Public sample

AI Visibility and Tech Audit for
TESTA

Live GAIO audit of testa.io — 5 strategic pages scored, 10 buyer prompts run across 5 AI engines (ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude, AI Overviews) for 50 real cells, 5-phase crawl audit with 15-bot impersonation, and per-cluster sentiment derived from the same 50 cells.

Default visibility: public. Anyone with the link can read this report. Sign in to your RankBee account to make it private to your team.
TE
TESTA
testa.io
Generated2026-05-20
Audit windowLast 14 days
Report IDGAIO-TESTA-2026-05-20
What's in this report

Four sections covering technical access, AI visibility, content, and reputation.

This is more than a crawl audit. We measure where your buyers go to find you, what AI says when they ask, and what's missing from your story.

01Content Scorecard

Five strategic pages, scored 1-10 against the live citation leaderboard

For each page, RankBee's content engine pulls the live URLs that AI engines actually cite for that page's target queries, then scores TESTA's page against each one. TESTA's strongest page is its own /resources/ hub (4.00/10, leader for the 'about' query); the weakest is the...

Page-by-page scoring
As % · 5 pages graded
15% your avg40% leader avg
Page
Your score
Leader
Δ
Homepage
https://www.testa.io/
22%
16%
https://ubertesters.com/blog/testing-for-online-casino-slot-games-igaming-platforms/
6%
Qrowd Platform
https://www.testa.io/testa-qrowd-platform/
10%
19%
https://solutionshub.epam.com/blog/post/crowd-testing
9%
Use Cases
https://www.testa.io/use-cases-for-igaming-testing/
13%
18%
https://ubertesters.com/igaming-testing/
5%
About
https://www.testa.io/about-us-testa-global-quality-assurance-for-igaming/
14%
19%
https://www.testa.io/resources/
5%
Market Research
https://www.testa.io/testa-igaming-market-research/
15%
20%
https://next.io/news/features/testa-top-igaming-ux-performers-in-japan/
5%

Content quality leaderboard

i
Weighted average across audited pages
Brand
GAIO Score
Avg Rank
1.
EPAM
40%
8.40
2.
NEXT.io
38%
8.40
3.
Altenar
35%
8.60
4.
Grand View Research
35%
8.60
5.
Gaming Labs
31%
9.00
6.
BetterQA
31%
8.80
7.
UX247
28%
8.80
8.
KYCAID
23%
8.20
9.
Ubertesters
21%
4.40
19.
TESTA
15%
5.40
02AI Rankings Matrix

How AI engines actually answer iGaming-QA buyer prompts

10 prompts across 4 clusters × 5 engines (ChatGPT/Gemini/Perplexity/Claude/AI Overviews) = 50 real cells. TESTA leads the leaderboard at 19/50 cells with 16 recommendation-grade mentions and an average rank of 1.6 across all cells where it appears.

ChatGPT
GPT (Bright Data)
22%you
vs 22% Applause · +0 pp gap
Gemini
Gemini (Bright Data)
0%you
vs 0% Applause · +0 pp gap
Perplexity
Sonar
44%you
vs 22% Applause · +22 pp gap
Claude
claude-sonnet-4-5
67%you
vs 44% Applause · +23 pp gap
AI Overviews
Google AIO
33%you
vs 33% Applause · +0 pp gap
AI coverage matrix
All 10 prompts shown
YouApplauseUbertestersGlobal App TestingeCOGRA
#
Prompt
ChatGPT
Gemini
Perplexity
Claude
AI Overviews
1
Vendor evaluation
Best crowdsourced QA testing platform for iGaming operators in 2026
2
Vendor evaluationBranded
TESTA vs Applause vs UserTesting for iGaming and online casino QA
3
Vendor evaluation
Top crowd testing vendors for sportsbook and casino software providers
4
Operational & risk
How do iGaming operators test KYC and AML flows in newly regulated markets
5
Operational & risk
Best way to test online casino payment flows across multiple jurisdictions and currencies
6
Operational & risk
How to benchmark sportsbook UX and live betting performance against competitors with real users
7
Compliance & localization
Localization and regulatory testing for iGaming launches in Brazil, India, and Africa
8
Compliance & localization
How to validate iGaming compliance and player protection across UKGC, MGA, and Curacao licenses
9
Infrastructure & setup
Real device testing labs vs crowdsourced testing for iGaming QA — which is better
10
Infrastructure & setup
How to set up a continuous QA pipeline for an iGaming platform across mobile and desktop

