Sign Up
Free tool

Free E-E-A-T Checker

Check page trust signals across Experience, Expertise, Authority, and Trust

Analyse E-E-A-T signals

12 trust signals checked

Scores Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness across 12 on-page signals.

Works best with public HTML articles, guides, and landing pages.

Less useful for tool pages, pricing, login, dashboards, and other utility screens.

E-E-A-T stands for Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness and Trustworthiness. Google uses this framework in its Search Quality Rater Guidelines, and the same credibility signals matter when AI systems decide which sources feel safe to cite. This free EEAT checker reviews any URL against 12 on-page trust signals, from author credentials and citation patterns to structured data and transparency markers, then scores each dimension separately so you can see what is holding the page back. Pages that fall under YMYL, meaning Your Money or Your Life topics such as health, finance and legal advice, are held to a higher standard on every dimension, so weak expertise and trust signals cost them the most.

Get an EEAT score broken down across all four E-E-A-T pillars with specific check results.
Identify missing trust signals that can weaken content quality, SEO performance, and AI citation readiness.
Receive actionable pass/fail checks mapped to visible page signals your team can fix.

How it works

Get started in 3 simple steps

1

Enter any public URL: blog post, landing page, or article.

2

The checker fetches the page and evaluates 12 E-E-A-T signals across all four dimensions.

3

Review the EEAT score, expand each dimension, and prioritize the failed trust-signal checks.

Best use cases

Built for teams that take AI visibility seriously

1

Content teams auditing blog posts for E-E-A-T trust signals before publishing.

2

SEO teams benchmarking EEAT quality across key pages and competitor content.

3

AEO strategists strengthening authorship, citations, and transparency before asking AI systems to cite the page.

One check is a snapshot. Want to see the trend?

Start free trial

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What does E-E-A-T stand for?

Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness. It's the quality framework Google uses in its Search Quality Rater Guidelines and the signals AI systems use to decide which content to cite.

What signals does this check?

It checks 12 signals across four dimensions: first-hand experience language, publication dates, media evidence, author attribution, author bio, author schema, external citations, organization schema, about page links, HTTPS, privacy/terms links, and review/testimonial presence.

How does E-E-A-T affect AI citations?

AI systems tend to rely on sources they can verify as authoritative and trustworthy. Pages with stronger visible E-E-A-T signals, such as named authors, credentials, citations, and structured data, are better prepared for citation and reuse in AI-generated answers.

What's a good E-E-A-T score?

There is no official Google score, so treat this as a diagnostic rather than a target. In this checker, 75+ (grade A or B) means the trust and authorship signals are in good shape. Most content pages land at 40-60 on a first run. Because Trustworthiness carries 40% of the weight, fixing a missing privacy link or an unattributed byline usually moves the number more than adding another image.

Does E-E-A-T apply to all content types?

Yes, but the weight of each dimension varies. YMYL stands for Your Money or Your Life: content that can affect someone's health, finances, safety or legal standing. Google's quality raters hold YMYL pages to a higher bar on expertise and trust, so named authors, credentials and external citations matter far more there. Ordinary blog posts benefit most from first-hand experience and clear author attribution.

What features are essential in an E-E-A-T monitoring tool?

Look for four things. First, it should check signals a search or AI system can actually see on the page, not opinions about your writing. Second, it should score the four dimensions separately, since a page can be highly authoritative and still fail on transparency. Third, it should weight trust above the rest, which is what Google's own guidance asks for. Fourth, it should tell you which specific element is missing and where, because a single number you cannot act on is not a finding. This checker runs 12 such signals and reports each as a pass or fail with the reason.

How is an E-E-A-T score calculated?

Google publishes no formula, so any score is one tool's interpretation of its guidance. This one groups 12 on-page signals under the four dimensions, scores each dimension by the share of its checks that pass, then combines them with Trustworthiness at 40% and Experience, Expertise and Authoritativeness at 20% each. The weighting follows Google's statement that of the four aspects, trust is the most important, and that the other three feed into it.

What platforms provide comprehensive E-E-A-T reporting?

Be wary of the word comprehensive. A single-page checker like this one tells you what one URL looks like right now, which is the right tool for fixing a specific article but not for reporting. Comprehensive reporting needs three things a one-off check cannot give you: coverage across every page rather than the one you pasted, history so you can see whether a fix actually moved anything, and alerting when a template change quietly strips a byline across a whole section. If a platform claims comprehensive E-E-A-T reporting, ask which of those three it does. Most page-level tools, including this one, do the first job only.

What is the difference between an E-E-A-T check and an E-E-A-T audit?

A check is automated and looks at what is detectable in the markup: is there a byline, a date, a privacy link, author schema. That is what this tool does, in seconds, and it catches the mechanical omissions that are genuinely common. An audit is a human judgement on top of that: whether the named author actually has standing on the topic, whether the first-hand experience is real or performed, whether the sources cited support the claims. A check tells you what is missing. An audit tells you whether what is there is credible. You want the check first, because there is no point debating credibility on a page with no author at all.

Further reading

Learn the concepts behind this tool

Explore more

Related tools

AEO Score Checker

Check how AI-ready your page is with a 0–100 score

Try it free

Entity Clarity Analyzer

Score how well AI systems recognise and understand your entity

Try it free

AI Citability Checker

Score how likely AI systems are to extract and cite your content

Try it free

FAQ Generator

Build citation-ready FAQ sections for AI and search

Try it free

Schema Markup Generator

Create structured data that AI and search engines parse

Try it free

Start for free

Turn this score into a trend

Track your AI visibility every week and see what moves it, instead of checking by hand.

Start free trialView pricing