The agent successfully assembled a comprehensive explanation of Elqo from the homepage and pricing page, supplemented by a comparison article the site itself published against Cornerstone. Site navigation was sparse — several standard feature/use-case routes returned 404s — forcing reliance on the homepage's dense feature list and one published comparison to cover differentiation.

• ›The homepage ([1]) was information-dense and content-bearing, covering what Elqo does, who it's for, features, and core value proposition in one fetch — a well-designed entry point.
• ›Pricing page ([2]) was direct and transparent about their usage-based model (seat caps + MAU), eliminating need for guessing or model inference on that topic.
• ›Site navigation was weak: /why-elqo, /how-it-works, /features, and /use-cases all returned 404, indicating either a lean site structure or broken routing. The agent had to rely on what the homepage explicitly stated.
• ›The Cornerstone comparison ([8]) was the only third-party content-bearing fetch; web search ([7]) surfaced competitor names but the agent did not fetch their pages, relying instead on model knowledge to describe Poised, Yoodli, and eloquAI as alternatives.
• ›The agent explicitly called out three content gaps (AI scoring methodology, customer proof points, pricing transparency for budgeting) — appropriate acknowledgment of what the site did not publish, rather than inferring from model memory.