- Visibility21
- Citations6
- Sentiment94
- Site quality80
- AI readiness7
AI assistants name Charles River Laboratories in 13.3% of answers, more often than the typical company in the healthcare sector. Its overall score is 40 out of 100, ranking 407th of 2,047 companies. The website passes 1 of 14 technical checks measuring how ready it is for AI tools.
We asked 15 unbranded questions about the healthcare market: none named Charles River Laboratories. AI assistants named it in 8 of 60 answers (13.3%). The typical healthcare company is named in 3.3% of answers. By how often it is named, Charles River Laboratories ranks 17 of 105 in its sector.
Every dot is a company in the study. Hover one to see it; click to open its report.
This companySame sectorEvery other companyNever named
Five parts, each scored out of 100.
How often AI assistants name the company
How often AI uses the company's own website as a source
How positively AI describes the company
How well built the website's own pages are
How easily AI tools can read and use the website
Visibility is calculated from the answers on this page. How the score is built.
105 companies in this sector. The line on each bar is the typical company.
An answer that names the company
“What are the best preclinical laboratory services for drug discovery in the US?”
I'll search for information about the best preclinical laboratory services for drug discovery in the US.Based on the search results, here are some of the best preclinical laboratory services for drug discovery in the US:
Top Preclinical CRO Companies
Charles River Laboratories, Syneos Health, and Labcorp Drug Development consistently receive high ratings for quality, reliability, and client satisfaction in preclinical CRO services.
Charles River Laboratories is particularly prominent: Charles River Laboratories is one of the largest CROs in the world and a leader in preclinical servi …
The AI’s answer as we received it, shortened and not checked for accuracy.
How the mentions in these answers were split between this company and its rivals
Answers naming it, out of answers received
What this website publishes for an AI agent to read, use and buy from, on a scale of six levels.
This website turned most of our scan away, so it has no level. None of the checks could run. That reflects the website’s rules for automated visitors, and an AI agent arriving by itself meets the same rules.
Show every check, for your technical teamHide the checks
- study: 92.0%robots.txtCould not check
Publish a valid robots.txt with crawl rules and a Sitemap line.
- study: 86.8%SitemapCould not check
Serve an XML sitemap and reference it from robots.txt.
- study: 0.3%Link headersCould not check
Send Link headers such as rel="api-catalog" or rel="describedby" on the homepage.
- study: 5.5%DNS for AI DiscoveryNot present
Advertise agent endpoints with SVCB records under _agents.
- study: 1.9%Markdown negotiationCould not check
Return a markdown version when asked with Accept: text/markdown, for example at the CDN.
- study: 25.1%llms.txtCould not check
Publish an llms.txt with a short summary and the key links.
- study: 93.4%AI bot rulesCould not check
Add explicit robots.txt groups for the main AI crawlers.
- study: 1.4%Content SignalsCould not check
Add a Content-Signal line for search, ai-input and ai-train to robots.txt.
- study: 0.2%Web Bot AuthCould not check
Only relevant if you run your own agents or crawlers: publish a signing key directory.
- study: 0.3%API CatalogCould not check
List public APIs in a linkset at /.well-known/api-catalog.
- study: 11.8%OAuth discoveryCould not check
Publish OpenID Connect or OAuth server metadata under /.well-known.
- study: 10.3%OAuth Protected ResourceCould not check
Serve protected resource metadata at /.well-known/oauth-protected-resource.
- study: 0.0%auth.mdCould not check
Publish an auth.md describing how agents sign in.
- study: 0.2%MCP Server CardCould not check
Offer an MCP server and publish its server card under /.well-known.
- study: 0.1%A2A Agent CardCould not check
Publish an agent card at /.well-known/agent-card.json.
- study: 0.2%Agent SkillsCould not check
Publish a skills index with the main tasks agents can do.
- study: 33.7%WebMCPCould not check
Register key actions such as search or cart as WebMCP tools.
- study: 0.1%ARD manifestCould not check
Publish an ai-catalog.json listing every agent interface.
0% of checks could run · checked on October 5, 2026 · www.criver.com · 2,047 companies scanned
1 of 14 passed. This list is for your technical team. The percentage is how many companies in the study pass each check.
These 14 checks ran during the audit and are what the AI readiness part of the overall score counts. The scan above ran later and is stricter on Link headers and Markdown, so a check can pass here and not there.
Show the 14 checksHide them
- Not metrobots.txt publishedstudy: 85.0%
- Not metXML sitemapstudy: 73.2%
- Not metHTTP Link headers (RFC 8288)study: 29.0%
- Not metMarkdown content negotiationstudy: 8.3%
- Not metllms.txt publishedstudy: 21.7%
- PassedToken budget (page weight)study: 95.2%
- Not metExplicit AI bot rulesstudy: 13.0%
- Not metAPI Catalog (.well-known/api-catalog)study: 0.2%
- Not metOAuth Authorization Server discoverystudy: 10.1%
- Not metOAuth Protected Resource discoverystudy: 9.3%
- Not metMCP Server Cardstudy: 0.0%
- Not metA2A Agent Cardstudy: 0.0%
- Not metWebMCP toolsstudy: 4.2%
- Not metAgent Skills declaredstudy: 0.0%
How many times each website was listed as a source in these answers
In the study as S&P 500.
- How do laboratory services support medical device biocompatibility testing?
- Which laboratory services are essential for supporting gene therapy development?
- How are preclinical study costs typically structured for pharmaceutical companies?
- Is it worth outsourcing laboratory testing for IND-enabling studies?
- What are common use cases for GLP-compliant laboratory studies in drug development?
- What are the best preclinical laboratory services for drug discovery in the US?
- What should you do if a laboratory study fails to meet regulatory endpoints?
- What pricing models are available for outsourcing clinical lab services?
- Are academic labs a viable alternative for preclinical research projects?
- In vivo vs in vitro testing: which is more common for preclinical studies?
- How do preclinical CROs differ from clinical CROs in terms of services offered?
- How can delays in toxicology study results be managed effectively?
- What are alternatives to using a full-service CRO for early-stage drug testing?
- What should biotech startups look for when choosing a preclinical CRO partner?
- Which clinical laboratory service providers are reliable for early-phase studies?
Columns, left to right: OpenAI, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini. The AI assistants often disagree. Across the study, on 40% of the questions where a company is named, only one of the four names it.
A badge of this result that you can show on your own website. Copy the code below.
<a href="https://aeo-audit.rezolve.com/us/criver.com"><img src="https://aeo-audit.rezolve.com/us/badges/criver.com.svg" alt="Overall score 40 of 100, US AI Visibility Study 2026" width="280" height="64"></a>