AI Coverage Leaderboard

i
Across 45 prompt × model cells Branded prompts excluded
Brand
GAIO Score
Avg Rank
1.
TESTA
33%
1.13
2.
Applause
24%
2.64
3.
Ubertesters
22%
2.20
4.
Global App Testing
11%
3.80
5.
eCOGRA
11%
2.40
6.
Test IO
9%
3.50
7.
BrowserStack
9%
1.25
8.
UserTesting
7%
2.00
9.
Testlio
7%
2.67
10.
iTech Labs
7%
2.00
11.
Sauce Labs
7%
2.00
12.
BMM Testlabs
4%
3.00
13.
Testbirds
2%
3.00
14.
KYCAID
2%
4.00
15.
Altenar
2%
2.00
16.
Testriq
2%
3.00
17.
BugCrowd
2%
6.00
18.
NEXT.io
2%
1.00
03AI Crawlability Audit

What every AI engine can — and can't — reach on testa.io

Robots.txt allows every major AI crawler. WAF-level bot impersonation accepts the OpenAI, Anthropic, Perplexity-user and Bing crawlers; Google's own bots all hit a 301 loop and Claude's native web-search reports the page as unreachable even though three other engines fetch it...

PHASE 1

Robots.txt analysis

Permissive — all bots allowed

What your robots.txt declares to each AI crawler, and which bots are allowed, blocked, or partially restricted.All checks OK — click to expand

RiskLowCrawlers15Allowed15Blocked0Partial0
robots.txt200· 26 lines2026-05-20T05:51:38Z
🚨Key risks flagged
🛠
🔍
allowed!partialblocked
Bot
Provider
Role
Status
Rule applied
GPTBot
OpenAI
training
Allow
Allow
ChatGPT-User
OpenAI
browse
Allow
Allow
OAI-SearchBot
OpenAI
search
Allow
Allow
ClaudeBot
Anthropic
training
Allow
Allow
Claude-User
Anthropic
browse
Allow
Allow
Claude-SearchBot
Anthropic
search
Allow
Allow
Google-Extended
Google
training
Allow
Allow
GoogleOther
Google
training
Allow
Allow
PerplexityBot
Perplexity
training
Allow
Allow
Perplexity-User
Perplexity
browse
Allow
Allow
CCBot
Common Crawl
training
Allow
Allow
Bytespider
ByteDance
training
Allow
Allow
Meta-ExternalAgent
Meta
training
Allow
Allow
Applebot-Extended
Apple
training
Allow
Allow
Amazonbot
Amazon
training
Allow
Allow
PHASE 2

Virtual user crawl test

1 probe returned non-200

Headless visit from a 🇺🇸 US IP confirm the site is reachable for real readers — and therefore reachable for AI crawlers that proxy through the same regions. This is a sanity check, not a deep audit.All checks OK — click to expand

🇺🇸USsuccess
Virtual user from US IP reaches the canonical homepage after one 301 (the WordPress trailing-slash redirect). No CAPTCHA, no challenge page.
301 HTTPblocked: false
What this test returns6 fields per country
{
  "countryCode": "US",
  "status":      "success",
  "blocked":     false,
  "statusCode":  200,
  "error":       "",
  "summary":     "✅ Accessible from US IP"
}
The 6 fields
countryCodeISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country the test ran from
statusHigh-level outcome: success / failed / error
blockedWhether the site rejected the visitor (geo or anti-bot)
statusCodeHTTP status from the origin (e.g. 200, 403, 408)
errorError message if the fetch failed (otherwise empty)
summaryHuman-readable verdict
No HTML body, response time, headers, page title, or redirect chain — just the verdict.
PHASE 3

LLM web-search access

3 reachable · 1 not reachable

For each AI model, we asked the model's own web-search tool to fetch the site. We log whether it succeeded and which other domains the model surfaced alongside yours — those co-cited sources are the competition for attention in answers about your category.

Provider
Model
Status
Co-cited sources
Notes
OpenAI (GPT)
gpt-5.4
Reachable
none — fetched directly
Fetches the homepage cleanly and returns a heading + summary that match the live page word-for-word. No third-party co-citations needed.
Anthropic (Claude Sonnet 4.6)
claude-sonnet-4-6
Not reachable
next.iosbcevents.comlinkedin.com
Claude's native web-search reports testa.io as unreachable ("the site appears to be down, unreachable, or blocked at the network level") — yet ClaudeBot, Claude-User and Claude-SearchBot all succeed (HTTP 200, 17-26s) when tested directly. This means Claude's runtime browsing fetcher uses a different egress or user-agent than the training-time bots. The brand still surfaces in Claude answers via next.io and linkedin co-citations.
Google Gemini
gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview
Reachable
testa.io
Fetches and cites testa.io directly.
Perplexity
sonar
Reachable
testa.iotesting.testa.io
Fetches 8 pages from testa.io including /resources/, /qa-tester-jobs/, /contact/, and /igaming-solutions/payment-testing/. Highest organic owned-page citation density of any engine.
PHASE 4

Bot impersonation test

2 critical bots inaccessible

We sent requests using each bot's exact User-Agent string. This catches edge-case blocks at the WAF / Cloudflare / CDN layer that robots.txt doesn't reveal — and surfaces response-time outliers that quietly push crawlers past their abandon threshold.

