Digital Visibility Score: 79 / 100 · Rank 1 of 18
Measured 27 August 2026 via the PYC Bristol Estate Agent Digital Visibility Index. Every figure is objective and reproducible from the methodology . Spotted an error? Request a correction .
Each pillar scored 0–100 against the sector median for this index. The final column is this firm's distance from that median.
Pillar performance against the sector median. Bars right of centre are above the median, left are below.
Speed & CWV +5.5 Technical +12 Local presence +6 Visibility +23 AI search presence +70 Content & trust 0
These are specific, checkable faults on the site — not opinions about it.
Worth knowing The site has not changed in a long time The homepage last reported a change 2.4 years ago.
Ranks for 11 of 12 keywords, average position 16.1, in the local 3-pack for 4 keywords.
Keyword Position estate agents Bristol #10 best estate agents Bristol #24 top estate agents Bristol #13 letting agents Bristol #8 sell my house Bristol not in top 100 house valuation Bristol #1 property for sale Bristol #16 estate agent fees Bristol #16 rental properties Bristol #4 estate agents Clifton #13 estate agents Redland #15 letting agents Clifton #57
Ranked between #11 and #20 — one page from the first, ordered by how close.
#13 #13 #15 #16 #16
5 positions sit between #11 and #20 — one page away, and the cheapest ranking work available to this firm.
Named in 4 of 5 AI answers. A domain citation is stronger evidence than a name mention.
✓ Who are the best estate agents in Bristol? named ✓ Which estate agent in Bristol would you recommend for selling a house? cited by domain ✗ Top rated letting agents in Bristol ✓ I am looking for an estate agent in Bristol - who should I contact? cited by domain ✓ Best estate agents in Clifton, Bristol cited by domain
Google Business Profile.
Rating 4.76 / 5 Reviews 488 Locations 3 Reviews in last 90 days 7 Address matches website yes
Largest Contentful Paint measured two ways: one throttled lab run, against 28 days of real Chrome users.
Lab (Lighthouse, mobile) 10.4s one throttled load on a datacentre machine Field (real users) 1.4s 75th percentile of actual Chrome visitors over 28 days
The lab figure is 7.3× the real-user figure. Both agree the site is performing acceptably for real visitors.
Themes Google extracted from this business’s reviews, by how often customers raise them. Not scored — this is what people say, not how findable the business is.
landlord support 18 letting agents 17 helpful team 10 polite staff 9 liaising with solicitors 7 maintenance issues 7 finding tenants 5 professional response 3 mortgage advisor 2 proactive reporting 2
What each score is made of. Every input here is in the open dataset , so the arithmetic can be checked rather than taken on trust.
Pillar Score Made up of Content & trust 66 about page: yes · team page: no · credentials: yes · blog or news: yes · homepage: 690 words · last changed: 870 days ago Visibility 52 ranks for 11 of 12 keywords · average position 16.1 · local 3-pack: 4 Local presence 86 488 reviews · rated 4.76 · 7 new in 90 days Technical 100 HTTPS: yes · page allows indexing: yes · robots.txt allows crawling: yes · sitemap: yes · structured data: yes
No pillar falls materially below the sector median this quarter.
Build local landing pages for the core keyword basket to lift organic and local-pack appearance.
Add about/team pages and the credentials that matter in this sector (Propertymark, NAEA, The Property Ombudsman), and refresh stale content.
Cut mobile LCP below 2.5s (optimise images and remove render-blocking resources) — the biggest score and ranking lever.
The firms nearest CJ Hole in this ranking, beyond the two either side.
Recorded alongside the measurement to make it easier to judge, but carrying no weight in the Digital Visibility Score. See the methodology .
Companies House No confident match on the registered name Real-user speed (CrUX) LCP 1431ms · INP 164ms · CLS 0 · passes Core Web Vitals Lighthouse (lab, mobile) Performance 60 · accessibility 89 · best practices 100 · SEO 92 — biggest losses: Use efficient cache lifetimes; Background and foreground colors do not have a sufficient contrast ratio.; Links do not have a discernible name Google profile detail 17 photos · claimed · has a description · hours listed · 20 of 230 reviews are one star Backlinks 536 referring domains · 15545 links · rank 376 · 7562 broken Site structure 25 pages crawled · 114.7 internal links per page · reachable in: contact 2 clicks, about 1 click, services 2 clicks · 1% of links use a generic anchor Sitemap 299 URLs listed · declared in robots.txt · newest entry 5 days old · 5 of 5 sampled URLs resolve
CJ Hole’s lowest-scoring pillars among those we publish remediation guidance for:
How this is measured: see the index methodology , and the statistical methods behind each pillar. This index is published by PYC ; if you want this score moved, start here .