Overview
JavaScript and Rate Limiting both elevate Wine & Spirits's active barrier profile
| Value | |
|---|---|
| WAF | 95% |
| Antibot | 24% |
| CAPTCHA | 28% |
| JavaScript | 47% |
| Rate Limiting | 32% |
| TLS | 15% |
WAF leads at 95%. JavaScript (47%) and Rate Limiting (32%) together form a multi-layer active stack — more than most sectors deploy alongside WAF.
Barrier Landscape
JavaScript is Wine & Spirits's dominant secondary barrier by a wide margin
| Value | |
|---|---|
| WAF | 95% |
| Antibot | 24% |
| CAPTCHA | 28% |
| JavaScript | 47% |
| Rate Limiting | 32% |
| TLS | 15% |
| Has robots.txt | 84% |
| Blocks AI crawlers | 14% |
WAF at 95% and JavaScript at 47% together form the sector's main defensive layer. Rate Limiting (32%) follows at a distance. The barrier profile is concentrated rather than broadly spread.
Two-barrier stacks are Wine & Spirits's most common security posture
| % of sites | |
|---|---|
| 0 barriers | 3% |
| 1 barrier | 26% |
| 2 barriers | 30% |
| 3 barriers | 23% |
| 4 barriers | 5% |
| 5 barriers | 12% |
| 6 barriers | 1% |
30% of Wine & Spirits sites carry exactly 2 barriers. 41% stack three or more. 3% carry none — a low share of unprotected sites for this sector.
Simple is the dominant access tier across Wine & Spirits
| Mean recommended tier | |
|---|---|
| All sites | 1.60 |
A mean recommended tier of 1.60 and a median of Simple place Wine & Spirits toward the easier end of the sectors surveyed. 54% of sites are Simple to access; 11% require Moderate or above.
Simple is the dominant tier in Wine & Spirits, but Easy accounts for a significant share
| % of sites | |
|---|---|
| 1 - Simple | 53.5% |
| 2 - Easy | 35.4% |
| 3 - Moderate | 9.1% |
| 4 - Complex | 2% |
| 5 - Advanced | 0% |
Simple (54%) is the most common tier. Simple and Easy together account for 89% of sites, while 9% land at Moderate and 2% at Complex or Advanced.
robots.txt
Most Wine & Spirits sites publish a robots.txt — coverage above the norm
| % of sites | |
|---|---|
| Publish a valid robots.txt | 84% |
84% of Wine & Spirits sites publish a valid robots.txt. The 16% without a file leave crawl policy undefined — a lower gap than the cross-sector average of around 24%.
Wine & Spirits's robots.txt files show moderate engagement with named bot policy
| % of sites | |
|---|---|
| 0 | 22% |
| 1 | 34% |
| 2–4 | 14% |
| 5–9 | 16% |
| 10–15 | 5% |
| 16+ | 9% |
A mean of 12.4 named agents reflects moderate bot-policy investment in Wine & Spirits. 22% of sites name no agents; 9% name 16 or more. The median of 1 suggests a bimodal split.
SEO audit tools lead Wine & Spirits's robots.txt mentions ahead of AI crawlers
| % of sites | |
|---|---|
| AI crawlers | 16% |
| SEO / search indexing | 15% |
| SEO audit tools | 26% |
| Commercial scrapers | 5% |
| Social / content scrapers | 0% |
| Archive / research crawlers | 1% |
| Monitoring / uptime bots | 0% |
SEO audit tools are mentioned by 26% of Wine & Spirits sites — the leading bot category, ahead of AI crawlers at 16%. Figures are percentages of all 100 sites surveyed.
Uniform per-agent rules dominate Wine & Spirits robots.txt files
| % of sites | |
|---|---|
| Uniform per-agent rules | 43% |
| Path-level mixed rules | 35% |
| Allow-only (no Disallow rules) | 3% |
| Mixed AI posture | 3% |
| Blanket Disallow: / | 1% |
Uniform per-agent rules lead at 43%, with path-level mixed rules at 35%. Mixed AI posture (3%) and blanket Disallow (1%) are minimal.
