The State of SEO 2026: what 263 website audits reveal
We audited 263 websites from a 300-domain target list across our technical SEO signals. The results show where this sample performs well—and where common fundamentals are still missing.
Study period: July 2026 · Page reviewed: 15 October 2026 · Research by SlapMyWeb
Across 263 included scans. Only 3 sites scored 90 or above.
Explore the findingsThe 60-second version
Good, not great — and remarkably consistent
The included scans averaged 69/100 overall. Accessibility (79) led the measured dimensions; SEO (62) and content (62) had the lowest averages. These scores summarize this sample and the study’s scoring model.
Almost nobody fails. Almost nobody’s excellent.
51% of included sites scored 70–89. Only 3 of 263 scored 90 or above, and 5 scored below 50. These bands describe the included sample, not all websites.
Counts and shares use the 263-site distribution total. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
Median field metrics meet the good thresholds
We read Core Web Vitals from CrUX field data — real Chrome users, not a lab simulation — for about 239 of 263 sites (91%) with reportable data. Each metric’s median falls within Google’s good threshold; this does not mean every site passed.
Medians across about 239 sites with field data (91% of the included sample). The count is estimated from rounded coverage when the exact count is unavailable. Medians alone do not show the proportion of sites that failed a threshold.
The most common failures, ranked
Share of the 263 included sites where the audit detected each issue. Rates are rounded and describe this sample only.
Crawler access and AI citations are different signals
This page reports the measured SEO aggregate for 263 sites. A robots.txt check can show whether a named crawler is allowed, but it cannot establish whether an answer engine will cite a site.
The main study detected schema markup on 33% of its 263-site sample. This measures markup presence only. Crawler access, structured data and whether an answer engine cites a page are separate questions; this study does not measure citation outcomes.
Check crawler and page signals on your site →What share of the sample had each signal
Encryption is solved. Hardening isn’t.
99% served valid HTTPS. CSP, HSTS and Referrer-Policy were less common, though the right configuration depends on each site’s stack and security needs.
Mobile scores trailed desktop in this sample
The sample’s mobile score averaged 13 points lower than desktop. Google primarily indexes the mobile version of most sites, so mobile parity and usability deserve attention.
Five moves that beat the average
These are practical checks suggested by the observed gaps; the study does not establish that any one change will improve rankings.
- 1Use structured data where it fits33% of the sample had detected schema.org markup. Add accurate, page-specific structured data where supported; it may make a page eligible for search features but does not guarantee a rich result, ranking, or AI citation.
- 2Audit image alternatives58% of the sample had at least one image missing alt text. Give informative images concise, useful alternatives; keep decorative images marked as decorative.
- 3Review security headersCSP (48%), HSTS (61%) and Referrer-Policy (25%) adoption varied. Choose settings that fit your application and test them before rollout.
- 4Check mobile parityThe mobile score trails desktop by 13 points in this sample. Google primarily indexes the mobile version of most sites; keep important content and structured data available there.
- 5Keep an accurate XML sitemap54% of the sample had no detected sitemap. A sitemap can help search engines discover canonical URLs; it does not guarantee indexing.
Sample. The cohort began with 300 domain targets; 263 scans passed the content-quality filter and appear in the aggregate. The filter excludes scans only when title, meta description, and body word count are all absent/low. This is a point-in-time convenience sample, not a representative census. The exact ranking provider/version used to assemble the target list is not recorded in this public report.
Signals. Each included site was run through SlapMyWeb’s audit engine across crawlability, on-page SEO, structured data, performance, security headers, mobile, and accessibility. The public report does not include a full codebook for every check, so not every signal can be independently reproduced from this page.
Performance. Core Web Vitals medians use Google CrUX field data from real Chrome users for about 239 sites (91% of the included sample). The count is estimated from rounded coverage when the exact count is unavailable. Lab-only values were not substituted. A median is not a per-site pass rate.
Calculations. Scores are arithmetic means; Core Web Vitals are medians; signal rates are percentages of the included sample. Percentages are rounded to whole numbers. The sample does not establish that any one signal caused a ranking or citation outcome.
Questions about the study
How many websites were analysed?
263 sites from a 300-domain target list passed the study’s content-quality filter and were included in the aggregate, across our technical SEO, performance, security, and accessibility signals in July 2026. The cohort is a point-in-time sample, not a representative census of the web.
What was the average score?
The included sample averaged 69/100 overall. 3 sites scored 90+, and 5 scored below 50. These findings describe the study sample only.
What do the Core Web Vitals results show?
For about 239 sites with CrUX field data (91% of the included sample), median LCP was 2.08s, median INP 179ms, and median CLS 0.01. These medians are within Google’s good thresholds; the medians alone do not show how many individual sites passed all three metrics.
What do sites in the sample get wrong most often?
67% had no detected schema.org markup, 58% had at least one image missing alt text, and 54% had no detected XML sitemap. Markup can make pages eligible for supported search features, but does not guarantee rich results, rankings, or AI citations.
Is the data free to use?
Yes. This study is published under CC BY 4.0 — cite "SlapMyWeb, The State of SEO 2026" with a link back to this page and you’re free to reuse the figures.
How does your site compare?
Run the 135+ check audit on your URL to see your score, detected issues and suggested fixes. Compare your results with this sample as a reference, not as a ranking benchmark.
Audit my site free