Of 60 answers

The most named companies in the study, and S&P 500 financials, with how many of their 60 AI answers named them.

SWIFT47/60TRANSUNION46/60EXPERIAN42/60COINSTAR41/60NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION41/60ZELLE41/60BLOOMBERG L.P.38/60TRADINGVIEW38/60BANCO POPULAR DE PUERTO RICO37/60PAYPAL37/60VENMO37/60CHEXSYSTEMS33/60EQUIFAX33/60MORNINGSTAR32/60S&P GLOBAL31/60ALPACA MARKETS30/60COINBASE30/60PINWHEEL29/60STRIPE29/60XERO29/60ACORNS28/60AFFIRM28/60PAYFAST (PAYGATE)28/60PAYONEER28/60INTERACTIVE BROKERS26/60CHARLES SCHWAB19/60THE HARTFORD9/60MOODY'S21/60CME GROUP19/60ACCENTURE11/60CHUBB10/60MORGAN STANLEY6/60AMERICAN EXPRESS14/60SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL12/60FACTSET20/60NASDAQ19/60ALLSTATE11/60WELLS FARGO18/60PAYCHEX10/60ARES MANAGEMENT3/60
Rezolve Ai
MethodDemo
Back to the study
AI visibility statementFinance AI Visibility Study 2026Issued October 14, 2026
Account holder

APIContext

apicontext.com

Banking and fintech infrastructureFinancial technology and data

Money20/20 attendee

Statement period
October 9 to 14, 2026
when the AI assistants were asked
Account no.
848 of 2,219
its rank by overall score
Place in its category
115th of 315 fintech infrastructure companies
Closing balance

Named in

0of 60, its tower is dark

by 0 of 4 assistants

Statement note

What this means for APIContext

AI assistants do not name this fintech infrastructure company in any of their 60 answers, whereas AI assistants name the typical company in its sector in 1.7% of answers. Its overall score is 31 out of 100, ranking 848th of 2,219 companies. Its website passes 8 of 14 technical checks for AI tool readiness.

We asked 15 unbranded questions about its market, so no question mentioned APIContext by name. AI assistants named it in none of the 60 answers. Counting only how often it is named, it ranks 334th of 574 in its sector. The typical financial technology and data company is named in 1.7% of answers.

Named fewer than three times in total. Read this as a sign that AI assistants rarely bring this company up, not as an exact comparison with its peers.

Overall score
31Overall score
  • Visibility0
  • Citations0
  • Sentiment50
  • Site quality87
  • AI readiness64
Summary of account
Named by AI in
0.0%
0 of 60 answers
Share of mentions
0.0%
of the mentions of it and its 5 peers
AI readiness
8/14
technical checks passed. Typical for its sector: 4
Rank in its sector
237 of 574
by overall score, where the typical financial technology and data company scores 29

Get the full report on APIContext as a PDF

Enter your work email to download it.

We’ll use your email to follow up about this report. Privacy policy

Line itemsSection 01

Every question, and where the company came up

APIContext came up on 0 of 15 questions. Open any window to read that answer.

  1. 01Alternatives to full customer journey simulation tools for API monitoring tasks?0/4
  2. 02When should engineering teams use customer journey simulation for API monitoring?0/4
  3. 03Are full-journey simulated API checks a worthwhile investment for reducing production outages?0/4
  4. 04API observability tools vs standard uptime monitors — what's the difference in features and data provided?0/4
  5. 05What steps should I take if my APM reports green but users still face API errors?0/4
  6. 06How do I monitor API availability and latency across different points in the request path?0/4
  7. 07How do synthetic monitoring checks help expose API blind spots missed by traditional APM?0/4
  8. 08What are the best synthetic monitoring platforms for simulating full API customer journeys?0/4
  9. 09What are some open-source alternatives to commercial API observability platforms?0/4
  10. 10Is investing in a dedicated API synthetic monitoring platform worth it for small engineering teams?0/4
  11. 11How can I identify hidden reliability issues in multi-hop API workflows?0/4
  12. 12How does outside-in contract verification compare to internal API monitoring methods?0/4
  13. 13How can I get end-to-end OTEL traces for every API monitoring check in my stack?0/4
  14. 14What is the typical cost range for API observability and synthetic monitoring solutions in the US?0/4
  15. 15Are there cost-effective options for simulating API interactions across cloud, edge, and origin?0/4
Total namedOpenAI: 0/15Claude: 0/15Perplexity: 0/15Gemini: 0/15All assistants: 0/60
named the companyanswered without naming itdid not answer

Columns, left to right: OpenAI, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini. Across the study, on 50% of the questions where a company is named, only one AI assistant names it.

