Benchmarks · Consumer & e-commerce

Hospitality & travel: AI readiness benchmark

21 venues scanned on July 31, 2026. The average score is 71 out of 100. Homepages only, from a hand-picked list.

21sites scanned
71average score
58–96score range
Jul 31, 2026scan date

Key findings

  1. 1

    The average score in the Hospitality & travel category is 71/100, 2 points below the all-category average of 73.

  2. 2

    Of the three pillars, Technical foundation is the strongest in the Hospitality & travel category at 17/20 (85% of the maximum), and Discoverability is the weakest at 26/40 (65%).

  3. 3

    In the Hospitality & travel category, the most-failed checks are llms.txt present and Content schema (Article, FAQ…), each at 76%: that share of sites did not earn full points on them.

Where the scores fall

The lowest score is 58, the highest is 96 and the average is 71, out of 100.

Fig. 1

Score range for Hospitality & travel Hospitality & travel sites range from 58 to 96 out of 100, averaging 71, across 21 sites. Hospitality & travel · 21 venues 71 58 96 0 25 50 75 100 AI visibility score (0–100)
The bar spans the lowest to the highest score in the category. The marker is the average.

Source: Citehound scan, July 31, 2026, 21 venues

The three pillars

Each score is built from three pillars worth 40, 20 and 40 points. These are the category averages.

Fig. 2

Pillar averages against their maximums Average score per pillar for Hospitality & travel. Discoverability, maximum 40 points: 26. Technical foundation, maximum 20 points: 17. Content & trust, maximum 40 points: 29. Discoverability · max 40 26/40 Technical foundation · max 20 17/20 Content & trust · max 40 29/40 Filled = points earned. Unfilled = gap to maximum.
Filled is the average points earned; the track is the maximum for that pillar.

Source: Citehound scan, July 31, 2026, 21 venues

The checks sites miss most

Share of sites that did not earn full points, for the 8 most-failed checks.

Fig. 3

The 8 most-failed checks for Hospitality & travel Share of sites that did not earn full points, most-failed first. llms.txt present: 76%; Content schema (Article, FAQ…): 76%; Organization / WebSite schema: 43%; Single H1 heading: 38%; Open Graph tags: 33%; Structured data (JSON-LD): 29%; Author / about signals: 19%; Meta description: 14%. llms.txt present 76% Content schema (Article, FAQ…) 76% Organization / WebSite schema 43% Single H1 heading 38% Open Graph tags 33% Structured data (JSON-LD) 29% Author / about signals 19% Meta description 14%
Ranked from most to least failed. A site fails a check by earning less than its full points, which includes partial credit. AI crawler access is shown by crawler in the next figure instead.

Source: Citehound scan, July 31, 2026, 21 venues

Which AI crawlers can get in

Counts of sites, for each of 10 AI crawlers, where it is open, limited or blocked.

Fig. 4

Access by AI crawler across 21 sites Number of Hospitality & travel sites where each crawler is open, limited or blocked. GPTBot: 3 open, 17 limited, 1 blocked; ChatGPT-User: 4 open, 17 limited, 0 blocked; OAI-SearchBot: 4 open, 17 limited, 0 blocked; ClaudeBot: 3 open, 18 limited, 0 blocked; anthropic-ai: 3 open, 18 limited, 0 blocked; PerplexityBot: 4 open, 17 limited, 0 blocked; Perplexity-User: 3 open, 18 limited, 0 blocked; Google-Extended: 3 open, 17 limited, 1 blocked; CCBot: 3 open, 17 limited, 1 blocked; Bytespider: 3 open, 18 limited, 0 blocked. GPTBot 3 17 1 blocked ChatGPT-User 4 17 0 blocked OAI-SearchBot 4 17 0 blocked ClaudeBot 3 18 0 blocked anthropic-ai 3 18 0 blocked PerplexityBot 4 17 0 blocked Perplexity-User 3 18 0 blocked Google-Extended 3 17 1 blocked CCBot 3 17 1 blocked Bytespider 3 18 0 blocked Open Limited Blocked
Open: no rule keeps the crawler out. Limited: at least one Disallow rule applies to the crawler, mostly an ordinary path such as /wp-admin/, and the rest of the site is open to it. Limited is not a block, although the scan gives it half credit. Blocked: the whole site is disallowed.

Source: Citehound scan, July 31, 2026, 21 venues

Method and limits

What we scanned

21 venues in this category completed a scan on July 31, 2026. 23 more on the list could not be reached or timed out. They are excluded from every figure on this page.

What we pulled

For each site: robots.txt, sitemap.xml, llms.txt and the homepage, retrieved live. Homepages only. Inner pages were not scanned, and each site was scanned once.

What we scored

One score out of 100 per site, split across three pillars: discoverability (40), technical foundation (20), content & trust (40). The checks and their point values are on the methodology page.

How the sites were chosen

The lists are hand-picked, well-known sites in the category. They are not a random sample, so these figures describe the sites we scanned, not the category as a whole.

Repeat scans

In one October 2026 rescan of the same lists, category averages moved by one point or less. Individual sites moved more: about a third changed by 3 to 15 points.

What this measures

Whether AI systems can reach a site, and whether its homepage carries the signals machines read. It does not measure whether any assistant names a brand in an answer. Model responses vary by prompt, session and training data, and no scan of public files can predict them.

What this doesn’t tell you

  • Anything about pages other than the homepage.
  • Why the unreachable sites could not be scanned, or how they would have scored.
  • Whether any of these signals relates to being named in an AI answer. This page measures inputs, not outcomes.

How to cite this

Citehound, “AI readiness benchmark: Hospitality & travel,” July 31, 2026. https://getcitehound.com/benchmarks/hospitality

Canonical URL: https://getcitehound.com/benchmarks/hospitality

To see where your own site lands against these numbers, run the free scan. All benchmarks.

Scan your site free