Bot
Status
HTTP
Response time
oai-searchbot
accessible
200
24,500ms⚠️
chatgpt-user
accessible
200
22,800ms⚠️
gptbot
accessible
200
20,200ms⚠️
chatgpt-agent
blocked
301
6,200ms
perplexitybot
blocked
408
24,500ms (timeout)
perplexity-user
accessible
200
18,500ms
googlebot
blocked
301
9,900ms
googlebot-smartphone
blocked
301
8,900ms
bingbot
accessible
200
23,300ms⚠️
bing-copilot
blocked
301
6,000ms
claudebot
accessible
200
25,600ms⚠️
claude-user
accessible
200
17,600ms
claude-searchbot
accessible
200
24,500ms⚠️
grok
blocked
301
5,000ms
deepseek
blocked
301
6,700ms
Patterns to investigate: Review any blocked or slow bots above — bots responding in 10s+ are likely truncating or skipping your pages even when the HTTP says 200. Most LLM crawlers abandon at 3–5s. Note: we don't yet know if these are real production issues; they require deeper infrastructure investigation to confirm.
PHASE 5

Indexability · token depth

3 of 5 pages over 50K tokens

Pages over 10K tokens start to risk truncation; over 50K is a strong concern. Bloated rendered HTML — chrome, scripts, third-party widgets — pushes your real content past every model's effective context window.

Page
10K50K100K
Tokens
Status
Homepage
https://www.testa.io/
56.7K
Strong concern
Qrowd Platform
https://www.testa.io/testa-qrowd-platform/
49.7K
At risk
Use Cases
https://www.testa.io/use-cases-for-igaming-testing/
53.7K
Strong concern
About
https://www.testa.io/about-us-testa-global-quality-assurance-for-igaming/
66.7K
Strong concern
Market Research
https://www.testa.io/testa-igaming-market-research/
38.6K
At risk
Why these pages are heavy5 explanations
Homepage · https://www.testa.io/
WordPress + Yoast HTML shell at ~56,652 tokens. Long-tail navigation and footer carry the bulk; the main editorial copy starts deep in the body.
Qrowd Platform · https://www.testa.io/testa-qrowd-platform/
WordPress + Yoast HTML shell at ~49,694 tokens. Long-tail navigation and footer carry the bulk; the main editorial copy starts deep in the body.
Use Cases · https://www.testa.io/use-cases-for-igaming-testing/
WordPress + Yoast HTML shell at ~53,699 tokens. Long-tail navigation and footer carry the bulk; the main editorial copy starts deep in the body.
About · https://www.testa.io/about-us-testa-global-quality-assurance-for-igaming/
WordPress + Yoast HTML shell at ~66,674 tokens. Long-tail navigation and footer carry the bulk; the main editorial copy starts deep in the body.
Market Research · https://www.testa.io/testa-igaming-market-research/
WordPress + Yoast HTML shell at ~38,586 tokens. Long-tail navigation and footer carry the bulk; the main editorial copy starts deep in the body.
04Sentiment Snapshot

How AI talks about TESTA across four buyer clusters

Sentiment computed from the same 50 cells used in the rankings matrix. TESTA is in 'positive' sentiment on all four clusters — recommended on 3/3 vendor-evaluation prompts, 2/3 operational-risk, 1/2 compliance, 2/2 infrastructure.

Vendor evaluation
3 prompts · 12 model responses analysed
Positive

On the 3 vendor-evaluation prompts ("best crowdsourced QA platform for iGaming 2026", "TESTA vs Applause vs UserTesting", "top crowd testing vendors for sportsbook + casino"), TESTA was recommended by at least one engine on all 3 prompts. Across the 15 cells in this cluster TESTA earns the top citation share — ChatGPT, Perplexity and Gemini all surface it as the iGaming-specialist first pick; Claude (when not WAF-blocked) leans toward Applause as the enterprise alternative. testa.io is the single most-cited domain across the whole 50-cell run, with 85 citations vs Ubertesters 64 / Applause 34.

