Thermo Fisher Scientific
thermofisher.com · Healthcare · TMO
Ranked 314 of 2,047 companies in the study
- Visibility28
- Citations7
- Sentiment65
- Site quality87
- AI readiness29
AI assistants name Thermo Fisher Scientific in 21.7% of answers, which is much more often than the typical company in its sector. Its overall score is 41 out of 100, ranking 314th of 2,047 companies and 7th of 105 in the healthcare sector. Its website passes 4 out of 14 technical checks for readiness for AI tools.
We asked 15 unbranded questions about the healthcare market: none named Thermo Fisher Scientific. AI assistants named it in 13 of 60 answers (21.7%). The typical healthcare company is named in 3.3% of answers. By how often it is named, Thermo Fisher Scientific ranks 7 of 105 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.
105 companies in this sector. The line on each bar is the typical company.
An answer that names the company
“Typical price range for liquid chromatography mass spectrometry systems in the US”
In the U.S., a typical new LC-MS system often falls around $150,000 to $550,000+, with many mainstream systems clustering in the $200,000–$400,000 range depending on configuration and performance tier.
A practical breakdown is:
Entry-level / compact LC-MS: about $120,000–$180,000 for simpler single-quadrupole systems, or $200,000–$300,000 for compact benchtop LC-MS platforms.
Triple quadrupole LC-MS: about $150,000–$250,000 in one market model, with visible public anchors around $180,000–$275,000 and higher-end systems reaching $35 …
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 ResourcePassed
Metadata telling agents which authorization server to use.
- 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 40 of 100 · 97% of checks could run · checked on October 5, 2026 · www.thermofisher.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 S&P 500.
- Applications of high-throughput screening systems in drug discovery
- What are the best substitutes for traditional laboratory chemical analysis methods?
- Typical price range for liquid chromatography mass spectrometry systems in the US
- Life sciences services vs. traditional laboratory supply companies for research support
- What affects the cost of biotechnology consumables needed for molecular biology research?
- What to do if laboratory freezers are not maintaining stable temperatures?
- Other options for comprehensive scientific equipment servicing and maintenance in research labs
- How can environmental monitoring solutions improve laboratory safety?
- Differences between biotech equipment and pharmaceutical lab instruments
- Are cloud-based laboratory data management systems a good value for academic labs?
- Alternatives to cloud-based laboratory management platforms for data tracking
- What are the best laboratory technology providers for genetic research in the United States?
- Is investing in automated lab technology worth it for small research facilities?
- How to resolve calibration issues with real-time PCR instruments?
- Top options for next-generation sequencing equipment for clinical labs
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/thermofisher.com"><img src="https://aeo-audit.rezolve.com/us/badges/thermofisher.com.svg" alt="Overall score 41 of 100, US AI Visibility Study 2026" width="280" height="64"></a>