Volunteering, internships and youth travel
More than 1,700 educational travel websites, audited. More than a quarter cannot be read properly by AI.
Under-25s use AI assistants more than any other age group, and they ask hard questions: is this organisation legitimate, is it ethical, is it accredited. If AI cannot read your site, you never hear about the enquiry you lost.
“Which volunteer abroad programmes are actually reputable?”
Languages measured: English, German, Spanish.
All organisations
- >1,700
- educational travel websites audited
- 27%
- carry a critical fault
- 20%
- have a server refusing an AI crawler
- 21%
- publish an llms.txt
Median readiness score 67 out of 100. 5% block a crawler deliberately in robots.txt; 6% explicitly welcome AI crawlers by name. Audited 8 August 2026.
What do you run?
The questions customers ask change with the programme. Pick yours.
Split by programme type
Most at risk — share carrying a critical fault
Jobs Abroad 32% · Language School 30% · High School 26%
Healthiest
TEFL Courses 14% · Adventure Travel 19% · Degree Abroad 21%
Programme types overlap and not every organisation is categorised, so this compares groups rather than dividing up the whole set.
The gap between programme types is wider than the gap between good and bad websites.
TEFL course providers are the healthiest group we measured: 14% carry a critical fault. Jobs Abroad providers are the least healthy at 32% — more than twice the rate — and a quarter of them have a server refusing AI crawlers outright.
Being in a strong category is not protection. Adventure Travel has the joint highest median score of any group, and still one in five has a server refusing a crawler. A good website and a readable website are not the same thing.
Free score. A person runs it, not a robot.
Enter your website address and we run the technical audit on your real site — eight AI crawlers checked against your robots.txt, and ChatGPT's, Claude's and Perplexity's sent as real requests to see what your server actually does. You get your score and the single biggest thing holding you back. Only for new clients.
No account, no card.
Four out of five sites we audit have at least one fault we can name. The typical site has two or three. The free score gives you your score and the most serious one, in plain English, with the fix. The rest come with the full audit — along with the half of the picture the free score cannot see: whether AI assistants actually recommend you, and who they recommend instead. You also get a sample of typically 5 questions put to the AI models, so you can see what a subscription looks like in practice.
Or start measuring properly
Monthly monitoring from $29. The technical check every month, your visibility rate tracked over time, and the competitors named instead of you.
See the plans →Or buy the one-off AI Visibility Audit — $450. A full diagnosis in one document, delivered within seven working days. →
What the full audit covers
- 100 real questions from students and their parents, across 5 AI models in 5 languages — English, German, Spanish, French and Italian.
- Every question asked three times.
- How AI answers the legitimacy and ethics questions about your programmes.
- Which providers get recommended instead of you, and how often.
- Which directories and review sites the models actually trust.
- Eight prioritised fixes, ranked by effort and likely impact.
- Written recommendations from me, not a dashboard export.
The five assistants we ask: ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini and Mistral. The first four search the web while they answer; Mistral answers from what it already knows. That contrast is deliberate — it separates what AI can find about you from what it remembers, and the gap between those two is usually the most useful number in the report.
The students who have started are not going back.
In a survey of 1,622 newly enrolled international students, 17% used an AI assistant during their initial search — and of those, 81% found it more helpful than university websites, brochures and agents. Adoption reaches roughly 30% in South Korea and the Philippines. The number that matters is not the 17%. It is that four in five of the people who tried it preferred it to your website.
Source: ICEF Monitor, January 2026, reporting research by INTO University Partnerships.
Read what we can and cannot measure, and why we report the limits — our method →
Find out how AI answers the questions your applicants are already asking.
Start with the free check above, or ask us a question.
The AI Visibility Audit is $450, and it is included with annual Track and Lead plans. See pricing →