Transaction detailSection 02

What Claude actually said

The company is not named in this answer

Claudedid not name the company

“Alternatives to full customer journey simulation tools for API monitoring tasks?”

I'll search for information about alternatives to full customer journey simulation tools specifically for API monitoring purposes.Based on the search results, here are practical alternatives to full customer journey simulation tools for API monitoring:

Lightweight Synthetic Monitoring Tools

Sematext Synthetics is a lightweight monitoring tool that combines browser-based tests with API checks in a simple, affordable platform, making it suitable for teams that don't need comprehensive journey mapping.

Checkly is a modern synthetic monitoring platform built for developers that combi …

The AI’s answer as we received it, shortened and not checked for accuracy.

PayeesSection 03

Where the mentions went

The companies these answers named, and how the mentions were split between this company and its peers.

Named instead

CompanyTimes named
  1. 01
    Checkly
    9
  2. 02
    Assertible
    3

Share of mentions

CompanyShare
  1. Checkly
    64.3%
  2. Assertible
    28.6%
  3. Runscope (by Blazemeter/Perforce)
    7.1%
  4. APIContext
    0.0%
  5. APIToolkit
    0.0%
  6. Sauce Labs (API Testing & Monitoring)
    0.0%
ReferrersSection 04

Websites the AI used as sources

How many times each website was listed as a source in these answers

  1. 01
    dotcom-monitor.com
    23
  2. 02
    logicmonitor.com
    13
  3. 03
    middleware.io
    10
  4. 04
    newrelic.com
    7
  5. 05
    zuplo.com
    6
  6. 06
    openobserve.ai
    6
  7. 07
    uptrace.dev
    5
  8. 08
    uptrends.com
    5
  9. 09
    dev.to
    5
  10. 10
    uptimerobot.com
    5

APIContext is in the study as a fintech infrastructure company.

By assistantSection 05

Which AI assistants named the company

Answers naming it, out of answers received

Claude
0/15
Gemini
0/15
OpenAI
0/15
Perplexity
0/15
Market comparisonSection 06

How APIContext compares with all 2,219 companies

Every tower is a company in the study, taller for a higher overall score and lit where AI assistants named it. Its own group stays lit. Hover a tower to see it, and click to open it.

What makes up the score

Each part is scored out of 100.

Visibility
0

How often AI assistants name the company, and how that compares with its peers

Citations
0

How often AI uses the company's own website as a source

Sentiment
50

How positively AI describes the company

Site quality
87

How well built the website's own pages are

AI readiness
64

How easily AI tools can read and use the website

Visibility is calculated from the answers on this page. How the score is built.

Against its sectorSection 07

Compared with financial technology and data companies

574 companies in this sector. The gold tick on each bar is the typical company.

Overall score
31
Ranks 237 of 574. Typical company: 29
Named in answers
0.0%
Ranks 334 of 574. Typical company: 1.7%
AI readiness
64
Ranks 3 of 574. Typical company: 29
Against its categorySection 08

Compared with fintech infrastructure companies

315 companies in this category. The gold tick on each bar is the typical company.

Overall score
31
Ranks 104 of 315. Typical company: 28
Named in answers
0.0%
Ranks 168 of 315. Typical company: 1.7%
AI readiness
64
Ranks 2 of 315. Typical company: 29
AI agentsSection 09

Ready for AI agents

What this website publishes for an AI agent to read, use and pay through, on a scale of six levels.

  1. 0
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5

Level 2: Bot-aware. Explicit AI bot rules and declared Content Signals.

To reach level 3:
  • Markdown negotiation
Can an AI agent check out here?

Not by itself. APIContext publishes none of the agent payment protocols we look for. An agent would have to click through the website like a person.

