- Visibility0
- Citations0
- Sentiment50
- Site quality87
- AI readiness14
AI assistants do not name Fulgent Genetics in any of the 60 answers, while they name others like Invitae and GeneDx. Its overall score is 26 out of 100, ranking 1,718th of 2,047 companies. The website passes 2 of 14 technical checks for AI tool readiness.
We asked 15 unbranded questions about the technology market: none named Fulgent Genetics. AI assistants named it in none of 60 answers. The typical technology company is named in 10.0% of answers. By how often it is named, Fulgent Genetics ranks 236 of 273 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.
273 companies in this sector. The line on each bar is the typical company.
The company is not named in this answer
“What is the typical price range for clinical diagnostic genetic testing in the United States?”
Short answer — it varies a lot by test type, but typical U.S. ranges are roughly:
Single‑gene tests or simple targeted assays: about $100–$500. (asco.org)
Small to medium multi‑gene panels (dozens of genes): about $250–$2,000 (many common panels fall in the low hundreds to low thousands). (ascopubs.org)
Large disease panels (hundreds of genes) and specialty pane …
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 0: Not yet agent-ready. Agents struggle to find basic information about the site.
- 2 of robots.txt, Sitemap, Link headers
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%SitemapNot met
Serve an XML sitemap and reference it 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.txtNot 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%WebMCPNot met
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 16 of 100 · 100% of checks could run · checked on October 4, 2026 · fulgentgenetics.com · 2,047 companies scanned
2 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%
- 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%
This website sets no rules for any AI crawler by name, like 84% of the websites whose rules we could read. Every AI crawler follows its general rules.
- GPTBotpartly
- ClaudeBotpartly
- Anthropic-AIpartly
- Google-Extendedpartly
- Applebot-Extendedpartly
- Meta-ExternalAgentpartly
- FacebookBotpartly
- Bytespiderpartly
- CCBotpartly
- Diffbotpartly
- Omgilibotpartly
- OAI-SearchBotpartly
- Claude-SearchBotpartly
- PerplexityBotpartly
- Applebotpartly
- Amazonbotpartly
- YouBotpartly
- ChatGPT-Userpartly
- Claude-Userpartly
- Perplexity-Userpartly
- DuckAssistBotpartly
- 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.
- What are the differences between diagnostic genetic sequencing and predictive genetic screening?
- What are the alternatives to next-generation sequencing for clinical genetic diagnostics?
- How are diagnostic sequencing tests used to inform cancer treatment decisions?
- Should I order a comprehensive genetic panel or a single-gene test for inherited conditions?
- What does it mean if my clinical genetic test results are inconclusive?
- Is clinical-grade genetic testing worth the cost for patients with a family history of genetic disorders?
- What is the typical price range for clinical diagnostic genetic testing in the United States?
- When should healthcare providers recommend expanded carrier screening panels?
- Are customizable sequencing tests for rare diseases reliable for diagnostic purposes?
- How do I choose a diagnostic sequencing test for rare genetic diseases?
- Best genetic tests to inform treatment plans in a clinical setting?
- Why might a genetic diagnostic test fail to provide actionable insights for a patient?
- Carrier screening vs. disease risk assessment: which is more appropriate for family planning?
- What are the best options for clinical genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes?
- How does whole exome sequencing compare to targeted gene panels in clinical diagnostics?
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.