Docs platforms
One row per docs platform we can identify. Every mean is over the hosts we could measure, and the share we could measure sits beside it.
A cohort we could measure on fewer than 80% of its hosts is shown but never ranked. The reason is never the score: a mean over a tenth of a cohort is not comparable with a mean over a census.
Ranked
| platform | hosts | measured | share | mean | sd |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| mintlify | 1187 | 1137 | 95.8% | 63.2 | 10.4 |
| fern | 127 | 123 | 96.9% | 55.2 | 9.5 |
| gitbook | 818 | 810 | 99.0% | 44.6 | 8.4 |
| docusaurus | 1039 | 1018 | 98.0% | 38.9 | 10.9 |
| readme | 1058 | 1032 | 97.5% | 27.3 | 8.4 |
Method
Of 26343 sites in our corpus, 4229 run a platform our fingerprint table recognises under rubric v7. Of the remaining 22114, 5814 have no valid run under v7 at all — their platform is unknown to us rather than unrecognised — and the rest were scanned and matched nothing. The table has five entries and misses MkDocs, Redocly, Slate and Stoplight, so that remainder describes the table, not those sites.
Association, not causation. These are the sites we scanned on each platform, not a controlled comparison, and nothing here supports "move to platform X and gain N points".
Measured under rubric v7, among the sites in our corpus — not a sample of the web.
Snapshot taken 2026-09-25 14:25 UTC