Vale Vets — Gloucester Vet Digital Visibility Score
Digital Visibility Score: 56 / 100 · Rank 8 of 21
Digital Visibility Score56/100Rank 8 of 21 · top 35%One page from the first1Closest: veterinary Quedgeley at #19Furthest behind-29Local presence: 47 against a sector median of 76
Measured 1 September 2026 via the PYC Gloucester Vet Digital Visibility Index. Every figure is objective and reproducible from the methodology. Spotted an error? Request a correction.
Pillar breakdown vs sector median
Section titled “Pillar breakdown vs sector median”| Pillar | Score | Median | vs median |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speed & CWV | 62 | 62 | level |
| Technical | 100 | 88 | +12 |
| Local presence | 47 | 76 | −29 |
| Visibility | 42 | 21 | +21 |
| AI search presence | 0 | 0 | level |
| Content & trust | 75 | 70 | +5 |
| Speed & CWV | 0 | |
|---|---|---|
| Technical | +12 | |
| Local presence | -29 | |
| Visibility | +21 | |
| AI search presence | 0 | |
| Content & trust | +5 |
Where this firm ranks
Section titled “Where this firm ranks”| Keyword | Position |
|---|---|
| vets Gloucester | #22 |
| veterinary practice Gloucester | #24 |
| best vets Gloucester | not in top 100 |
| emergency vet Gloucester | #10 |
| cat vet Gloucester | #28 |
| dog vet Gloucester | not in top 100 |
| 24 hour vet Gloucester | #5 |
| vet costs Gloucester | #34 |
| animal hospital Gloucester | #24 |
| vets Quedgeley | #21 |
| vets Hucclecote | #27 |
| veterinary Quedgeley | #19 |
The gap to the leader
Section titled “The gap to the leader”| Speed & CWV | 62 | |
|---|---|---|
| Technical | 100 | |
| Local presence | 47 | |
| Visibility | 42 | |
| AI search presence | 0 | |
| Content & trust | 75 |
this firm sector median leader
Vale Vets trails Wood Veterinary Group Animal Hospital by 166 points across 4 pillars, but 67% of that is AI search presence and Local presence alone. It already matches or beats the leader on Technical, Content & trust.
Closest to the first page
Section titled “Closest to the first page”| veterinary Quedgeley | #19 |
1 position sits between #11 and #20 — one page away, and the cheapest ranking work available to this firm.
AI search presence
Section titled “AI search presence”| ✗ | Who are the best vets in Gloucester? | |
| ✗ | Which veterinary practice in Gloucester would you recommend? | |
| ✗ | Top rated vets in Gloucester | |
| ✗ | My pet is unwell in Gloucester - which vet should I call? | |
| ✗ | Best vets in Quedgeley, Gloucester |
Why this score
Section titled “Why this score”| Pillar | Score | Made up of |
|---|---|---|
| Content & trust | 75 | about page: yes · team page: yes · credentials: yes · blog or news: no · homepage: 598 words |
| Visibility | 42 | ranks for 10 of 12 keywords · average position 21.4 · local 3-pack: 0 |
| Local presence | 47 | 0 reviews · 0 new in 90 days |
| Technical | 100 | HTTPS: yes · page allows indexing: yes · robots.txt allows crawling: yes · sitemap: yes · structured data: yes |
Key findings
Section titled “Key findings”- Local presence: 47/100, below the sector median of 76.
How this compares to the leader
Section titled “How this compares to the leader”Wood Veterinary Group Animal Hospital leads the index with 79/100. The largest gaps are: AI search presence (0 vs 60); Local presence (47 vs 99); Visibility (42 vs 84).
Top fixes (ranked by impact)
Section titled “Top fixes (ranked by impact)”- Publish structured, citable content and entity schema so AI engines surface the business for core local queries.
- Build local landing pages for the core keyword basket to lift organic and local-pack appearance.
- Restart Google review generation and complete the Business Profile to close the local-pack gap.
Firms ranked near this one
Section titled “Firms ranked near this one”| Firm | Rank | Score | Why it is here |
|---|---|---|---|
| Orchard View Vets | #6 | 71/100 | 2 places above you |
| Cheltenham Equine Vets | #10 | 52/100 | 2 places below you |
| Stroud Road Vets | #5 | 74/100 | 3 places above you |
| K Wakeman Veterinary Physiotherapy | #11 | 52/100 | 3 places below you |
Context (not scored)
Section titled “Context (not scored)”| Companies House | No confident match on the registered name |
|---|---|
| Real-user speed (CrUX) | Too little traffic to appear in Chrome’s public dataset |
| Lighthouse (lab, mobile) | Performance 22 · accessibility 93 · best practices 96 · SEO 92 — biggest losses: Reduce unused JavaScript; Minimize main-thread work; Avoid large layout shifts |
| Google profile detail | 1 photo · unclaimed · no description · no hours listed |
| Backlinks | 125 referring domains · 289 links · rank 156 · 21 broken |
| Site structure | 24 pages crawled · 27.3 internal links per page · reachable in: contact 1 click, about 1 click, team 1 click, services 1 click · 1% of links use a generic anchor · 7 sitemap pages not reachable by following links |
| Sitemap | 27 URLs listed · declared in robots.txt · newest entry 92 days old · 5 of 5 sampled URLs resolve |
Where to get this fixed
Section titled “Where to get this fixed”Vale Vets’s lowest-scoring pillars among those we publish remediation guidance for:
- AI search presence (0/100) — read generative engine optimisation on getting named by the answer engines this pillar measures. Background on analysing this pillar: ai search presence.
- Visibility (42/100) — read topical authority on why ranking breadth across a sector beats chasing single terms. Background on analysing this pillar: visibility.
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.