Agent payment protocols
  • x402Not present
  • MPPNot present
  • AP2Not present
  • ACPNot present
  • UCPNot present
Interfaces for AI agents
  • MCP Server CardNot present
  • A2A Agent CardNot present
  • Agent SkillsPublished
  • API CatalogPublished
  • llms.txtPublished
  • WebMCPCould not check
Show every check, for your technical team
Discoverability
100 of 100
  • robots.txtPassed

    A valid robots.txt with crawl rules at the site root.

    study: 86.1%
  • SitemapPassed

    An XML sitemap listing the pages, ideally referenced from robots.txt.

    study: 87.9%
  • Link headersPassed

    HTTP Link headers on the homepage that point agents at machine readable resources.

    study: 1.5%
  • DNS for AI DiscoveryNot present

    Advertise agent endpoints with SVCB records under _agents.

    study: 4.3%
Content accessibility
50 of 100
  • Markdown negotiationNot met

    Return a markdown version when asked with Accept: text/markdown, for example at the CDN.

    study: 6.2%
  • llms.txtPassed

    An llms.txt that tells language models what the site offers.

    study: 31.0%
Bot access control
100 of 100
  • AI bot rulesPassed

    Explicit robots.txt rules for AI crawlers such as GPTBot, ClaudeBot and PerplexityBot.

    study: 92.7%
  • Content SignalsPassed

    Content-Signal lines in robots.txt declaring search, AI input and AI training preferences.

    study: 2.3%
  • Web Bot AuthNot present

    Only relevant if you run your own agents or crawlers: publish a signing key directory.

    study: 0.3%
APIs, auth and MCP
30 of 100
  • API CatalogPassed

    A linkset at /.well-known/api-catalog listing APIs, specs and docs.

    study: 1.3%
  • OAuth discoveryNot met

    Publish OpenID Connect or OAuth server metadata under /.well-known.

    study: 6.3%
  • OAuth Protected ResourceNot met

    Serve protected resource metadata at /.well-known/oauth-protected-resource.

    study: 5.3%
  • 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: 0.8%
  • A2A Agent CardNot met

    Publish an agent card at /.well-known/agent-card.json.

    study: 0.2%
  • Agent SkillsPassed

    A skills index at /.well-known/agent-skills/index.json that agents can load.

    study: 1.0%
  • WebMCPCould not check

    Register key actions such as search or cart as WebMCP tools.

    study: 0.0%
  • ARD manifestNot met

    Publish an ai-catalog.json listing every agent interface.

    study: 0.2%

Score 66 of 100 · 97% of checks could run · checked on October 9, 2026 · apicontext.com · 2,200 companies scanned

See how every company did, and how this was measured.

AI readinessSection 10

The checks behind the AI readiness score

8 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 checks

Discoverability

  • Passedrobots.txt publishedstudy: 85.1%
  • PassedXML sitemapstudy: 79.4%
  • PassedHTTP Link headers (RFC 8288)study: 42.5%

Content Accessibility

  • PassedMarkdown content negotiationstudy: 7.4%
  • Passedllms.txt publishedstudy: 28.1%
  • PassedToken budget (page weight)study: 97.3%

Bot Access Control

  • PassedExplicit AI bot rulesstudy: 11.5%

API / Auth / MCP

  • PassedAPI Catalog (.well-known/api-catalog)study: 1.1%
  • Not metOAuth Authorization Server discoverystudy: 5.2%
  • Not metOAuth Protected Resource discoverystudy: 4.6%
  • Not metMCP Server Cardstudy: 0.2%
  • Not metA2A Agent Cardstudy: 0.0%
  • Not metWebMCP toolsstudy: 0.3%
  • Not metAgent Skills declaredstudy: 0.1%
AI crawlersSection 11

What AI crawlers may read (robots.txt)

This website sets rules for 11 AI crawlers by name. All others follow its general rules.

Training AI

  • GPTBot*allowed
  • ClaudeBotpartly
  • Anthropic-AI*allowed
  • Google-Extended*allowed
  • Applebot-Extended*allowed
  • Meta-ExternalAgent*allowed
  • FacebookBotpartly
  • Bytespider*allowed
  • CCBot*allowed
  • Diffbotpartly
  • Omgilibotpartly

AI search

  • OAI-SearchBotpartly
  • Claude-SearchBotpartly
  • PerplexityBot*allowed
  • Applebotpartly
  • Amazonbot*allowed
  • YouBotpartly

Answering questions

  • ChatGPT-User*allowed
  • Claude-Userpartly
  • Perplexity-Userpartly
  • DuckAssistBot*allowed
  • 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.

Take it with you

Get the full report on APIContext as a PDF

Every number on this page in a PDF you can keep and share with your team. Enter your work email to download it.

We’ll use your email to follow up about this report. Privacy policy

End of statement
All 2,219 companiesHow we measured this
Next step

Want AI assistants to name your company?

Book a 30-minute demo to see Rezolve Ai in action and what it can do for your business.

Request a demo