We audited 1,916 contractor and trade websites in Canada and counted what is missing. Here is how this trade scores — and what it gets wrong — when an assistant decides who to recommend.
From a corpus of 20,806 sites, rebuilt on 9 September 2026. Every figure here is measured, not estimated.
A roof or a renovation is not an impulse buy: people ask an assistant who is reputable in their town before they ask for a quote. That conversation happens before your phone rings, and you are either in it or you are not.
The contrast is the whole story: 75/100 on conventional SEO, 14/100 on answer-engine readiness. These sites are not bad; they are optimised for the previous decade.
The questions customers actually ask — price, hours, area covered — are either missing from the site or written in a form an assistant cannot lift.
The site cites no outside source — no association, no supplier, no certification body. A model weighs a page that stands alone less than one that agrees with something it already trusts.
Text is split into fragments that make no sense on their own. An assistant quotes a paragraph that stands up out of context, and there is none.
The reputation lives entirely on Google and nothing about it is visible where a model reads the business.
Nothing on the page says when it was written or last changed, so a model has no way to prefer it over a competitor's older page.
The site and the Google listing do not point at each other, so the reviews and the hours on one do not reinforce the other.
Share of the 1,916 audited sites affected by each defect.
The audit is free and needs no account. You will see your numbers beside your trade's.
Audit my site →Or read the 1,916 audits one by one: the trade benchmark.