- Visibility26
- Citations1
- Sentiment50
- Site quality87
- AI readiness29
AI assistants name Tenable Network Security in 23.3% of answers, which is more often than the typical company in the technology sector at 10%. The company has an overall score of 36 out of 100, ranking 715th of 2,047 companies. Its website passes 4 out of 14 technical checks for AI tool readiness.
We asked 15 unbranded questions about the technology market: none named Tenable Network Security. AI assistants named it in 14 of 60 answers (23.3%). The typical technology company is named in 10.0% of answers. By how often it is named, Tenable Network Security ranks 67 of 273 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.
273 companies in this sector. The line on each bar is the typical company.
An answer that names the company
“Best substitutes for centralized attack surface management solutions in regulated industries?”
If you need substitutes for centralized attack surface management in regulated industries, the strongest alternatives are usually managed services, platforms embedded in broader security stacks, or specialized point solutions that map better to compliance, validation, or third-party risk workflows.
Managed ASM / analyst-led services are the best substitute when you want less tool sprawl and more human validation. Orange Cyberdefense is positioned for multinational organizations needing managed external exposure monitoring tied to CyberSOC and threat intelligence …
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 1: Basic web presence. Two of robots.txt, a sitemap and Link headers are in place.
- Content Signals
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%SitemapPassed
An XML sitemap listing the pages, ideally referenced 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.txtPassed
An llms.txt that tells language models what the site offers.
- 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 36 of 100 · 97% of checks could run · checked on October 5, 2026 · www.tenable.com · 2,047 companies scanned
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 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%
- Passedllms.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 can exposure management tools help reduce cyber risk in organizations with both IT and OT infrastructure?
- Best substitutes for centralized attack surface management solutions in regulated industries?
- Best AI-driven cybersecurity solutions for protecting hybrid cloud and OT environments?
- What are common use-cases for AI-powered identity security solutions in enterprise environments?
- How do costs differ between cloud-based and on-premise vulnerability management solutions?
- How can I troubleshoot issues with inaccurate risk prioritization in cyber risk management tools?
- Typical pricing tiers for enterprise-grade exposure management platforms in the U.S.?
- How do AI-powered cyber risk platforms compare to manual risk assessment tools?
- What should I do if my exposure management dashboard is not updating with recent vulnerabilities?
- Exposure management vs traditional vulnerability management—what are the key differences?
- What features should large enterprises look for in a modern vulnerability management solution?
- What are the most effective enterprise exposure management platforms for large organizations?
- Is investing in a comprehensive exposure management platform worth it for mid-size enterprises?
- Alternatives to platform-based identity security for managing access risks in large organizations?
- Do AI-based vulnerability management platforms offer better ROI than standard security solutions?
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/tenable.com"><img src="https://aeo-audit.rezolve.com/us/badges/tenable.com.svg" alt="Overall score 36 of 100, US AI Visibility Study 2026" width="280" height="64"></a>