- Visibility34
- Citations13
- Sentiment100
- Site quality87
- AI readiness21
AI assistants name SiTime in 28.3% of answers, which is much more often than the typical company in its group at 3.3%. Its overall score is 50 out of 100, ranking 20th of 2,047 companies in the study. The SiTime website passes 3 of 14 technical checks for how ready it is for AI tools.
We asked 15 unbranded questions about its market: none named SiTime. AI assistants named it in 17 of 60 answers (28.3%). The typical company in its group is named in 3.3% of answers. By how often it is named, SiTime ranks 9 of 61 in its sector.
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.
61 companies in this sector. The line on each bar is the typical company.
An answer that names the company
“How do MEMS oscillators compare to traditional quartz oscillators in terms of reliability and size?”
I'll search for information comparing MEMS oscillators to traditional quartz oscillators.Based on the search results, here's how MEMS and traditional quartz oscillators compare:
Size
MEMS oscillators are significantly smaller than quartz, enabling more compact designs and easier placement in miniaturized systems. MEMS oscillators are compact, lightweight, and typically consume less power, which makes them well-suited for smaller devices.
Reliability
The reliability comparison presents a nuanced picture:
MEMS Advantage: SiTime silicon MEMS devices have 50X greater quality and rel …
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%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 16 of 100 · 97% of checks could run · checked on October 5, 2026 · www.sitime.com · 2,047 companies scanned
3 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%
- 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.
- How do MEMS oscillators compare to traditional quartz oscillators in terms of reliability and size?
- What are alternatives to silicon MEMS timing components for ruggedized applications?
- Is investing in oven-controlled oscillators justified for precision timing in data centers?
- How does cost vary between standard and low-noise super-TCXOs for volume manufacturing?
- MEMS resonators vs crystal oscillators: which offers better frequency stability for telecom systems?
- Which silicon timing components perform best in harsh environmental conditions?
- What are the best MEMS oscillators for high-precision industrial applications?
- How do you diagnose frequency drift in MEMS timing components?
- Most reliable clock generators for military-grade electronic systems
- Are temperature-compensated oscillators worth it for low-power portable electronics?
- What are typical price differences between MEMS and quartz-based timing solutions?
- Best timing solutions for automotive safety systems that require extreme accuracy
- What can cause jitter issues in silicon-based clock generators?
- Recommended oscillator types for wearable medical devices needing low power consumption
- Alternatives to MEMS oscillators for achieving sub-ppb frequency stability
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.
A badge of this result that you can show on your own website. Copy the code below.
<a href="https://aeo-audit.rezolve.com/us/sitime.com"><img src="https://aeo-audit.rezolve.com/us/badges/sitime.com.svg" alt="Overall score 50 of 100, US AI Visibility Study 2026" width="280" height="64"></a>