Poor18.2%

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 57 pages, 87.7% of which carried the agentic category, with a confidence margin of ±7.02.

= −0.8
AWCS over 4 months

12.8%18.2%

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=57 · coverage 87.7% · margin ±7.02 pp.

53% of the score
Read on its full scale

Weak29.8%

Read: 4 months, no significant change= +1.6 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=65 · coverage 100.0% · margin ±6.57 pp.

27% of the score
Guide on its full scale

Poor10.5%

Guide: 4 months, no significant change= −4.7 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=57 · coverage 87.7% · margin ±7.02 pp.

20% of the score
Act on its full scale

Very poor0.0%

Act: 4 months, no significant change= −2.2 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=65 · coverage 100.0% · margin ±6.57 pp.

multiplies the rest
Reachable on its full scale

Excellent97.0%

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

By major version

Does upgrading help? 27 majors of Three.js 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.

Three.js 86

What Three.js 86 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Three.js 86 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.

Three.js 86 on its full scale

Weak26.7%

Three.js 88

What Three.js 88 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Three.js 88 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.

Three.js 88 on its full scale

Weak26.7%

Three.js 88: 2 months, no significant change= +26.7
Three.js 89

What Three.js 89 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Three.js 89 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.

Three.js 89 on its full scale

Fair53.3%

Three.js 105

What Three.js 105 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Three.js 105 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.

Three.js 105 on its full scale

Fair53.3%

Three.js 108

What Three.js 108 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Three.js 108 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.

Three.js 108 on its full scale

Very poor0.0%

Three.js 108: 3 months, no significant change= 0.0
Three.js 111

What Three.js 111 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Three.js 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.

Three.js 111 on its full scale

Fair53.3%

Three.js 111: 3 months, up▲ +53.3
Three.js 117

What Three.js 117 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Three.js 117 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.

Three.js 117 on its full scale

Weak26.7%

Three.js 127

What Three.js 127 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Three.js 127 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=4 · coverage 100.0% · margin ±26.50.

Three.js 127 on its full scale

Very poor0.0%

Three.js 127: 4 months, down▼ −26.7
Three.js 128

What Three.js 128 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Three.js 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=15 · coverage 93.8% · margin ±13.68.

Three.js 128 on its full scale

Poor15.5%

Three.js 128: 4 months, no significant change= +0.1
Three.js 136

What Three.js 136 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Three.js 136 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.

Three.js 136 on its full scale

Very poor0.0%

Three.js 139

What Three.js 139 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Three.js 139 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.

Three.js 139 on its full scale

Very poor0.0%

Three.js 147

What Three.js 147 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Three.js 147 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.

Three.js 147 on its full scale

Weak26.7%

Three.js 147: 2 months, no significant change= +26.7
Three.js 150

What Three.js 150 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Three.js 150 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 66.7% · margin ±37.48.

Three.js 150 on its full scale

Very poor0.0%

Three.js 150: 3 months, no significant change= 0.0
Three.js 151

What Three.js 151 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Three.js 151 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.

Three.js 151 on its full scale

Very poor0.0%

Three.js 152

What Three.js 152 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Three.js 152 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.

Three.js 152 on its full scale

Very poor0.0%

Three.js 157

What Three.js 157 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Three.js 157 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.

Three.js 157 on its full scale

Very poor0.0%

Three.js 158

What Three.js 158 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Three.js 158 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.

Three.js 158 on its full scale

Very poor0.0%

Three.js 158: 2 months, no significant change= 0.0
Three.js 160

What Three.js 160 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Three.js 160 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.

Three.js 160 on its full scale

Very poor0.0%

Three.js 160: 2 months, no significant change= −50.0
Three.js 169

What Three.js 169 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Three.js 169 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.

Three.js 169 on its full scale

Weak26.7%

Three.js 169: 2 months, no significant change= +26.7
Three.js 172

What Three.js 172 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Three.js 172 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.

