- Visibility14
- Citations2
- Sentiment79
- Site quality80
- AI readiness36
AI assistants name BitGo in 10% of answers, which is the same as the typical company in the technology sector. Its overall score is 37 out of 100, ranking 654th out of 2,047 companies. The BitGo website passes 5 out of 14 technical checks for AI tool readiness.
We asked 15 unbranded questions about the technology market: none named BitGo. AI assistants named it in 6 of 60 answers (10.0%). The typical technology company is named in 10.0% of answers. By how often it is named, BitGo ranks 132 of 273 in its sector.
Every dot is a company in the study. Hover one to see it; click to open its report.
This companySame sectorEvery other companyNever named
Five parts, each scored out of 100.
How often AI assistants name the company
How often AI uses the company's own website as a source
How positively AI describes the company
How well built the website's own pages are
How easily AI tools can read and use the website
Visibility is calculated from the answers on this page. How the score is built.
273 companies in this sector. The line on each bar is the typical company.
An answer that names the company
“How can a fintech company securely enable crypto trading and settlement for its users?”
Short answer
Use a layered approach: outsource custody/execution to regulated institutional providers or build an in‑house custody layer using hardened key‑management (MPC/HSM + cold storage), combine on‑chain settlement where appropriate with off‑chain accounting/clearing, and implement full compliance/controls (KYC/AML, reconciliation, insurance, incident response). See details and an implementation checklist below. (nyca.com)
Why this matters (big risks)
Key compromise, insider theft, bugs in signing or sett …
The AI’s answer as we received it, shortened and not checked for accuracy.
How the mentions in these answers were split between this company and its rivals
Answers naming it, out of answers received
What this website publishes for an AI agent to read, use and buy from, on a scale of six levels.
- 0
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
Level 0: Not yet agent-ready. Agents struggle to find basic information about the site.
- 2 of robots.txt, Sitemap, Link headers
Show every check, for your technical teamHide the checks
- study: 92.0%robots.txtPassed
A valid robots.txt with crawl rules at the site root.
- study: 86.8%SitemapNot met
Serve an XML sitemap and reference it from robots.txt.
- study: 0.3%Link headersNot met
Send Link headers such as rel="api-catalog" or rel="describedby" on the homepage.
- study: 5.5%DNS for AI DiscoveryNot present
Advertise agent endpoints with SVCB records under _agents.
- study: 1.9%Markdown negotiationPassed
Requests sent with Accept: text/markdown receive a markdown version of the page.
- study: 25.1%llms.txtPassed
An llms.txt that tells language models what the site offers.
- study: 93.4%AI bot rulesPartly met
Add explicit robots.txt groups for the main AI crawlers.
- study: 1.4%Content SignalsPassed
Content-Signal lines in robots.txt declaring search, AI input and AI training preferences.
- study: 0.2%Web Bot AuthNot present
Only relevant if you run your own agents or crawlers: publish a signing key directory.
- study: 0.3%API CatalogNot met
List public APIs in a linkset at /.well-known/api-catalog.
- study: 11.8%OAuth discoveryNot met
Publish OpenID Connect or OAuth server metadata under /.well-known.
- study: 10.3%OAuth Protected ResourceNot met
Serve protected resource metadata at /.well-known/oauth-protected-resource.
- study: 0.0%auth.mdNot met
Publish an auth.md describing how agents sign in.
- study: 0.2%MCP Server CardNot met
Offer an MCP server and publish its server card under /.well-known.
- study: 0.1%A2A Agent CardNot met
Publish an agent card at /.well-known/agent-card.json.
- study: 0.2%Agent SkillsNot met
Publish a skills index with the main tasks agents can do.
- study: 33.7%WebMCPCould not check
Register key actions such as search or cart as WebMCP tools.
- study: 0.1%ARD manifestNot met
Publish an ai-catalog.json listing every agent interface.
Score 46 of 100 · 97% of checks could run · checked on October 5, 2026 · bitgo.com · 2,047 companies scanned
5 of 14 passed. This list is for your technical team. The percentage is how many companies in the study pass each check.
These 14 checks ran during the audit and are what the AI readiness part of the overall score counts. The scan above ran later and is stricter on Link headers and Markdown, so a check can pass here and not there.
Show the 14 checksHide them
- Passedrobots.txt publishedstudy: 85.0%
- Not metXML sitemapstudy: 73.2%
- Not metHTTP Link headers (RFC 8288)study: 29.0%
- PassedMarkdown content negotiationstudy: 8.3%
- Passedllms.txt publishedstudy: 21.7%
- PassedToken budget (page weight)study: 95.2%
- PassedExplicit AI bot rulesstudy: 13.0%
- Not metAPI Catalog (.well-known/api-catalog)study: 0.2%
- Not metOAuth Authorization Server discoverystudy: 10.1%
- Not metOAuth Protected Resource discoverystudy: 9.3%
- Not metMCP Server Cardstudy: 0.0%
- Not metA2A Agent Cardstudy: 0.0%
- Not metWebMCP toolsstudy: 4.2%
- Not metAgent Skills declaredstudy: 0.0%
This website sets rules for 18 AI crawlers by name. All others follow its general rules.
- GPTBot*blocked
- ClaudeBot*blocked
- Anthropic-AI*blocked
- Google-Extended*blocked
- Applebot-Extended*blocked
- Meta-ExternalAgent*blocked
- FacebookBotpartly
- Bytespider*blocked
- CCBot*blocked
- Diffbot*blocked
- Omgilibot*blocked
- OAI-SearchBot*allowed
- Claude-SearchBot*allowed
- PerplexityBot*allowed
- Applebot*allowed
- Amazonbot*blocked
- YouBotpartly
- ChatGPT-User*allowed
- Claude-User*allowed
- Perplexity-User*allowed
- DuckAssistBotpartly
- MistralAI-Userpartly
Read from the website’s own rules file (robots.txt). An asterisk marks a crawler the file names. The rest follow its general rules. “Partly” means only some pages are blocked.
How many times each website was listed as a source in these answers
In the study as Large private companies.
- What should institutions do if they experience access issues with their digital asset custody accounts?
- How can a fintech company securely enable crypto trading and settlement for its users?
- How does institutional crypto staking differ from direct staking platforms?
- Best practices for secure institutional management of cryptocurrencies in the US
- What features should financial institutions look for in a secure digital asset infrastructure partner?
- What are the top-rated digital asset custody solutions for institutional investors?
- What are the main advantages of institutional stablecoin solutions for corporate treasuries?
- Typical pricing models for enterprise-level digital asset custody in the United States
- Are there extra fees for staking and trading services offered by institutional digital asset infrastructure providers?
- Alternatives to using a centralized digital asset custody platform for financial institutions
- What other options exist for enterprises seeking compliant stablecoin solutions besides infrastructure providers?
- How do I know when to upgrade to professional-level digital asset custody solutions for my business?
- Digital asset custody vs self-custody: Which is safer for financial institutions?
- Is it worth using a third-party digital asset infrastructure provider for enterprise-level crypto services?
- How can fintech platforms address compliance concerns when integrating digital asset infrastructure services?
Columns, left to right: OpenAI, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini. The AI assistants often disagree. Across the study, on 40% of the questions where a company is named, only one of the four names it.
A badge of this result that you can show on your own website. Copy the code below.
<a href="https://aeo-audit.rezolve.com/us/bitgo.com"><img src="https://aeo-audit.rezolve.com/us/badges/bitgo.com.svg" alt="Overall score 37 of 100, US AI Visibility Study 2026" width="280" height="64"></a>