Self-Audit / Updated weekly
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: June 23, 2026.
Radar found 11 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 ChatGPT is telling buyers: Pixelmojo specializes in providing digital marketing services, particularly focusing on social media management, content creation, and branding solutions.
What is actually true: Pixelmojo provides AI products that users own, focusing on lead qualification, AI co-workers, and AI visibility.
What ChatGPT is telling buyers: Pixelmojo was founded in 2015.
What is actually true: The founding year is not specified in the provided verified facts.
What ChatGPT is telling buyers: The company is based in the United States.
What is actually true: The company is headquartered in Makati, Philippines.
What ChatGPT is telling buyers: Pricing plans can vary based on the specific services required and the scale of the project.
What is actually true: Pricing includes Audit packs from $5 and Pro Retainer $199/mo.
What Perplexity is telling buyers: They offer three core AI systems and four done-for-you services.
What is actually true: They offer three core AI systems and four done-for-you services.
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.
5 of 13 tools score grade A. Technical readiness across the AI infrastructure layer is solid.
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.
Overall AI Readiness: 55/100 (C). 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.
All 13 tools sorted by score. See the methodology for what each tool measures and how scores are calculated.
| Tool | Score | Grade |
|---|---|---|
| AI Bot Crawl | 98 | A |
| AI Readiness | 98 | A |
| llms.txt | 95 | A |
| Schema Audit | 91 | A |
| robots.txt | 86 | A |
| AEO | 72 | B |
| brandDisambiguation | 60 | C |
| Citation Tracking | 43 | D |
| Source Influence | 39 | D |
| Answer Engine | 30 | F |
| Reddit Mentions | 0 | F |
| Prompt SOV | 0 | F |
| Hallucination Check | 0 | F |
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 2 of 4 brand queries
Cited in 0 of 4 brand queries
Cited in 0 of 4 brand queries
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.
Same methodology, your domain. Free first audit, 13 tools, 60 seconds.
Our most-cited deep dives on AI search visibility, plus what we shipped this month.
We implemented every GEO tactic from our own playbook. Here is exactly what we built, what we changed, and what we learned about optimizing a real site for AI search citations.
Google Preferred Sources is the one AI visibility lever your audience controls, not the model. Here is how it works, who qualifies, and how to earn it.
Our analytics say Claude is our #1 AI traffic source. Our own Radar says Claude cites us the least. The two rankings are almost perfectly inverted. Here is why referral traffic cannot measure AI visibility.