Self-Audit / Updated weekly
We dogfood Radar. Here’s what it caught.
Every week, Radar runs against pixelmojo.io. The findings below are published verbatim from the latest audit, including the parts that do not flatter us.
If a methodology cannot survive its own scrutiny, it is not a methodology worth selling. Latest run: August 30, 2026.
What Radar Caught: AI Hallucinations About Pixelmojo
Radar found 2 factual errors in what AI providers are currently telling buyers about Pixelmojo. These are not screenshots from a research paper. They are live, in production, in front of every buyer asking AI about our brand right now. Quoted verbatim from the audit.
What Gemini is telling buyers: Pixelmojo offers a variety of pricing structures, including one-time project fees, monthly subscriptions, and performance-based pricing.
What is actually true: Visibility From $4,500; Product From $4,995; Brand From $1,995; Growth From $2,995/mo
What Gemini is telling buyers: The first check is free, with full audits available for $5.
What is actually true: Visibility From $4,500; Product From $4,995; Brand From $1,995; Growth From $2,995/mo
This is the value proposition. Most AI visibility tools track whether you are mentioned. Radar tracks whether what is said is accurate, then surfaces the corrections you need to make.
What is working
5 of 13 tools score grade A. Technical readiness across the AI infrastructure layer is solid.
What we are fixing this week
Three actions, sequenced by impact. The audit re-runs next week and the changes show up here.
Correct product names, real pricing, accurate positioning. The hallucinations above exist because the canonical answer does not. Once it does, AI providers extract from it.
Three of four LLMs cite Pixelmojo at least once. Claude does not. Different LLMs weight different signals. Worth the dig.
Explicit, addressable line items in the AEO subscore. Not strategic problems, just unfinished work.
The honest score
Overall AI Readiness: 76/100 (B). Middle of the pack, which is honest. Strong technical foundations, hallucination problems to fix, AEO work in progress.
We could publish a higher number by tuning the audit category or the query set. We do not. The audit runs with the same configuration we run for paying customers, and the result lands here unedited. If the score moves next week, you will see it move.
Full per-tool breakdown
All 13 tools sorted by score. See the methodology for what each tool measures and how scores are calculated.
| Tool | Score | Grade |
|---|---|---|
| AEO | 100 | A |
| AI Readiness | 100 | A |
| AI Bot Crawl | 98 | A |
| llms.txt | 95 | A |
| Schema Audit | 95 | A |
| robots.txt | 82 | B |
| brandDisambiguation | 80 | B |
| Answer Engine | 70 | B |
| Reddit Mentions | 70 | B |
| Hallucination Check | 60 | C |
| Citation Tracking | 45 | D |
| Prompt SOV | 14 | F |
Per-LLM Citation Coverage
How often each provider mentioned Pixelmojo across the audit’s brand-related queries. The gaps below are the specific items we are working on.
Cited in 0 of 4 brand queries
Cited in 3 of 4 brand queries
Cited in 0 of 4 brand queries
Cited in 1 of 4 brand queries
Cited in 0 of 4 brand queries
Why we publish this
Brand Index audits 50 named brands publicly with the same Radar methodology. This page applies that transparency to Pixelmojo. Publishing only flattering numbers would invalidate the methodology. Publishing what it actually finds is the proof.
What you see is the audit data with light interpretation. The same JSON lives in radar_audit_runs for every customer audit, gated to that customer.
Want this report for your brand?
Same methodology, your domain. Free check scores 6 of 13 tools in 60 seconds.