AvocadoScore vs Lighthouse
Lighthouse gives you raw audits. We give you the report.
Lighthouse is the open-source page-audit tool Google ships with Chrome. It runs one page at a time and surfaces raw audit failures. AvocadoScore builds on the same engine — and adds the parts a real audit needs: site-wide scanning, an SEO scorecard, AI readiness, and a fix list in plain English.
Free 3-page preview · No signup · 7-day money-back on paid scans
Feature-by-feature
| Capability | Lighthouse | AvocadoScore |
|---|---|---|
| Core Web Vitals (lab) | ✓ | ✓ |
| Field data from Chrome UX Report | ✓ | |
| Site-wide scan (up to 100 pages) | ✓ | |
| 12-point SEO Readiness scorecard | ✓ | |
| AI Readiness — GPTBot, ClaudeBot, llms.txt | ✓ | |
| Plain-English fix list w/ effort estimates | ✓ | |
| Per-page deep dives with one URL | ✓ | |
| One-click export to Jira or Linear | ✓ | |
| Shareable, printable report URL | ✓ | |
| Free per-page audit | ✓ | ✓ |
| Free site-wide scan |
Lighthouse is excellent at what it does. We use it under the hood. The difference is everything else — discovery, aggregation, SEO + AI scorecards, and a workflow that gets fixes shipped.
What Lighthouse can't tell you
The three findings every AvocadoScore report surfaces that other tools physically can't — because they audit one side of the visibility equation.
Whether GPTBot can read your site
We fetch your homepage twice — once as a browser, once as GPTBot — and compare. Big content drops mean LLMs see a stripped page; CDN bot-detection is the usual culprit.
Whether your llms.txt is actually useful
Presence isn't quality. We validate that your llms.txt has a heading, link count, and sections — the things that make it a real content map for answer engines, not a tickbox file.
Which one fix is the quick win
We rank recommendations by severity × effort and call out true quick wins. You leave with three things to ship Monday, not 47 findings to sort.
Try it on your site — free
60 seconds, no signup. See exactly what you'd get.