Back to the study

Seer

seer.bio · Technology · SEER

Ranked 1,352 of 2,047 companies in the study

29Overall score
  • Visibility2
  • Citations0
  • Sentiment50
  • Site quality80
  • AI readiness50
What this means for Seer

AI assistants rarely name Seer, mentioning it in 1 of 60 answers. Olink and SomaLogic also appear in the same answer. Seer has an overall score of 29 out of 100, ranking 1,352nd of 2,047 companies in the study. Its website passes 7 of 14 technical checks for readiness with AI tools.

We asked 15 unbranded questions about the technology market: none named Seer. 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, Seer 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
3.4%
compared with 5 rivals
AI readiness
7/14
technical checks passed. Typical for its sector: 4
Rank in its sector
213 of 273
by overall score, where the typical technology company scores 36
How Seer 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
2

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
50

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 score29
Ranks 213 of 273. Typical company: 36
Named in answers2%
Ranks 211 of 273. Typical company: 10%
AI readiness50
Ranks 4 of 273. Typical company: 29
What Gemini actually said

An answer that names the company

“Is investing in next-generation proteomics platforms worth it for academic research labs?”

Investing in next-generation proteomics platforms can be highly beneficial for academic research labs, offering unprecedented insights into biological processes and disease mechanisms. However, the decision requires careful consideration of costs, funding opportunities, and the specific research goals of the lab.

Benefits of Next-Generation Proteomics for Academic Labs:

Deeper Biological Insights: Next-generation platforms provide more comprehensive insights into the complex world of proteins, their roles in health, and their functions in disease. They allow for the detection o …

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

Also named
Olink9SomaLogic2
Share of mentions

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

Olink
37.5%
Thermo Fisher Scientific (Proteomics Solutions)
16.7%
SCIEX (Proteomics Workflows)
16.7%
SomaLogic
12.5%
Bruker (Proteomics Solutions)
12.5%
Seer
4.2%
Which AI assistants named the company

Answers naming it, out of answers received

Gemini
1/15
Claude
0/15
OpenAI
0/15
Perplexity
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
18 of 100
  • API CatalogNot met

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

    study: 0.3%
  • OAuth discoveryPartly met

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

    study: 11.8%
  • OAuth Protected ResourcePassed

    Metadata telling agents which authorization server to use.

    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 42 of 100 · 97% of checks could run · checked on October 5, 2026 · seer.bio · 2,047 companies scanned

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

The checks behind the AI readiness score

7 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%
  • 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%
  • PassedOAuth Authorization Server discoverystudy: 10.1%
  • PassedOAuth 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
  • GPTBotallowed
  • ClaudeBotallowed
  • Anthropic-AIallowed
  • Google-Extendedallowed
  • Applebot-Extendedallowed
  • Meta-ExternalAgentallowed
  • FacebookBotallowed
  • Bytespiderallowed
  • CCBotallowed
  • Diffbotallowed
  • Omgilibotallowed
AI search
  • OAI-SearchBotallowed
  • Claude-SearchBotallowed
  • PerplexityBotallowed
  • Applebotallowed
  • Amazonbotallowed
  • YouBotallowed
Answering questions
  • ChatGPT-Userallowed
  • Claude-Userallowed
  • Perplexity-Userallowed
  • DuckAssistBotallowed
  • MistralAI-Userallowed

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
126
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
26
technologynetworks.com
23
creative-proteomics.com
19
thermofisher.com
18
nature.com
17
metwarebio.com
17
pubs.acs.org
16
sciex.com
12
biorxiv.org
12

In the study as US-listed.

Every question, and where the company came up (1 of 15)
QuestionOpenAIClaudePerplexityGemini
  • Other methods for unbiased protein analysis besides automated proteomics workflows
  • Common reasons for reduced protein group identification in complex biological samples
  • How can I start deep, unbiased protein analysis for my life sciences research?
  • Alternatives to high-throughput proteomics platforms for large-scale protein identification
  • What is the typical price range for advanced proteomics research platforms in the US?
  • What are the best proteomics research platforms for large-scale biological studies?
  • Best options for proteomics research tools suitable for diverse biological sample types
  • Is investing in next-generation proteomics platforms worth it for academic research labs?
  • How do mass spectrometry-based and affinity-based proteomics platforms compare for protein discovery?
  • Applications of deep proteome profiling in clinical research settings
  • How do costs vary between different types of proteomics analysis workflows?
  • How can scalable proteomics platforms accelerate biomarker discovery projects?
  • Shotgun proteomics vs targeted proteomics: which approach is better for high-throughput studies?
  • What should I consider before purchasing a comprehensive proteomics discovery solution?
  • Why am I seeing low peptide coverage in my proteomics analysis?
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