AhrefsBot leads named Disallow rules in Wine & Spirits robots.txt
| Disallowed | Allowed (whitelisted) | |
|---|---|---|
| * | 72% | 36% |
| Googlebot | 8% | 8% |
| AhrefsBot | 15% | — |
| GPTBot | 11% | 4% |
| Yandex | 9% | 3% |
| MJ12bot | 11% | — |
| CCBot | 10% | 1% |
| dotbot | 9% | — |
| ClaudeBot | 7% | 2% |
| Nutch | 9% | — |
| ChatGPT-User | 4% | 4% |
| PetalBot | 7% | 1% |
| Bytespider | 7% | — |
| Google-Extended | 5% | 2% |
| BLEXBot | 6% | — |
| rogerbot | 4% | 2% |
| PerplexityBot | 2% | 4% |
| AdsBot-Google | 2% | 4% |
| CazoodleBot | 5% | — |
| Gigabot | 5% | — |
| OAI-SearchBot | 2% | 3% |
| Googlebot-Image | 1% | 4% |
| AhrefsSiteAudit | 5% | — |
| adsbot-google | 5% | — |
| Exabot | 4% | — |
Values are percentages of all 100 Wine & Spirits sites surveyed. The wildcard (*) leads at 72% Disallow. Among named agents, AhrefsBot leads at 15%, ahead of GPTBot and MJ12bot tied at 11%.
Industry Cohort
Wine & Spirits sits mid-table within the Retail & E-commerce cohort
| WAF | Antibot | CAPTCHA | JavaScript | Rate Limit | TLS | robots.txt | Blocks AI | Tier | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apparel & Fashion | 91% | 21% | 15% | 49% | 54% | 32% | 69% | 4% | Tier 3 |
| Beauty & Cosmetics | 91% | 30% | 36% | 40% | 31% | 30% | 76% | 13% | Tier 2 |
| Computer & Video Games | 94% | 27% | 26% | 44% | 22% | 13% | 81% | 23% | Tier 1 |
| Computer Hardware | 93% | 30% | 20% | 42% | 33% | 15% | 73% | 13% | Tier 2 |
| Computers & Electronics | 86% | 13% | 17% | 34% | 18% | 15% | 73% | 9% | Tier 2 |
| Consumer Electronics | 92% | 27% | 27% | 46% | 29% | 20% | 83% | 9% | Tier 2 |
| Equipment & Supplies | 96% | 27% | 31% | 41% | 26% | 14% | 68% | 8% | Tier 2 |
| Food & Beverages | 92% | 24% | 26% | 51% | 31% | 11% | 68% | 23% | Tier 2 |
| Furniture | 97% | 33% | 28% | 49% | 40% | 21% | 67% | 5% | Tier 2 |
| Jewelry & Luxury | 83% | 28% | 23% | 41% | 42% | 34% | 80% | 9% | Tier 2 |
| Packaging & Containers | 95% | 18% | 35% | 42% | 17% | 11% | 80% | 6% | Tier 1 |
| Retail | 96% | 19% | 15% | 51% | 33% | 20% | 85% | 29% | Tier 2 |
| Sporting Goods | 89% | 26% | 24% | 41% | 49% | 32% | 78% | 7% | Tier 2 |
| Sports | 98% | 11% | 15% | 61% | 23% | 11% | 89% | 33% | Tier 1 |
| Textiles & Nonwovens | 92% | 6% | 38% | 35% | 17% | 14% | 78% | 7% | Tier 1 |
| Tobacco | 98% | 30% | 52% | 38% | 30% | 15% | 76% | 3% | Tier 1 |
| Wholesalers & Liquidators | 94% | 24% | 22% | 44% | 30% | 13% | 80% | 7% | Tier 2 |
| Wine & Spirits | 95% | 24% | 28% | 47% | 32% | 15% | 84% | 14% | Tier 1 |
Across Retail & E-commerce, Wine & Spirits's barrier rates are broadly in line with peers. WAF at 95%, JavaScript at 47%, and AI blocking at 14% all sit near the cohort median. Tier difficulty (mean 1.53) is below the group average.