Three.js 172 on its full scale

Very poor0.0%

Three.js 172: 2 months, no significant change= 0.0
Three.js 175

What Three.js 175 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Three.js 175 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.

Three.js 175 on its full scale

Poor17.8%

Three.js 177

What Three.js 177 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Three.js 177 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.

Three.js 177 on its full scale

Very poor0.0%

Three.js 180

What Three.js 180 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Three.js 180 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.

Three.js 180 on its full scale

Very poor0.0%

Three.js 182

What Three.js 182 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Three.js 182 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.

Three.js 182 on its full scale

Very poor0.0%

Three.js 182: 4 months, no significant change= 0.0
Three.js 183

What Three.js 183 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Three.js 183 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.

Three.js 183 on its full scale

Weak29.4%

Three.js 183: 3 months, no significant change= +1.2
Three.js 184

What Three.js 184 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Three.js 184 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.

Three.js 184 on its full scale

Good62.2%

Three.js 184: 2 months, up▲ +62.2
Three.js 185

What Three.js 185 measures

The AWCS of the sites where Three.js 185 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.

Three.js 185 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.

52.9%
Google's category score

Google's category score

Sample
n=57
Coverage
87.7%

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= −4.4
6.2%
Sites with an AI crawler policy

Sites with an AI crawler policy

Sample
n=65
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= −2.0 pp
47.4%
Sites serving an llms.txt

Sites serving an llms.txt

Sample
n=65
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= +3.9 pp

Against the rest of JavaScript graphics

The 26 technologies in this category with a published index, and the web overall for scale. Three.js is the highlighted bar.

A-Frame
A-Frame: 53.3%
53.3%
Epoch
Epoch: 53.3%
53.3%
NVD3
NVD3: 53.3%
53.3%
PIXIjs
PIXIjs: 26.7%
26.7%
KineticJS
KineticJS: 25.9%
25.9%
All sites
All sites: 19.9%
19.9%
Raphael
Raphael: 19.3%
19.3%
ApexCharts.js
ApexCharts.js: 19.2%
19.2%
MathJax
MathJax: 18.6%
18.6%
Three.js
Three.js: 18.2%
18.2%
Google Charts
Google Charts: 17.8%
17.8%
Recharts
Recharts: 17.8%
17.8%
anime.js
anime.js: 17.1%
17.1%
Chart.js
Chart.js: 13.7%
13.7%
Supersized
Supersized: 13.3%
13.3%
KaTeX
KaTeX: 12.9%
12.9%
particles.js
particles.js: 12.1%
12.1%
D3
D3: 11.9%
11.9%
Exhibit
Exhibit: 10.4%
10.4%
amCharts
amCharts: 8.5%
8.5%
CanvasJS
CanvasJS: 8.4%
8.4%
Highcharts
Highcharts: 7.9%
7.9%
ECharts
ECharts: 0.0%
0.0%
JavaScript Infovis Toolkit
JavaScript Infovis Toolkit: 0.0%
0.0%
Plotly
Plotly: 0.0%
0.0%
TradingView
TradingView: 0.0%
0.0%
xCharts
xCharts: 0.0%
0.0%
00.250.500.751.0
Every JavaScript graphics technology the census can publish, against the web overall (19.9%). The scale is always 0–1.

What else we measure here

52.9%
Google's category score

Google's category score

Sample
n=57
Coverage
87.7%
6.2%
Sites with an AI crawler policy

Sites with an AI crawler policy

Sample
n=65
Coverage
100.0%
97.0%
Agents that can reach the site

Agents that can reach the site

Sample
n=65
Coverage
100.0%
29.8%
Pages an agent can parse

Pages an agent can parse

Sample
n=57
Coverage
87.7%
47.4%
Sites serving an llms.txt

Sites serving an llms.txt

Sample
n=65
Coverage
100.0%
10.5%
Sites with a valid llms.txt

Sites with a valid llms.txt

Sample
n=65
Coverage
100.0%
0
Sites exposing tools

Sites exposing tools

Sample
n=57
Coverage
87.7%

How this was measured