Scan a site

This site turns automated visitors away, as many large sites do, so we couldn’t read its page. What public records say is below; the score needs the page.

Popularity

Website Traffic Checker

Among the top 1K sites.

A popularity band, not a visit count.

Tranco: #559 · Chrome UX Report: Top 10,000 · Majestic Million: #198

Each list, with its date
SourceSaysAs of
TrancoA research ranking that combines several traffic and link sources, published daily.#559list of 7 Oct 2026
Chrome UX ReportRank buckets from Google’s real Chrome traffic, published monthly.Top 10,000Aug 2026
Majestic MillionRanks sites by how many separate networks link to them (links, not visits), published daily. CC BY 3.0#198list of 8 Oct 2026

Technology

Tech Stack Checker

No framework or CMS shows in the page; it uses CDN, DNS, Email, Marketing and more.

Everything else it uses (22)

Around it: CDN, DNS, Email, Marketing and more.

Business tools can stay listed after a site stops using them.

Trust signals

Website Trust Checker

We couldn’t read the page; outside records are below.

Signals, not a judgement: missing details are common on small, honest sites.

  • Domain registered30 Nov 1994, 31 years agoNoted
  • HTTPSLoads over HTTPS with a valid certificateFound
  • Security filterNot blocked by Cloudflare’s security filter and Quad9’s security filterNoted
Every signal we looked at

On the site

  • Contact pageBot protection hid the pageCouldn’t check
  • About pageBot protection hid the pageCouldn’t check
  • Privacy policyBot protection hid the pageCouldn’t check
  • TermsBot protection hid the pageCouldn’t check
  • Refund or returns policyBot protection hid the pageCouldn’t check
  • Contact detailsBot protection hid the pageCouldn’t check
  • Company detailsBot protection hid the pageCouldn’t check
  • Payment providersBot protection hid the pageCouldn’t check
  • TrackersBot protection hid the pageCouldn’t check

Behind the site

  • Security filterNot blocked by Cloudflare’s security filter and Quad9’s security filterNotedCloudflare’s security filter and Quad9’s security filter
  • Domain registered30 Nov 1994, 31 years agoNoteddomain registry
  • HTTPSLoads over HTTPS with a valid certificateFound
  • Protective settingsBot protection answered instead of the siteCouldn’t check
  • Email protectionProtected against forged emailFoundDNS records

A second opinion on its security setup: Mozilla’s HTTP Observatory grades the site when you open it. Ten checks before you buy · A signal looks wrong? Report it

What it is

Website Summary

Looks like: Blog or news site.

We couldn’t read the page, so there are no words of its own to quote.

From what Wikidata says it is: we couldn’t read the page.

Show evidenceHide evidence
Exhibit 1 · Wikidata
Q183399: Financial Times, daily newspaper
Is this wrong? Report it

Who is behind it

  • WikidataFinancial Times

Wikidata: Owned by Nikkei Inc.; based in Bracken House, United Kingdom.

Show evidenceHide evidence
Exhibit 1 · Wikidata
Q183399: Financial Times
Is this wrong? Report it

Each name is quoted from its source. A brand and the company that owns it often go by different names.

More about it: Wikidata, profiles, AI use, page facts

In Wikidata

  • Financial Times: London-based daily newspaper · daily newspaper · since 1888

Wikidata, the free knowledge base behind Wikipedia, lists this domain as the official website of this item. Volunteers write it; each item shows its sources.

AI use

  • AI training: asks CCBot, Google-Extended, anthropic-ai, Omgili and 9 more to stay away.
  • AI assistants: asks PerplexityBot, Perplexity-User and meta-externalfetcher to stay away.
Show evidence (16)Hide evidence
Exhibit 1 · robots.txt, line 32
User-agent: CCBot · Disallow: /
Exhibit 2 · robots.txt, line 35
User-agent: Google-Extended · Disallow: /
Exhibit 3 · robots.txt, line 42
User-agent: anthropic-ai · Disallow: /
Exhibit 4 · robots.txt, line 45
User-agent: omgili · Disallow: /
Exhibit 5 · robots.txt, line 48
User-agent: omgilibot · Disallow: /
Exhibit 6 · robots.txt, line 51
User-agent: Bytespider · Disallow: /
Exhibit 7 · robots.txt, line 54
User-agent: cohere-ai · Disallow: /
Exhibit 8 · robots.txt, line 69
User-agent: Claude-Web · Disallow: /
Exhibit 9 · robots.txt, line 72
User-agent: ClaudeBot · Disallow: /
Exhibit 10 · robots.txt, line 75
User-agent: Diffbot · Disallow: /
Exhibit 11 · robots.txt, line 78
User-agent: FacebookBot · Disallow: /
Exhibit 12 · robots.txt, line 81
User-agent: Applebot-Extended · Disallow: /
Exhibit 13 · robots.txt, line 84
User-agent: meta-externalagent · Disallow: /
Exhibit 14 · robots.txt, line 63
User-agent: PerplexityBot · Disallow: /
Exhibit 15 · robots.txt, line 66
User-agent: Perplexity-User · Disallow: /
Exhibit 16 · robots.txt, line 87
User-agent: Meta-ExternalFetcher · Disallow: /
Is this wrong? Report it

What its robots.txt and robots tags ask of AI crawlers. Each crawler chooses whether to follow it.