Operational & risk
3 prompts · 12 model responses analysed
Positive

On the 3 operational-risk prompts (KYC/AML testing, payment-flow testing across jurisdictions, live-betting UX benchmarking), TESTA was recommended on 2 of 3 — engines consistently surface it for live-betting and operator-UX benchmarking via the TESTA × NEXT.io Watch & Bet study and the TESTA × Stats Perform sportsbook benchmark. The miss is the pure KYC/AML operational-risk prompt, where engines cite Sumsub, KYCAID and regulator pages (gamblingcommission.gov.uk, mga.org.mt) without naming a QA vendor — the brand is functionally absent from the compliance-vendor narrative.

Compliance & localization
2 prompts · 8 model responses analysed
Positive

On the 2 compliance-and-localization prompts (Brazil/India/Africa launches, UKGC/MGA/Curacao validation), TESTA was recommended on 1 of 2 — ChatGPT, Perplexity and Gemini all cite the TESTA × NEXT.io Brazil, India and Africa reports as the most current independent localization evidence. The UKGC/MGA/Curacao prompt skews toward certifier and compliance-platform domains (Gaming Labs, eCOGRA, BMM Testlabs, ComplianceWise) rather than crowd-test vendors — TESTA is mentioned but not framed as the compliance answer. Opportunity: a long-form "crowdtesting for license validation" explainer would slot directly into the cited evidence base.

Infrastructure & setup
2 prompts · 8 model responses analysed
Positive

On the 2 infrastructure-and-setup prompts (real-device-lab vs crowdsourcing, continuous QA pipeline for iGaming), TESTA was recommended on both. For the real-device vs crowdsourcing comparison, engines explicitly contrast Sauce Labs / BrowserStack / LambdaTest (device-cloud) with TESTA / Applause / Ubertesters (crowd) and recommend TESTA for in-market compliance-relevant testing where automation can't cover. For the CI/CD pipeline prompt, TESTA is positioned as the operator-side QA layer alongside Sauce/BrowserStack for automation. Strong positive narrative — the strategic risk is device-cloud vendors absorbing the "setup" share-of-voice.

Sentiment leaderboard

Share of voice across 10 prompts × 4 models
PosNeuAbs
1.
TESTAyou
8 · 0 · 2
2.
Applause
6 · 0 · 4
3.
Ubertesters
6 · 0 · 4
4.
Testpapas
3 · 0 · 7
5.
UserTesting
2 · 0 · 8
6.
Global App Testing
2 · 0 · 8
7.
Testlio
2 · 0 · 8
8.
eCOGRA
1 · 3 · 6
9.
Test IO
1 · 2 · 7
10.
iTech Labs
1 · 1 · 8
11.
Gaming Labs
1 · 1 · 8
12.
BMM Testlabs
1 · 0 · 9
13.
Testbirds
1 · 0 · 9
14.
KYCAID
1 · 0 · 9
15.
Testriq
1 · 0 · 9

Frequently asked

What is a GAIO Audit Report?

GAIO stands for Generative AI Optimization — getting your brand cited inside AI answers, not just ranked on a results page. The Deficit Report is RankBee's diagnostic: across leading AI engines (ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude, and Google AI Overviews) and a tailored prompt set, it shows which answers your brand is missing from, which competitors take the citation in your place, and the technical and content reasons why.

Who is this for?

Anyone whose audience now turns to ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity or Claude before making a decision. RankBee Audits are used by SaaS and B2B teams, e-commerce brands, agencies running client pitches, news and media publishers, political campaigns, and many others. If AI engines are part of how people discover, evaluate or talk about you, the audit is built for you.

How is this different from a traditional SEO audit?

A site can hold position 1 on Google and be completely absent from ChatGPT, Gemini and Perplexity answers for the same query — because the two systems use entirely different signals to decide what to surface. A traditional audit grades you on Google's signals — backlinks, keywords, Core Web Vitals. RankBee grades you on what large language models actually reason about: entities, attributes, answer-first structure, citation-worthiness, and crawlability through the bot stack AI assistants use today (GPTBot, ClaudeBot, PerplexityBot, Google-Extended and 20 more). Strong Google rankings don't automatically translate into AI citations, and that gap is what the audit measures.

How does the audit work?

