bar.

Fork Awesome
Fork Awesome: 26.7%
26.7%
Bunny Fonts
Bunny Fonts: 24.3%
24.3%
All sites
All sites: 19.9%
19.9%
Google Font API
Google Font API: 17.7%
17.7%
Typekit
Typekit: 17.5%
17.5%
Glyphicons
Glyphicons: 16.8%
16.8%
Bootstrap Icons
Bootstrap Icons: 15.5%
15.5%
Twitter Emoji (Twemoji)
Twitter Emoji (Twemoji): 13.5%
13.5%
Font Awesome
Font Awesome: 12.7%
12.7%
Custom Fonts
Custom Fonts: 12.5%
12.5%
Ionicons
Ionicons: 10.9%
10.9%
Hoefler&Co
Hoefler&Co: 10.3%
10.3%
Cufon
Cufon: 5.9%
5.9%
MyFonts
MyFonts: 0.0%
0.0%
00.250.500.751.0
Every Font scripts technology the census can publish, against the web overall (19.9%). The scale is always 0–1.

What else we measure here

49.7%
Google's category score

Google's category score

Sample
n=2,665
Coverage
95.5%
6.4%
Sites with an AI crawler policy

Sites with an AI crawler policy

Sample
n=2,789
Coverage
100.0%
97.4%
Agents that can reach the site

Agents that can reach the site

Sample
n=2,789
Coverage
100.0%
20.1%
Pages an agent can parse

Pages an agent can parse

Sample
n=2,667
Coverage
95.6%
32.0%
Sites serving an llms.txt

Sites serving an llms.txt

Sample
n=2,789
Coverage
100.0%
7.2%
Sites with a valid llms.txt

Sites with a valid llms.txt

Sample
n=2,789
Coverage
100.0%
54
Sites exposing tools

Sites exposing tools

Sample
n=2,667
Coverage
95.6%

How this was measured