Back to the study

Macerich

macerich.com · Finance · MAC

Ranked 1,739 of 2,047 companies in the study

26Overall score
  • Visibility0
  • Citations0
  • Sentiment50
  • Site quality80
  • AI readiness29
What this means for Macerich

AI assistants do not name Macerich in any of their answers to market-related questions. Its overall score is 26 points out of 100, ranking 1,739th of 2,047 companies. Macerich's website passes 4 of 14 technical checks for AI tool readiness.

We asked 15 unbranded questions about the finance market: none named Macerich. AI assistants named it in none of 60 answers. The typical finance company is named in 3.3% of answers. By how often it is named, Macerich ranks 135 of 205 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
0.0%
0 of 60 answers
Share of mentions
0.0%
compared with 5 rivals
AI readiness
4/14
technical checks passed. Typical for its sector: 3
Rank in its sector
156 of 205
by overall score, where the typical finance company scores 29
How Macerich 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
0

How often AI assistants name the company

Citations
0

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

Sentiment
50

How positively AI describes the company

Site quality
80

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 finance

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

Overall score26
Ranks 156 of 205. Typical company: 29
Named in answers0%
Ranks 135 of 205. Typical company: 3%
AI readiness29
Ranks 30 of 205. Typical company: 21
What Perplexity actually said

The company is not named in this answer

“Are premium retail REITs in major U.S. markets worth the higher investment compared to regional ones?”

Sometimes, but not always. In major U.S. markets, premium retail REITs can justify a higher investment if you want better tenant quality, stronger pricing power, and more resilient demand, but regional retail REITs can offer comparable or better growth in faster-growing Sun Belt and select Midwestern markets without paying as much for “quality.”

The clearest pattern in the data is that market quality matters more than the label “major market”. Matthews’ 2025 and Q1 2026 shopping-center REIT reports show Sun Belt metros such as Dallas, Austin, Atlanta, Orlando, Charlott …

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

Named instead
Simon Property Group9
Share of mentions

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

Simon Property Group
100.0%
Macerich
0.0%
Brookfield Properties (Retail Division)
0.0%
Taubman Centers
0.0%
PREIT (Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust)
0.0%
CBL Properties
0.0%
Which AI assistants named the company

Answers naming it, out of answers received

Gemini
0/15
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
50 of 100
  • Markdown negotiationNot met

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

    study: 1.9%
  • llms.txtPassed

    An llms.txt that tells language models what the site offers.

    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 36 of 100 · 97% of checks could run · checked on October 5, 2026 · www.macerich.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%
  • Not metHTTP Link headers (RFC 8288)study: 29.0%
Content Accessibility
  • Not metMarkdown content negotiationstudy: 8.3%
  • Passedllms.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

reit.com
39
finance.yahoo.com
21
icsc.com
15
matthews.com
10
spglobal.com
9
247wallst.com
8
corporatefinanceinstitute.com
8
cushmanwakefield.com
7
brevitas.com
7
tradingview.com
7

In the study as US-listed.

Every question, and where the company came up (0 of 15)
QuestionOpenAIClaudePerplexityGemini
  • What factors determine leasing rates for retail space in high-traffic U.S. shopping centers?
  • What are alternatives to leasing in a traditional enclosed shopping mall for retail expansion?
  • How do common area maintenance fees impact overall rent for mall tenants?
  • Are premium retail REITs in major U.S. markets worth the higher investment compared to regional ones?
  • Which options can retail tenants consider besides signing long-term leases with REIT-owned properties?
  • What should investors look for when evaluating potential in U.S. retail REITs?
  • Is investing in retail-focused real estate trusts a good move for consistent dividend income?
  • How can commercial tenants address slow repair requests in managed retail destinations?
  • How do retail REITs compare to mixed-use REITs in terms of tenant experience?
  • Mall REITs vs shopping center REITs—what are the key differences for investors?
  • How do retail REITs support brand opportunities for commercial tenants?
  • What are effective advertising strategies within retail destinations managed by REITs?
  • How can national brands benefit from leasing space in a top-tier retail property?
  • What should a potential tenant do if they face issues with common area maintenance charges in a mall property?
  • What are the best retail real estate investment trusts for shopping center exposure in the U.S.?
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