- Visibility0
- Citations0
- Sentiment50
- Site quality87
- AI readiness43
AI assistants do not name Forum Energy Technologies in any of the 60 answers, while they sometimes name TechnipFMC. In the sector, the typical company is named in 3.3% of answers. The company has an overall score of 29 out of 100, ranking 1,368th of 2,047. Its website passes 6 of 14 technical checks for AI tool readiness.
We asked 15 unbranded questions about the energy market: none named Forum Energy Technologies. AI assistants named it in none of 60 answers. The typical energy company is named in 3.3% of answers. By how often it is named, Forum Energy Technologies ranks 74 of 109 in its sector.
Named fewer than three times in total. Read this as a sign that AI assistants rarely bring this company up, not as an exact comparison with its rivals.
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.
109 companies in this sector. The line on each bar is the typical company.
The company is not named in this answer
“Affordable alternatives to high-end automated drilling systems for small US operators?”
For small U.S. operators, the most affordable path is usually not full rig automation but a modular, fit-for-purpose upgrade: selective automation of pipe handling, control systems, and drilling optimization software instead of a full drill-floor retrofit. Full rig automation is still expensive—one market source estimates $4 million to $8 million for a land-rig retrofit, which is often too high for smaller contractors.
The main lower-cost alternatives supported by the results are:
Lease or rent automation tools instead of buying a full package. Smaller and independe …
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.
- 0
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
Level 1: Basic web presence. Two of robots.txt, a sitemap and Link headers are in place.
- Content Signals
Show every check, for your technical teamHide the checks
- study: 92.0%robots.txtPassed
A valid robots.txt with crawl rules at the site root.
- study: 86.8%SitemapPassed
An XML sitemap listing the pages, ideally referenced from robots.txt.
- study: 0.3%Link headersNot met
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 negotiationNot met
Return a markdown version when asked with Accept: text/markdown, for example at the CDN.
- study: 25.1%llms.txtPartly met
Publish an llms.txt with a short summary and the key links.
- study: 93.4%AI bot rulesPartly met
Add explicit robots.txt groups for the main AI crawlers.
- study: 1.4%Content SignalsNot met
Add a Content-Signal line for search, ai-input and ai-train to robots.txt.
- study: 0.2%Web Bot AuthNot present
Only relevant if you run your own agents or crawlers: publish a signing key directory.
- study: 0.3%API CatalogNot met
List public APIs in a linkset at /.well-known/api-catalog.
- study: 11.8%OAuth discoveryNot met
Publish OpenID Connect or OAuth server metadata under /.well-known.
- study: 10.3%OAuth Protected ResourceNot met
Serve protected resource metadata at /.well-known/oauth-protected-resource.
- study: 0.0%auth.mdNot met
Publish an auth.md describing how agents sign in.
- study: 0.2%MCP Server CardNot met
Offer an MCP server and publish its server card under /.well-known.
- study: 0.1%A2A Agent CardNot met
Publish an agent card at /.well-known/agent-card.json.
- study: 0.2%Agent SkillsNot met
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 manifestNot met
Publish an ai-catalog.json listing every agent interface.
Score 31 of 100 · 97% of checks could run · checked on October 5, 2026 · f-e-t.com · 2,047 companies scanned
6 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
- Passedrobots.txt publishedstudy: 85.0%
- PassedXML sitemapstudy: 73.2%
- PassedHTTP Link headers (RFC 8288)study: 29.0%
- Not metMarkdown content negotiationstudy: 8.3%
- Passedllms.txt publishedstudy: 21.7%
- PassedToken budget (page weight)study: 95.2%
- PassedExplicit 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%
This website sets rules for 11 AI crawlers by name. All others follow its general rules.
- GPTBot*allowed
- ClaudeBot*allowed
- Anthropic-AIpartly
- Google-Extendedpartly
- Applebot-Extendedpartly
- Meta-ExternalAgentpartly
- FacebookBotpartly
- Bytespider*blocked
- CCBotpartly
- Diffbot*allowed
- Omgilibotpartly
- OAI-SearchBot*allowed
- Claude-SearchBotpartly
- PerplexityBot*allowed
- Applebot*blocked
- Amazonbot*blocked
- YouBot*allowed
- ChatGPT-User*allowed
- Claude-Userpartly
- Perplexity-Userpartly
- DuckAssistBot*allowed
- MistralAI-Userpartly
Read from the website’s own rules file (robots.txt). An asterisk marks a crawler the file names. The rest follow its general rules. “Partly” means only some pages are blocked.
How many times each website was listed as a source in these answers
In the study as US-listed.
- Best application areas for remotely operated vehicles in the US energy industry?
- How to address common failures in automated energy systems used in industrial settings?
- Is investing in advanced subsea technology worth it for mid-sized energy companies?
- How does offshore energy equipment differ from onshore energy equipment in terms of durability and application?
- How do integrated engineering solutions help minimize downtime in pipeline maintenance?
- Affordable alternatives to high-end automated drilling systems for small US operators?
- Integrated engineering solutions vs off-the-shelf energy equipment—what are the pros and cons for industrial operators?
- Does upgrading to high-performance drilling equipment make a noticeable impact on operational efficiency?
- How does cost differ between custom-engineered and standard industrial solutions for energy projects?
- What are the best engineered solutions for improving safety and efficiency in energy sector operations?
- What troubleshooting steps should operators take for malfunctioning remote vehicle technology in subsea applications?
- Top-rated equipment for supporting renewable energy projects in the US energy sector?
- What pricing tiers are typical for advanced energy sector equipment in the US?
- What are alternatives to turnkey engineering solutions for offshore energy development?
- What substitute technologies exist for traditional well intervention equipment in renewable energy installations?
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.