Disclosure
The Ask W Auditor is operated by Clickerwayne Zelle Solutions Inc, the same company that publishes this article. The 365i AI Visibility Checker is operated by 365i and is not affiliated with Clickerwayne Zelle Solutions Inc. The comparison below is between two public tools, one of which we operate. A reader who wants to verify the comparison can run both tools against the same domain and see the same scores we report.
How the 365i AI Visibility Checker and Ask W Auditor measure different things
The 365i AI Visibility Checker is a free tool published by 365i, the publisher of the AI Discovery Files specification. It validates ten machine-readable files at a domain root: llms.txt, llm.txt, llms.html, ai.txt, ai.json, identity.json, brand.txt, developer-ai.txt, faq-ai.txt, and robots-ai.txt. It checks whether each file exists, is accessible, is internally consistent, and whether AI crawlers are allowed by robots.txt. It produces a score out of 100 across four signal groups.
The Ask W Auditor is a free tool published by Wholesale Dito Store and operated by Clickerwayne Zelle Solutions Inc. It runs twenty checks against any URL. It includes HTTPS, Time-To-First-Byte, robots.txt syntax and crawler access, sitemap validity, mobile viewport, html lang, title and meta description and H1, HTML5 landmarks, canonical tag, Open Graph tags, image alt text, sequential heading hierarchy, JSON-LD entity schema and required properties, paragraph chunk sizes, content-to-HTML ratio, Last-Modified header, OKF bundle at /.okf/index.md, and four AI discovery files: llms.txt and llms-full.txt at the root, .well-known/ai.txt, and .well-known/ard.json.
The two tools check llms.txt at the same path. They both look for ai.txt, but at different paths: 365i checks the domain root, Ask W Auditor checks .well-known/. Whether that counts as overlap depends on how you define the check. For the purposes of this article, we count the file path, not the filename. So the two tools overlap on llms.txt and one additional path match where the same file is served at both root and .well-known/.
They do not overlap on the other eight UK tool files, the three additional Ask W Auditor file checks, or the sixteen non-file Ask W Auditor checks. That non-overlap is where the score gap comes from.
Why the top-ranked 365i site scored 71 out of 100 on the Ask W Auditor
Ask W Auditor returned 71/100 for the site ranked number one on 365i's rolling Top 10 on 19 October 2026. The first run was at 19:30:34 with a 2.642-second TTFB. A second run at 19:45:43 returned 71/100 with a 6.494-second TTFB. The score is identical across both runs because the TTFB deduction is binary: anything over 1.5 seconds is a single -5 deduction regardless of the measured value. The report itemised seven failures.
| Check | Result | Deduction |
|---|---|---|
| Time-To-First-Byte | 6.494s, threshold 1.5s | -5 |
| Sequential heading hierarchy | Non-sequential | -5 |
| Last-Modified header | Not sent | -2 |
| OKF bundle | Not present | -2 |
llms-full.txt | Missing from root | -5 |
.well-known/ai.txt | Missing | -5 |
.well-known/ard.json | Missing | -5 |
| Total | -29 |
The sum of the deductions is 29. 100 minus 29 is 71. The arithmetic matches the published deduction table.
File-level evidence: four curl requests that confirm the score
The score depends on which files are present. The four curl -I requests below were run on 19 October 2026 at 23:41 UTC. They confirm the file state independently of the auditor's own report. The domain has been redacted; the paths are the four Ask W Auditor checks.
| Request | Response |
|---|---|
curl -I https://[domain]/llms.txt | HTTP/2 200 |
curl -I https://[domain]/.well-known/ai.txt | HTTP/2 404 |
curl -I https://[domain]/.well-known/ard.json | HTTP/2 404 |
curl -I https://[domain]/llms-full.txt | HTTP/2 404 |
One of the four files Ask W Auditor checks is present at /llms.txt. Three return 404. The 15-point deduction for three missing files is correct.
365i does not check any of those three paths. It checks llm.txt, llms.html, ai.json, identity.json, brand.txt, developer-ai.txt, faq-ai.txt, and robots-ai.txt, which Ask W Auditor does not check. The site has those files, which is why 365i scores it 100/100. Both tools are correct for their respective file sets.
Why the 365i AI Visibility Checker still gives the site 100 out of 100
365i checks ten files. The site has all ten. None of the four checks that Ask W Auditor deducted 14 points for (TTFB, heading hierarchy, Last-Modified, OKF) are part of 365i's rubric. So a site with all ten 365i files and a slow server, a broken heading hierarchy, no Last-Modified header, and no OKF bundle will score 100/100 on 365i and 71/100 on Ask W Auditor.
That is the whole of the difference. There is no bug in either tool, no stale cache, and no missing file that 365i forgot to check. The 29-point gap is the sum of seven conditions that the two tools measure differently.
The reciprocal case: why wholesaledito.store scores 99 on 365i and 100 on Ask W Auditor
wholesaledito.store scores 99/100 on 365i and 100/100 on Ask W Auditor. The 100/100 on Ask W Auditor is a pass on twenty checks, including a 0.068-second TTFB, sequential headings, complete alt text, valid schema, and all four discovery files Ask W Auditor checks. The 0.068-second figure is from the Ask W Auditor's own report for wholesaledito.store, checked 19 October 2026 at 07:10:04.
The 99/100 on 365i is a placeholder_content flag on developer-ai.txt. Inspection of the file shows no placeholder content. The header declares Business Name: Clickerwayne Zelle Solutions Inc and Brand Name: Wholesale Dito Store. The body contains real URLs, real email addresses, and a real SEC registration number. There are no template markers, no bracketed fields, and no empty sections. The flag appears to be a parser false positive.
That is a separate finding from the top-ranked site comparison. It is included for completeness. It is not used here as evidence that either tool is generally accurate.
What running two AI-readiness audits means for a Philippine business
The two tools measure different layers of AI readiness.
365i measures whether a site publishes the ten files its specification defines, and whether those files are internally consistent. Ask W Auditor measures twenty conditions across infrastructure, semantics, structured data, content structure, and four discovery file paths.
A business that wants to be readable by AI crawlers needs both. The files 365i requires tell AI systems who you are. The infrastructure and semantic conditions Ask W Auditor requires determine whether the crawler can reach the page, parse the content, and identify the entity described. A site with all ten 365i files and a 6.5-second TTFB is a site that a fast AI crawler will time out on before the file contents are ever read.
That is the point of running both. Neither tool covers the other's blind spot. Both are free. Both are deterministic. Both publish their deduction tables, so any reader can reproduce a score by hand.