Agentic Web Census

August 2026by Omitsis

English

Technology · August 2026

Is OVHcloud ready for AI agents?

OVHcloud scores 15.1%, 4.8% below the web overall (19.9%).

Poor15.1%

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 193 pages, 97.0% of which carried the agentic category, with a confidence margin of ±3.82.

= −0.5
AWCS over 4 months

13.9%15.1%

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=193 · coverage 97.0% · margin ±3.82 pp.

53% of the score
Read on its full scale

Poor23.3%

Read: 4 months, no significant change= −0.3 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=199 · coverage 100.0% · margin ±3.76 pp.

27% of the score
Guide on its full scale

Very poor8.3%

Guide: 4 months, no significant change= −0.7 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=193 · coverage 97.0% · margin ±3.82 pp.

20% of the score
Act on its full scale

Very poor3.1%

Act: 4 months, no significant change= −0.5 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=199 · coverage 100.0% · margin ±3.76 pp.

multiplies the rest
Reachable on its full scale

Excellent98.6%

Reachable: 4 months, no significant change= −0.3 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.

52.8%
Google's category score

Google's category score

Sample
n=192
Coverage
96.5%

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, no significant change= −0.5
4.5%
Sites with an AI crawler policy

Sites with an AI crawler policy

Sample
n=199
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= +2.8 pp
35.8%
Sites serving an llms.txt

Sites serving an llms.txt

Sample
n=199
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= +1.0 pp

Against the rest of Hosting

The 39 technologies in this category with a published index, and the web overall for scale. OVHcloud is the highlighted bar.

Contabo
Contabo: 53.3%
53.3%
idCloudHost
idCloudHost: 53.3%
53.3%
Pagely
Pagely: 53.3%
53.3%
UKFast
UKFast: 29.9%
29.9%
Elementor Cloud
Elementor Cloud: 26.7%
26.7%
GoDaddy
GoDaddy: 26.6%
26.6%
VentraIP
VentraIP: 26.0%
26.0%
Hostinger
Hostinger: 24.9%
24.9%
Hostpoint
Hostpoint: 24.9%
24.9%
Hetzner
Hetzner: 23.6%
23.6%
IONOS
IONOS: 21.6%
21.6%
Strato
Strato: 20.9%
20.9%
All sites
All sites: 19.9%
19.9%
Hostgator
Hostgator: 19.2%
19.2%
Liquid Web
Liquid Web: 18.7%
18.7%
World4You
World4You: 17.3%
17.3%
ALL-INKL
ALL-INKL: 17.2%
17.2%
SiteGround
SiteGround: 17.2%
17.2%
Mittwald
Mittwald: 16.7%
16.7%
Bluehost
Bluehost: 16.3%
16.3%
Sakura Internet
Sakura Internet: 16.1%
16.1%
Xserver
Xserver: 16.0%
16.0%
OVHcloud
OVHcloud: 15.1%
15.1%
DreamHost
DreamHost: 14.8%
14.8%
WP Engine
WP Engine: 14.7%
14.7%
Aruba.it
Aruba.it: 14.3%
14.3%
Kinsta
Kinsta: 13.9%
13.9%
Infomaniak
Infomaniak: 13.6%
13.6%
WordPress Multisite
WordPress Multisite: 13.5%
13.5%
One.com
One.com: 13.5%
13.5%
Flywheel
Flywheel: 11.7%
11.7%
Drupal Multisite
Drupal Multisite: 11.1%
11.1%
Acquia Cloud Site Factory
Acquia Cloud Site Factory: 10.7%
10.7%
REG.RU
REG.RU: 9.8%
9.8%
wp.cloud
wp.cloud: 7.9%
7.9%
34SP.com
34SP.com: 0.0%
0.0%
FastComet
FastComet: 0.0%
0.0%
Hosting Ukraine
Hosting Ukraine: 0.0%
0.0%
PythonAnywhere
PythonAnywhere: 0.0%
0.0%
Seravo
Seravo: 0.0%
0.0%
00.250.500.751.0
Every Hosting technology the census can publish, against the web overall (19.9%). The scale is always 0–1.

What else we measure here

52.8%
Google's category score

Google's category score

Sample
n=192
Coverage
96.5%
4.5%
Sites with an AI crawler policy

Sites with an AI crawler policy

Sample
n=199
Coverage
100.0%
98.6%
Agents that can reach the site

Agents that can reach the site

Sample
n=199
Coverage
100.0%
23.3%
Pages an agent can parse

Pages an agent can parse

Sample
n=193
Coverage
97.0%
35.8%
Sites serving an llms.txt

Sites serving an llms.txt

Sample
n=199
Coverage
100.0%
8.3%
Sites with a valid llms.txt

Sites with a valid llms.txt

Sample
n=199
Coverage
100.0%
6
Sites exposing tools

Sites exposing tools

Sample
n=193
Coverage
97.0%

How this was measured