Back to the study

Immersion

immersion.com · Technology · IMMR

Ranked 791 of 2,047 companies in the study

36Overall score
  • Visibility5
  • Citations2
  • Sentiment100
  • Site quality73
  • AI readiness29
What this means for Immersion

AI assistants rarely name Immersion, appearing in 1 out of 60 answers. In that answer, HaptX and Ultraleap are also named. Its overall score is 36 out of 100, placing it 791st of 2,047 companies. The website passes 4 out of 14 technical checks for AI tools.

We asked 15 unbranded questions about the technology market: none named Immersion. AI assistants named it in 1 of 60 answers (1.7%). The typical technology company is named in 10.0% of answers. By how often it is named, Immersion ranks 211 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.

Named by AI in
1.7%
1 of 60 answers
Share of mentions
10.0%
compared with 5 rivals
AI readiness
4/14
technical checks passed. Typical for its sector: 4
Rank in its sector
126 of 273
by overall score, where the typical technology company scores 36
How Immersion compares with all 2,047 companies

Every dot is a company in the study. Hover one to see it; click to open its report.

This companySame sectorEvery other companyNever named

What makes up the score

Five parts, each scored out of 100.

Visibility
5

How often AI assistants name the company

Citations
2

How often AI uses the company's own website as a source

Sentiment
100

How positively AI describes the company

Site quality
73

How well built the website's own pages are

AI readiness
29

How easily AI tools can read and use the website

Visibility is calculated from the answers on this page. How the score is built.

Compared with technology

273 companies in this sector. The line on each bar is the typical company.

Overall score36
Ranks 126 of 273. Typical company: 36
Named in answers2%
Ranks 211 of 273. Typical company: 10%
AI readiness29
Ranks 82 of 273. Typical company: 29
What Gemini actually said

An answer that names the company

“What are the best haptic technology solutions for enhancing mobile user interfaces?”

Haptic technology significantly enhances mobile user interfaces by adding a sense of touch to digital interactions, making them more immersive and intuitive. This technology uses vibrations, pulses, or resistance to communicate information, confirm actions, and enrich digital experiences.

Here are some of the best haptic technology solutions for enhancing mobile user interfaces:

1. Advanced Haptic Actuators:

Modern smartphones utilize sophisticated haptic actuators that go beyond simple vibrations.

Linear Resonant Actuators (LRAs): These are common in modern electronics, offering …

The AI’s answer as we received it, shortened and not checked for accuracy.

Also named
HaptX1Ultraleap1
Share of mentions

How the mentions in these answers were split between this company and its rivals

Boréas Technologies
40.0%
Immersion
20.0%
HaptX
20.0%
Ultraleap
20.0%
Tanvas
0.0%
Titan Haptics
0.0%
Which AI assistants named the company

Answers naming it, out of answers received

Gemini
1/15
Perplexity
0/15
Claude
0/15
OpenAI
0/15
Ready for AI agents

What this website publishes for an AI agent to read, use and buy from, on a scale of six levels.

  1. 0
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5

Level 1: Basic web presence. Two of robots.txt, a sitemap and Link headers are in place.

To reach level 2:
  • Content Signals
Show every check, for your technical team
Discoverability
77 of 100
  • robots.txtPassed

    A valid robots.txt with crawl rules at the site root.

    study: 92.0%
  • SitemapPassed

    An XML sitemap listing the pages, ideally referenced from robots.txt.

    study: 86.8%
  • Link headersNot met

    Send Link headers such as rel="api-catalog" or rel="describedby" on the homepage.

    study: 0.3%
  • DNS for AI DiscoveryNot present

    Advertise agent endpoints with SVCB records under _agents.

    study: 5.5%
Content accessibility
0 of 100
  • Markdown negotiationNot met

    Return a markdown version when asked with Accept: text/markdown, for example at the CDN.

    study: 1.9%
  • llms.txtNot met

    Publish an llms.txt with a short summary and the key links.

    study: 25.1%
Bot access control
32 of 100
  • AI bot rulesPartly met

    Add explicit robots.txt groups for the main AI crawlers.

    study: 93.4%
  • Content SignalsNot met

    Add a Content-Signal line for search, ai-input and ai-train to robots.txt.

    study: 1.4%
  • Web Bot AuthNot present

    Only relevant if you run your own agents or crawlers: publish a signing key directory.

