What should a HubSpot AEO audit check?
A HubSpot AEO audit checks whether buyers and AI systems can find your important pages, understand what you offer, verify the facts and identify a working next step. Start with one service and the pages supporting its sale. Record the evidence behind each issue, then assign a specific fix.
This checklist covers the public website. It does not require access to private CRM records or a new reporting platform. For the wider context, read the practical guide to AEO for HubSpot.
What should you include in the first audit?
Choose a service that matters commercially. Review its service page alongside the homepage, About page and contact or enquiry page. Add a pricing, location or policy page where it changes who can buy or what they receive.
Write down the buyer decision you want those pages to support. For example: “Can a Canadian company buy remote HubSpot onboarding from this provider, and does it include data migration?” That gives the audit a concrete question to answer.
Record the URLs and the review date. Ask the service owner to confirm the current offer before judging which page is correct. A disagreement between two pages is evidence of a conflict, not evidence that the newer page has the right answer.
The website audit checklist
Use Pass, Needs work, Not checked or Not applicable for each item. A pass means the stated check succeeded on the recorded date. It does not mean an answer engine will recommend the business.
| Check | What to look for | Evidence to keep |
|---|---|---|
| Page discovery | The service page is linked from a relevant navigation, hub or related page | Linking page and destination URL |
| Public access | The intended page loads without an unexpected sign-in, challenge or error | URL, response status and observation date |
| Retrievable content | The initial HTML contains the main offer, qualifications and relevant links | Saved response or relevant excerpt |
| Indexing controls | Canonical URL and indexing directives match the intended public page | Canonical, robots directives and available inspection results |
| Business identity | Name, provider, website and contact details agree across the scoped pages | Specific claims and their source URLs |
| Service fit | A reader can identify the intended customer, prerequisites and delivery area | The sentences that answer those questions |
| Scope | Deliverables, exclusions and separately quoted work are clear | Published scope and approved fact record |
| Commercial terms | Published prices include relevant conditions; custom quotes explain their inputs | Pricing text, currency and conditions where applicable |
| Supporting evidence | Material claims have relevant support that a reader can inspect | Credential, case study or other supporting source |
| External consistency | Relevant business profiles agree on important facts | Profile URLs and any conflicting claims |
| Structured data | Existing markup describes the page accurately and avoids conflicting duplicates | Markup, validation result and factual check |
| Next action | The stated enquiry, quote or booking route reaches the expected destination | Destination and observed result |
Do not turn the table into an arbitrary percentage. An incorrect service area can disqualify the wrong buyers even when most technical checks pass. Prioritize the consequences of an issue, not simply the number of failed rows.
How do you check what the published page delivers?
Read the page in a browser and inspect its source response. Look for an actual service sentence, not just the brand name in a navigation menu. Compare the response with the content you approved in HubSpot.
If important text appears only after JavaScript runs, record that dependency and ask your developer which retrieval systems can access it. Google can process JavaScript, but this does not establish that every other fetcher receives or renders the same content. Check the systems relevant to your business rather than declaring the page invisible to all AI.
Review indexing controls separately. A page that loads successfully may still carry an unintended noindex directive or point its canonical to another page. Where you have access, use the search engine's inspection tools to see what it reports. The AI bot-tracking guide explains why a crawler visit alone does not prove indexing or recommendation.
For navigation, use descriptive links to the actual destination. Google's link guidance recommends crawlable links and meaningful anchor text. “See our onboarding scope” gives a reader more context than a row of identical “Learn more” links.
How do you audit facts across sources?
Compare claims that affect a buying decision: the business name, services, locations, eligibility, pricing conditions and contact route. Include external sources that matter for this business, such as its LinkedIn company page, a professional directory or a current accreditation record.
Use the HubSpot Marketplace when the business has a relevant listing there. Running a website on HubSpot does not itself make the business a Marketplace provider.
Record conflicts in plain language: “The service page includes migration; the pricing page says migration is separate.” Ask the responsible owner to confirm the offer, then correct the affected sources using the business-fact correction workflow. Keep third-party correction requests open until the source actually changes. Identical prose is unnecessary; compatible facts are the goal.
A worked example
The following example uses Northbridge Operations, a fictional consultancy. It illustrates the worksheet, not a customer result.
| Finding | Why it matters | Proposed fix | Acceptance check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Homepage says “complete onboarding”; service page excludes migration | Buyers may assume work is included that requires another quote | State the included work and migration condition beside the main offer | Homepage and service page agree with the approved scope |
| Contact page says “Canada”; service page says “global” | Delivery eligibility is unclear | Confirm service area with the owner and update both pages | The same eligibility answer is available on both URLs |
| “Book a consultation” opens a general contact page | The next step differs from the promise | Link to the booking route, or relabel the CTA as an enquiry | A reader reaches the action named by the CTA |
Start with the facts and action route. Then check whether the existing schema needs updating to match. See the service-page writing guide for a complete example and the schema-validation guide for technical checks.
Turn the audit into a work list
Copy this record for each finding:
- Page and buyer question: which URL and decision are affected?
- Observed problem: what exactly is missing, incorrect or conflicting?
- Evidence: source URL, excerpt or screenshot, and date checked.
- Approved answer: what should the page say, and who confirmed it?
- Change and owner: the specific edit and person responsible.
- Priority: fix before promotion, next release, or later improvement.
- Acceptance check: what must be true on the published page?
- Result: pass, unresolved or not checked, with the verification date.
Correct material inaccuracies and broken action routes before promoting the page. Schedule useful additions, such as a stronger example or related guide, according to the buyer need they address. The recommendations workflow can help translate an existing HubSpot recommendation into this same work list.
What should you measure after the fixes?
Keep three records: what changed, what passed the live-page checks, and what happened afterwards. For AI-answer observations, retain the prompt, engine, date, response and cited sources. Repeat the same questions and distinguish a brand mention from a link.
Track useful business actions too: completed enquiries, scans and qualified conversations where attribution is available. A valid page and a citation are different results. Our measurement guide explains how to report them separately.
Agencies can use the findings to propose a bounded first client project. Agree the deliverables before expanding the audit into an open-ended retainer.