Four sections, each grounded in real data. Crawlability runs five technical phases: robots.txt rules, virtual-user probes from your target geographies, live LLM web-search fetches, bot-impersonation against your CDN, and token-depth indexability. Rankings Matrix runs your buyer prompts against up to 5 AI engines and logs every citation, co-citation, and competitor mention. Content Scorecard simulates AI ranking at the page level — RankBee ingests competitor content, generates variations, and scores yours 1–10 on the attributes models actually reward. Sentiment Snapshot reads how engines describe you when they do mention you, clustered by audience intent. The Rankings Matrix also shows every buyer question your brand is missing from — and which competitor takes the citation in your place, across each of the five AI engines tested.

Where do the prompts come from?

RankBee discovers them for you. From just your brand name, domain, region and category, the platform generates and crawls thousands of AI prompts relevant to how real audiences ask about your space — then narrows them to the high-intent set that drives your visibility. You don't need to bring a keyword list, a competitor list, or hand-written prompts; the audit builds all of that automatically.

What does "invisible to AI" actually mean?

There are several distinct failure modes, and the audit isolates which ones are affecting you.

  • Uncrawlable. Your CDN blocks AI bots, or your rendered HTML buries the answer below their token budget, so models can't read your pages at all. This is the most common silent failure: robots.txt shows no restrictions, but a CDN-layer rule — often a default "Block AI Scrapers" toggle enabled without the site owner's knowledge — returns a 403 to every AI crawler before the request reaches your server. The audit runs bot-impersonation probes that replicate the exact request signature of GPTBot, ClaudeBot, and PerplexityBot against your live CDN to catch this.
  • Crawlable but uncited. Bots can reach and read your pages, but your content doesn't signal the attributes AI models need to recommend you — so the engine cites a directory, a competitor, or Wikipedia instead. The Content Scorecard scores your pages against the content actually winning citations for your target queries, attribute by attribute, so you can see exactly what to fix.
  • Cited but mis-framed. You're mentioned, but the model describes you in ways that don't reflect your positioning — attributes your facts to a subsidiary domain, describes a product you no longer offer, or associates you with a framing you don't own. This typically means AI engines are pulling from inconsistent third-party sources. The Sentiment Snapshot classifies every mention and maps the source of the mis-framing.
  • Locked out of live retrieval. When a user asks ChatGPT, Perplexity or Gemini a question right now, the model attempts a live web fetch to retrieve up-to-date information before answering. Many sites pass robots.txt checks but fail at the CDN or render layer when a real-time fetch is attempted — so live retrieval silently fails and the model falls back to cached training data, or omits your brand entirely. The audit tests this end-to-end: OAI-SearchBot (OpenAI's live retrieval crawler, distinct from GPTBot) requires explicit permission and an accessible render layer — both are checked as part of Phase 3.
  • Excluded from training data. Your robots.txt and bot policies determine whether AI training crawlers — GPTBot, ClaudeBot, Google-Extended, CCBot — are allowed to ingest your content for model training and refinement. The audit shows exactly which training and search bots are allowed, blocked, or partially restricted, so you can make a deliberate choice rather than an accidental one. For reference: Cloudflare's managed robots.txt and AI bot blocking documentation explains how CDN-level rules interact with and can override your robots.txt directives.
How long does it take, and what do I need to provide?

Onboarding takes a few minutes; the full audit is delivered within roughly 48 hours. All you provide is your brand name, website, primary region, language, and category — RankBee handles prompt discovery, competitor identification, crawlability testing and content scoring from there. Rankings and sentiment data continue to refresh inside your dashboard so you can track how the citation pattern evolves.

What happens after the report — does it fix the issues?

The audit diagnoses; remediation happens in the rest of the platform. Most teams use the RankBee Toolkit to rewrite and re-test pages themselves, or RankBee Consulting for a fully managed engagement. The report includes prioritised recommendations so you know exactly which pages and attributes to tackle first.

Can I share the report with my team and stakeholders?

Yes — audit reports are sharable by link so it's easy to align marketing, content, technical SEO and leadership around the same data, and to brief agencies or executives without recreating the analysis. Account owners can switch a report to team-private at any time from RankBee.

How do I get a full audit?
Full audits are available to RankBee subscribers. The sample reports on this page show the structure and depth you'll receive; a full audit expands the prompt set for a statistically robust read across multiple intent clusters and refreshes alongside your ongoing tracking. If you're not yet a subscriber, start a free trial or book a demo and we'll walk you through the right plan for your brand.
Talk to RankBee

Want this for your brand?

RankBee runs this same 5-phase crawl + 5-page scoring + 50-cell self-retrieval audit against any brand. The output is a public report page like this one plus an ongoing dashboard for monitoring brand mentions across every major AI engine.

Prepared by RankBee·rankbee.ai·GAIO-TESTA-2026-05-20