Score 70 or above when we run the audit. That is the whole condition. You cannot pay for a place, ask for one, or earn one by linking to us or displaying our badge — and nothing you do to this page changes the number, because the number comes from your own site.

Is this a link exchange?

No, and it is built so it cannot become one. We choose the pool, we run the audit, and every site that clears the threshold goes on the list whether it has ever heard of us or not. Several sites here sell against us. A link given in return for a link back is an exchange and search engines treat it as one; a measurement we ran and published is editorial.

Do I have to display the badge to be on the index?

No. They are unrelated on purpose. The embeddable badge puts a nofollowed link on your site pointing at ours, which gives you no ranking credit and we do not claim otherwise. This page points the other way, and being on it has nothing to do with whether you embed anything.

Why is Wysera not on its own index?

Because we score 96, and we wrote the rubric. Topping a list you designed and published is not a result. The number is there if you want to check it, but it is not a ranking position.

Why is a site I expected to see missing?

It either scored below 70, or it was not in the pool, or it blocked the audit. 3 sites returned HTTP 403 to our crawler and could not be scored at all: searchengineland.com, canva.com, outreach.com. Blocking crawlers you have not thought about is itself a distribution decision.

How often is this re-measured?

Quarterly, and the pool grows each time. Scores move when sites change, so every figure here carries the month it was measured rather than pretending to be live. This run is October 2026.

Wysera is raising. A Regulation Crowdfunding offering, open now.See the offeringDetails

DemoRequest a demo

Original research · October 2026

The Distribution
Index

We audited 68 company sites on how well they distribute what they publish — whether a crawler can reach it, an answer engine can quote it, and a reader can subscribe to it. 24 scored 70 or above. Here they are, each one linked.

68 measured · 24 listed · measured twice

The finding

15 of the 24 best-distributing sites we measured are worst at being quoted.

These sites have distribution solved in the ways that were invented before answer engines. Their sitemaps are clean, their link previews are right, they ship constantly. The pillar they fall down on is the newest one: whether a machine can lift a passage from the page and cite it. Being findable was the last decade's problem. Being quotable is this one's, and even the top of the market has not caught up.

3graded A

21graded B

The index

Ranked by score, ties broken alphabetically. Every name links straight to the site.

01
Closeclose.com
Full marks in Shareable, Publishing engine, Conversion path. Weakest on Quotable.
A84/100
02
beehiivbeehiiv.com
Full marks in Findable, Quotable. Weakest on Owned audience.
A81/100
03
Gonggong.io
Full marks in Shareable, Publishing engine. Weakest on Quotable.
A80/100
04
HubSpothubspot.com
Full marks in Shareable, Publishing engine. Weakest on Quotable.
B79/100
05
Netlifynetlify.com
Full marks in Findable, Conversion path. Weakest on Quotable.
B79/100
06
Backlinkobacklinko.com
Full marks in Findable, Shareable, Owned audience. Weakest on Conversion path.
B78/100
07
Mozmoz.com
Full marks in Publishing engine. Weakest on Quotable.
B78/100
08
Pipedrivepipedrive.com
Full marks in Findable. Weakest on Quotable.
B78/100
09
ActiveCampaignactivecampaign.com
Full marks in Shareable, Conversion path. Weakest on Quotable.
B77/100
10
CSS-Trickscss-tricks.com
Full marks in Shareable, Publishing engine. Weakest on Conversion path.
B76/100
11
Supabasesupabase.com
Full marks in Findable, Shareable, Owned audience. Weakest on Publishing engine.
B76/100
12
Basecampbasecamp.com
Full marks in Shareable, Publishing engine. Weakest on Quotable.
B75/100
13
Circlecircle.so
Full marks in Findable, Shareable, Publishing engine. Weakest on Quotable.
B75/100
14
Cloudflarecloudflare.com
Full marks in Findable, Shareable, Publishing engine, Conversion path. Weakest on Owned audience.
B74/100
15
Search Engine Journalsearchenginejournal.com
Full marks in Shareable, Publishing engine. Weakest on Conversion path.
B74/100
16
Apolloapollo.io
Full marks in Findable, Publishing engine. Weakest on Quotable.
B73/100
17
Bufferbuffer.com
Full marks in Shareable, Publishing engine. Weakest on Quotable.
B73/100
18
Discoursediscourse.org
Full marks in Findable, Shareable, Delivery. Weakest on Quotable.
B73/100
19
Hootsuitehootsuite.com
Full marks in Findable, Shareable, Publishing engine. Weakest on Quotable.
B72/100
20
Sprout Socialsproutsocial.com
Full marks in Shareable, Conversion path. Weakest on Quotable.
B72/100
21
Clayclay.com
Full marks in Findable. Weakest on Owned audience.
B71/100
22
GitLabgitlab.com
Full marks in Findable, Shareable. Weakest on Publishing engine.
B71/100
23
Zendeskzendesk.com
Full marks in Findable, Shareable. Weakest on Publishing engine.
B71/100
24
Typeformtypeform.com
Full marks in Findable, Publishing engine. Weakest on Quotable.
B70/100

You cannot get on this list by being nice to us

There is one way onto the index: score 70 or above when we run the audit. We pick the pool, we run it, and every site that clears the bar is listed whether it has heard of us or not. Several of the sites above sell against us.

No payment, no placement, no sponsored rows.
Linking to us does not get you listed, and we will not ask you to.
Displaying our badge does not get you listed either. The two are unrelated on purpose.
Scoring below 70 keeps you off, and no amount of asking changes the number — it comes from your site, not from us.

This matters beyond good manners. “Link to me and I'll link to you” is a link exchange, and search engines have named it as a scheme for twenty years. A measurement somebody ran and published is editorial. The only thing separating the two is whether the link was earned by a number or traded for another link, so the number is the only thing we will accept.

How this was measured

Same audit you can run on your own site, for free

Every score here came from the Distribution Score audit: a 100-point rubric across seven pillars, which fetches each site's homepage, robots.txt, sitemap, llms.txt and feed endpoints and checks what it finds. It is the same code path behind the public tool, with no manual adjustment and no human scoring step.

We measured 68 sites across martech, dev tools, CRM, community software and publishing. 65 answered; 3 returned HTTP 403 to the audit and could not be scored (searchengineland.com, canva.com, outreach.com). Of those that answered, 24 reached 70.

Every site was audited twice. All 24 listed sites returned an identical score on both passes, which is the only reason we were willing to publish the numbers next to other people's names. Scores still move when a site changes, so each figure is dated rather than presented as live.

Wysera is not on the list. We score 96, which is what happens when you grade your own homework against a rubric you wrote. Putting ourselves first on our own index would be worth less than leaving ourselves off and telling you why.

Score your own site See the seven pillars

The seven pillars

Findable: Whether a crawler can reach, read and index what you publish.
Quotable: Whether an answer engine can lift a passage from your page and cite it.
Shareable: What your link looks like when somebody posts it somewhere else.
Owned audience: Whether you can reach people again without paying a platform for it.
Publishing engine: Whether anything new ships, and whether a crawler can tell.
Conversion path: Whether a convinced visitor can act without hunting.
Delivery: Whether the page arrives fast and intact on a phone.

Questions