Free tool · powered by Essentras
Will AI cite gm-med.co.uk?
AI Visibility Score, last checked 5 Sept 2026.
Invisible to AI: zero genuine third-party brand mentions, blocked AI crawlers, and no entity recognition despite solid on-page structure.
Extremely unlikely to be cited by any generative engine. The brand has no third-party mentions (all 17 search results are unrelated entities: General Motors, GM Med Spa, leather products, academic papers), no Knowledge Panel, blocks CCBot (a major AI crawler), and lacks Wikipedia or press presence. Even with good on-page structure, AI models have no external signal that this brand exists.
Entity authority
How much AI already trusts you across the web — the biggest driver of citations, and the hardest to DIY.
Zero genuine third-party mentions found — all 17 results are unrelated entities (General Motors, GM Med Spa, leather products, academic papers) with no connection to this UK medical supplier.
Fix: Earn editorial mentions on healthcare industry sites, medical procurement blogs, or local business press; consider press releases for new product lines or partnerships to build third-party visibility.
Get tier-1 press placements · from $250 →No Google Knowledge Panel and no recognizable entity footprint; the brand is invisible to entity-resolution systems despite having a Companies House registration and social profiles.
Fix: Build consistent citations across healthcare directories, industry associations, and local business listings; ensure name-address-phone consistency to help Google establish entity identity.
Get a Google Knowledge Panel · from $650 →No Wikipedia page; the Wikipedia match found is for General Motors (completely unrelated automotive company), providing zero reference-corpus signal for this medical supplier.
Fix: Wikipedia is earned, not created — focus first on building press mentions and industry recognition; consider contributing expertise to relevant medical supply or procurement articles if notable enough.
Get a Wikipedia page · $4,000, money-back →On-page extractability
How easily AI can read, understand, and quote this specific page.
Page contains some original positioning (15 years expertise, CIPS credentials, specific supplier partnerships) but lacks unique data, original research, or quotable statistics not found elsewhere.
Fix: Publish original procurement data, industry surveys, or case studies with specific outcomes; add expert commentary or statistics about UK medical supply trends to create cite-worthy content.
Publish a cite-worthy article on MarketSpy · $9.99 intro →Strong extractable structure with clear headings, product lists, feature bullets, and answer-first sections; content is well-organized for machine parsing despite being server-rendered.
One dated content piece visible (27 August 2026 spotlight article) shows some freshness signals, though homepage itself lacks explicit update timestamps.
Fix: Add last-updated dates to key pages and product categories; maintain a regular cadence of dated blog posts or product spotlights to signal ongoing freshness.
Blocks CCBot in robots.txt, making the site invisible to Common Crawl-dependent AI systems; server-rendered content is otherwise accessible, but this is a critical visibility gap.
Fix: Remove CCBot block from robots.txt immediately — Common Crawl feeds many AI training corpora and citation systems; verify GPTBot, ClaudeBot, and PerplexityBot are also allowed.
Comprehensive Medical Organization schema with legal identifiers, contact details, and social profiles; duplicate Organization and WebSite schemas present but well-formed.
Fix: Add named author schema to blog and spotlight articles; consider adding review or rating schema if customer testimonials exist to strengthen trust signals.
Publish a cite-worthy article on MarketSpy · $9.99 intro →What to fix, ranked by impact
Highest-leverage first. Purple/green = Essentras can do it for you; grey = a do-it-yourself win.
robots.txt currently blocks CCBot — those engines cannot see you at all. Remove the Disallow for them.
Being named on independent, trusted publications is the strongest correlate of AI citation — it beats backlinks and domain authority. This is the #1 lever.
Three tier-1 outlets AI engines already read and cite — the fastest way to build the third-party mentions AI weighs most.
A Knowledge Panel is how Google and AI Overviews confirm you are a real entity worth citing.
Wikipedia is ~48% of ChatGPT’s cited sources. With no page, AI has no canonical reference to cite about you.
A professional, AI-indexed article about you on a real outlet — the fastest, cheapest way to give assistants something concrete to quote.
Information gain is the top causal on-page lever (+22-41% in controlled tests). Add a stat, benchmark, or quote no other page has — restating consensus barely helps.
Don’t waste time on
- ✕Obsessing over schema / JSON-LD. Controlled before/after tests show it has no causal lift on AI citations. Keep it for normal Google rich results, but do not over-invest expecting AI to cite you because of it.
- ✕Adding an llms.txt file. AI crawlers do not read it (Google confirmed; ~0.1% of AI-bot requests hit it). It is speculative, not a ranking factor.
- ✕Chasing word count. Correlation between length and AI citation is ~0.04 (basically none). Originality and structure beat length every time.
How to fix this fast
AI barely sees you. The fastest fix is a citation on a source it already trusts.
We write and publish a professional article about you on a real, AI-cited outlet, indexed by Google and citeable by ChatGPT, Claude and Perplexity. Get your first placement for $9.99.
Other sites we checked
Check any URL free at essentras.com/tools/ai-visibility-score.