Agentic Web Census

August 2026by Omitsis

English

Technology · August 2026

Is HubSpot ready for AI agents?

HubSpot scores 26.8%, 6.9% above the web overall (19.9%).

Weak26.8%

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 356 pages, 94.4% of which carried the agentic category, with a confidence margin of ±2.81.

= +2.5
AWCS over 4 months

16.6%26.8%

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=356 · coverage 94.4% · margin ±2.81 pp.

53% of the score
Read on its full scale

Fair46.1%

Read: 4 months, up▲ +5.0 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=377 · coverage 100.0% · margin ±2.73 pp.

27% of the score
Guide on its full scale

Very poor9.3%

Guide: 4 months, no significant change= −0.4 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=356 · coverage 94.4% · margin ±2.81 pp.

20% of the score
Act on its full scale

Very poor2.2%

Act: 4 months, no significant change= −0.2 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=377 · coverage 100.0% · margin ±2.73 pp.

multiplies the rest
Reachable on its full scale

Excellent97.4%

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

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.

63.5%
Google's category score

Google's category score

Sample
n=356
Coverage
94.4%

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, no significant change= +1.7
13.5%
Sites with an AI crawler policy

Sites with an AI crawler policy

Sample
n=377
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, down▼ −3.0 pp
34.3%
Sites serving an llms.txt

Sites serving an llms.txt

Sample
n=377
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, up▲ +3.9 pp

Against the rest of Marketing automation

The 43 technologies in this category with a published index, and the web overall for scale. HubSpot is the highlighted bar.

Beeketing
Beeketing: 100.0%
100.0%
Postscript
Postscript: 66.7%
66.7%
Vitals
Vitals: 57.8%
57.8%
PushOwl
PushOwl: 55.8%
55.8%
Shanon
Shanon: 53.3%
53.3%
Signal
Signal: 53.3%
53.3%
Automizely
Automizely: 52.7%
52.7%
Wisepops
Wisepops: 50.0%
50.0%
Klaviyo
Klaviyo: 48.9%
48.9%
Grin
Grin: 46.7%
46.7%
Mindbox
Mindbox: 35.6%
35.6%
Birdeye
Birdeye: 35.6%
35.6%
Wigzo
Wigzo: 33.3%
33.3%
Mautic
Mautic: 31.5%
31.5%
Zotabox
Zotabox: 30.7%
30.7%
Salesloft
Salesloft: 28.2%
28.2%
HubSpot
HubSpot: 26.8%
26.8%
MailerLite
MailerLite: 22.5%
22.5%
Salesforce Marketing Cloud Account Engagement
Salesforce Marketing Cloud Account Engagement: 22.5%
22.5%
Wunderkind
Wunderkind: 20.8%
20.8%
All sites
All sites: 19.9%
19.9%
SharpSpring
SharpSpring: 19.0%
19.0%
Sumo
Sumo: 18.5%
18.5%
Blotout EdgeTag
Blotout EdgeTag: 17.8%
17.8%
Webpushr
Webpushr: 17.8%
17.8%
ClickDimensions
ClickDimensions: 13.3%
13.3%
OptinMonster
OptinMonster: 11.0%
11.0%
WebEngage
WebEngage: 8.9%
8.9%
MailChimp for WordPress
MailChimp for WordPress: 8.7%
8.7%
Eloqua
Eloqua: 7.0%
7.0%
RD Station
RD Station: 3.2%
3.2%
6sense
6sense: 0.0%
0.0%
Act-On
Act-On: 0.0%
0.0%
Aimtell
Aimtell: 0.0%
0.0%
BowNow
BowNow: 0.0%
0.0%
ClickFunnels
ClickFunnels: 0.0%
0.0%
Connectif
Connectif: 0.0%
0.0%
Customer.io
Customer.io: 0.0%
0.0%
Drip
Drip: 0.0%
0.0%
Marketo
Marketo: 0.0%
0.0%
Satori
Satori: 0.0%
0.0%
ShopiMind
ShopiMind: 0.0%
0.0%
Sleeknote
Sleeknote: 0.0%
0.0%
Systeme.io
Systeme.io: 0.0%
0.0%
00.250.500.751.0
Every Marketing automation technology the census can publish, against the web overall (19.9%). The scale is always 0–1.

What else we measure here

63.5%
Google's category score

Google's category score

Sample
n=356
Coverage
94.4%
13.5%
Sites with an AI crawler policy

Sites with an AI crawler policy

Sample
n=377
Coverage
100.0%
97.4%
Agents that can reach the site

Agents that can reach the site

Sample
n=377
Coverage
100.0%
46.1%
Pages an agent can parse

Pages an agent can parse

Sample
n=356
Coverage
94.4%
34.3%
Sites serving an llms.txt

Sites serving an llms.txt

Sample
n=377
Coverage
100.0%
9.3%
Sites with a valid llms.txt

Sites with a valid llms.txt

Sample
n=377
Coverage
100.0%
8
Sites exposing tools

Sites exposing tools

Sample
n=356
Coverage
94.4%

How this was measured