    study: 0.2%
APIs, auth and MCP
0 of 100
  • API CatalogNot met

    List public APIs in a linkset at /.well-known/api-catalog.

    study: 0.3%
  • OAuth discoveryNot met

    Publish OpenID Connect or OAuth server metadata under /.well-known.

    study: 11.8%
  • OAuth Protected ResourceNot met

    Serve protected resource metadata at /.well-known/oauth-protected-resource.

    study: 10.3%
  • auth.mdNot met

    Publish an auth.md describing how agents sign in.

    study: 0.0%
  • MCP Server CardNot met

    Offer an MCP server and publish its server card under /.well-known.

    study: 0.2%
  • A2A Agent CardNot met

    Publish an agent card at /.well-known/agent-card.json.

    study: 0.1%
  • Agent SkillsNot met

    Publish a skills index with the main tasks agents can do.

    study: 0.2%
  • WebMCPCould not check

    Register key actions such as search or cart as WebMCP tools.

    study: 33.7%
  • ARD manifestNot met

    Publish an ai-catalog.json listing every agent interface.

    study: 0.1%

Score 25 of 100 · 97% of checks could run · checked on October 5, 2026 · www.immersion.com · 2,047 companies scanned

See how every company did, and how this was measured.

The checks behind the AI readiness score

4 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 checks
Discoverability
  • Passedrobots.txt publishedstudy: 85.0%
  • PassedXML sitemapstudy: 73.2%
  • PassedHTTP Link headers (RFC 8288)study: 29.0%
Content Accessibility
  • Not metMarkdown content negotiationstudy: 8.3%
  • Not metllms.txt publishedstudy: 21.7%
  • PassedToken budget (page weight)study: 95.2%
Bot Access Control
  • Not metExplicit AI bot rulesstudy: 13.0%
API / Auth / MCP
  • 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%
What AI crawlers may read (robots.txt)

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.

Training AI
  • GPTBotpartly
  • ClaudeBotpartly
  • Anthropic-AIpartly
  • Google-Extendedpartly
  • Applebot-Extendedpartly
  • Meta-ExternalAgentpartly
  • FacebookBotpartly
  • Bytespiderpartly
  • CCBotpartly
  • Diffbotpartly
  • Omgilibotpartly
AI search
  • OAI-SearchBotpartly
  • Claude-SearchBotpartly
  • PerplexityBotpartly
  • Applebotpartly
  • Amazonbotpartly
  • YouBotpartly
Answering questions
  • 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.

Websites the AI used as sources

How many times each website was listed as a source in these answers

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
13
pages.boreas.ca
13
eureka.patsnap.com
12
immersion.com (its own website)
11
arxiv.org
11
frontiersin.org
9
dataintelo.com
9
developer.android.com
8
mordorintelligence.com
7
marketintelo.com
6

In the study as US-listed.

Every question, and where the company came up (1 of 15)
QuestionOpenAIClaudePerplexityGemini
  • Are high-fidelity haptic solutions for gaming consoles cost-effective for small studios?
  • Why might haptic feedback not work consistently across a mobile app's interface?
  • Alternatives to haptic feedback for creating immersive experiences in digital interfaces
  • Is investing in advanced haptic feedback systems for mobile devices worth it for manufacturers?
  • Best non-haptic methods to increase user engagement in mobile and gaming products
  • How can touch-based feedback improve digital experiences in automotive displays?
  • Common issues with integrating haptic technology in digital instrument panels
  • Typical cost range for adding next-generation touch feedback to consumer electronics
  • What impacts the pricing of advanced haptic technology integrations for enterprise clients?
  • Capacitive touch feedback vs. vibration motors for gaming controllers—what are the main differences?
  • How do ultrasonic haptic panels compare to resistive haptic solutions in automotive applications?
  • How can haptic feedback enhance safety features in car infotainment systems?
  • What are the best haptic technology solutions for enhancing mobile user interfaces?
  • Ways haptic technology can make touchscreen controls more accessible for users with disabilities
  • What other sensory cues can supplement or replace touch-based feedback in automotive applications?
named the companyanswered without naming itdid not answer

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.

Next step

Want AI assistants to name your company?

Book a 30-minute demo to see Rezolve Ai in action and what it can do for your business.

Request a demo