Site name
Not given
Language
Not given
What it tells search engines
None

Read from what the page says about itself; we haven’t checked whether it’s true.

Built with AI?

AI Website Detector

We couldn’t read the page, so we couldn’t look for traces.

AI traces: Couldn’t check

How we know

AI site builders leave traces in the sites they make. We look for the traces of 53 of them and show every match with the line it came from, so you can check it yourself.

We test this on 2,312 sites whose makers we know, and publish what we get wrong.

How we test it · Every builder we know · How to tell if a site was built with AI

Score breakdown

Site Score

No score: we couldn’t read the page, and outside records alone would mislead.

Why each part scored what it did

Domain history

Domain History

Registered in 1994; first archived in 1997.

  1. Domain registeredRDAP
  2. First captured by the web archiveInternet Archive
  3. This scanCheckAnySite

In the web archive: captured in 30 of 30 years · see the first capture

  1. 1997: captured
  2. 1998: captured
  3. 1999: captured
  4. 2000: captured
  5. 2001: captured
  6. 2002: captured
  7. 2003: captured
  8. 2004: captured
  9. 2005: captured
  10. 2006: captured
  11. 2007: captured
  12. 2008: captured
  13. 2009: captured
  14. 2010: captured
  15. 2011: captured
  16. 2012: captured
  17. 2013: captured
  18. 2014: captured
  19. 2015: captured
  20. 2016: captured
  21. 2017: captured
  22. 2018: captured
  23. 2019: captured
  24. 2020: captured
  25. 2021: captured
  26. 2022: captured
  27. 2023: captured
  28. 2024: captured
  29. 2025: captured
  30. 2026: captured
Changes, earlier scans and alerts
Since our previous scan
This is our first scan of the site.

How we scanned it

Only from what anyone can see: the site’s public pages and public records.

  • Politely. Our scanner, CheckAnySiteBot, says who it is and follows the site’s robots.txt.
  • With sources. Every fact above says where it came from and when.
  • Without guessing. When we couldn’t check something, we say so.
This scan, in numbers

924 checks on 10 Oct 2026, with version 0.5.0 of our checks and version 1.1 of the score.

How we work · What each version changed · About our scanner

Quick look

Built with AI?

Couldn’t checkWe couldn’t read the page.

“None found” never means “made by a person”: coding assistants leave no traces.

All the evidence →

Related

Quick look

How popular is it?

Top 1KBy the best of 3 public lists.

  • Tranco#559list of 7 Oct 2026
  • Chrome UX ReportTop 10,000Aug 2026
  • Majestic Million#198list of 8 Oct 2026

A popularity band, never a visit count.

The popularity section →

Related

Quick look

What is it built with?

CDN
Cloudflare
DNS
Amazon Route 53
Email
Google Workspace, Microsoft 365, Amazon SES
Marketing
HubSpot, Mailchimp, Marketo, Salesforce
SEO
Google Search Console
Business tools
Meta Business, Apple Business, Atlassian, DocuSign, Adobe, OpenAI (business account), Docker, Jamf, Figma, Slack, MongoDB, Notion
Each with its evidence →

Related

Quick look

Which trust signals does it show?

On the site

  • Contact pageCouldn’t check
  • About pageCouldn’t check
  • Privacy policyCouldn’t check
  • TermsCouldn’t check
  • Refund or returns policyCouldn’t check
  • Contact detailsCouldn’t check
  • Company detailsCouldn’t check
  • Payment providersCouldn’t check
  • TrackersCouldn’t check

Behind the site

  • Security filterNoted
  • Domain registeredNoted
  • HTTPSFound
  • Security headersCouldn’t check
  • Software versionsCouldn’t check
  • NetworkNoted
  • Email setupFound
  • First certificateCouldn’t check
  • DNSSECNot found
  • Certificate authoritiesFound

Signals, not a judgement: missing details are common on small, honest sites.

Every signal with its source →

Related

How has it changed? →

Automated findings from the site’s public home page and public records, as of 10 Oct 2026. They describe what we found, not the people or business behind the site, and they may be incomplete or out of date. This is information, not advice. Terms · Report an error

What this scan can’t tell you
  • Whether the business is real, honest or delivers what it sells.
  • Whether a site was made with AI when no traces were left: coding assistants and hand edits leave none.
  • How many people visit: we show popularity bands from public lists, not visits.
  • Anything beyond the home page as it was at the time of the scan.

Is this your site? Ask for a correction.

Share this result

Share ft.com

The result describes what we found on 10 Oct 2026, with evidence.

Side by side

Compare with another site

AI traces, popularity, trust signals and the score, side by side.

Free scan · no sign-up

What do you want to find out?

Or check one thing:

Try

One scan answers everything: AI traces, popularity, technology, trust signals, how the site describes itself, a score and its history. A quick check only decides which answer comes first. We read public pages as CheckAnySiteBot and follow robots.txt.