similar sites

Browse

Pricing AI Report

Tools

🚀Submit Your Site to AIPush your URL to AI search engines 🛰️AI Bot ObservatoryEvery AI crawler & who blocks it 📇AI Crawler Database900+ AI user agents + robots.txt gen ⚖️AI Crawler ComparisonCompare two AI crawlers head-to-head 💰AI Licensing / Pay-Per-CrawlWho can charge AI crawlers — Pay-Per-Crawl 🎛️AI Robots.txt Policy BuilderGoal-based robots.txt (cite me, don't train)🤖AI Crawler CheckerSee which AI bots your site blocks 🎯AI Readiness CheckerScore your site 0–100 for AI 🔗Backlink CheckerWho links to any site — free All tools →

Browse free →

Sites similar to kitariki.de

Kitariki alternatives & similar sites

Eric Singhartinger – Experience Designer — 18 websites ranked by shared content topics, category and on-page relevance.

Each result shows its full tech stack, contacts and AI-policy — not just a name · Browse all sites in Design →

Domain	Match	Title	Country/Lang	Category	AI files	Contact	AI-protection
typoint.com ↗	62 match 2 shared topics	Typoint – Schriftstrategie, Typografie, Publikationsdesign & Beratung	de	design	robotsllmsaihumans	emailphone	none
phormolog.at ↗	62 match 2 shared topics	Industriedesign & Innovation Consulting - Salzburg - Website	Austria de	design Contao	robotsllmsaihumans	emailphone	none
designerr.de ↗	52 match 1 shared topics	Designer – Zoran Karavla	Germany de	design WordPress	robotsllmsaihumans	emailphone	none
ungerdesign.at ↗	51 match 1 shared topics	Unger Design	Austria de	design WordPress WooCommerce	robotsllmsaihumans	emailphone	none
pxpp.cloud ↗	51 match 1 shared topics	Pixel & Paper – Design Studio	de	design WordPress	robotsllmsaihumans	email phone	none
johannes-merkt.com ↗	51 match 1 shared topics	Johannes Merkt – Product Designer	de	design WordPress	robotsllmsaihumans	emailphone	none
danielssongraphics.de ↗	51 match 1 shared topics	Anna Danielsson – Graphic Designer	Germany de	design WordPress	robotsllmsaihumans	emailphone	none
cube-consulting.biz ↗	50 match 1 shared topics	cube DESIGN	de	design WordPress	robotsllmsaihumans	emailphone	none
cube-design.de ↗	50 match 1 shared topics	cube DESIGN	Germany de	design WordPress	robotsllmsaihumans	emailphone	none
cute-design.de ↗	50 match 1 shared topics	Cute Design	Germany de	design WordPress WooCommerce	robotsllmsaihumans	emailphone	none
designer-ina.de ↗	50 match 1 shared topics	DesignerIna	Germany de	design	robotsllmsaihumans	emailphone	none
design-hansen.de ↗	50 match 1 shared topics	AH-Design – Corporate Design	Germany de	design WordPress Spree Commerce	robotsllmsaihumans	emailphone	none
a-kaiserswerth.com ↗	50 match 1 shared topics	Alice Lydia Kaiserswerth – Designer – Thinker – Maker	de	design WordPress	robotsllmsaihumans	emailphone	none
gutpunkt.com ↗	50 match 1 shared topics	gutpunkt – DesignLab	de	design WordPress	robotsllmsaihumans	emailphone	none
pfusterer.at ↗	50 match 1 shared topics	pfusterer – design architektur pfusterer	Austria de	design WordPress	robotsllmsaihumans	emailphone	none
csiebauer.de ↗	50 match 1 shared topics	Claudia siebauer – Grafikdesign	Germany de	design WordPress	robotsllmsaihumans	emailphone	none
creativedesign-jana.de ↗	50 match 1 shared topics	Creative Design – Jana Hofmann	Germany de	design WordPress	robotsllmsaihumans	emailphone	none
designfoerster.de ↗	50 match 1 shared topics	designförster – Peggy Förster	Germany de	design	robotsllmsaihumans	emailphone	none

How the match score works

Each match is a 0–100 similarity score — the higher it is, the more two sites resemble one another. It’s computed automatically from our own crawl data (never from what a site says about itself) by combining several independent signals, so a high score means several of them point the same way:

shared topics how many of the same fine‑grained content topics (IAB sub‑categories) both sites cover — the main signal.
same category whether they sit in the same business / industry category.
content & title how closely their titles and page descriptions line up in wording and meaning.

No single signal decides the result — they’re blended together. Treat the score as a way to rank candidates rather than an absolute percentage; the chips on each result show which signals contributed.