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

Atomic Financial

atomicfi.com

Banking and fintech infrastructureFinancial technology and data

Money20/20 attendee

Statement period
October 9 and 10, 2026
when the AI assistants were asked
Account no.
1,446 of 2,219
its rank by overall score
Place in its category
220th of 315 fintech infrastructure companies
Closing balance

Named in

3of 60 answers

by 3 of 4 assistants

Statement note

What this means for Atomic Financial

AI assistants name Atomic Financial in 5% of answers, more often than the typical company in its sector at 1.7%. Its overall score is 26 out of 100, ranking 1,446th of 2,219 companies. The website passes 1 of 14 technical checks for AI tool readiness.

We asked 15 unbranded questions about its market, so no question mentioned Atomic Financial by name. AI assistants named it in 3 of the 60 answers. Counting only how often it is named, it ranks 192nd of 574 in its sector. The typical financial technology and data company is named in 1.7% of answers.

Overall score
26Overall score
  • Visibility10
  • Citations0
  • Sentiment50
  • Site quality70
  • AI readiness7
Summary of account
Named by AI in
5.0%
3 of 60 answers
Share of mentions
25.0%
of the mentions of it and its 5 peers
AI readiness
1/14
technical checks passed. Typical for its sector: 4
Rank in its sector
418 of 574
by overall score, where the typical financial technology and data company scores 29

Get the full report on Atomic Financial 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

Atomic Financial came up on 1 of 15 questions. Open any window to read that answer.

  1. 01Is there a price difference between bill presentment and payment switching features in banking platforms?0/4
  2. 02Other ways for banks to offer pay-now bill payment without embedded infrastructure0/4
  3. 03Common issues banks face when integrating direct deposit switching into their digital platforms0/4
  4. 04How can credit unions use subscription management to reduce churn?0/4
  5. 05What are the top embedded banking platforms for financial institutions to enhance digital experiences?0/4
  6. 06Direct deposit switching tools vs subscription management platforms for financial institutions: key differences?0/4
  7. 07Are bill optimization features necessary for improving digital banking engagement?0/4
  8. 08Best US-based embedded banking infrastructure options for credit unions seeking next-gen features0/4
  9. 09How to resolve errors during recurring payment detection in embedded banking solutions0/4
  10. 10What are effective strategies for fintechs to boost customer engagement through payment method switching tools?0/4
  11. 11Is it worth investing in embedded banking infrastructure to grow direct deposits?0/4
  12. 12Typical pricing models for embedded banking platforms used by financial institutions0/4
  13. 13Best options for fintechs to enable direct deposit switching for customers in the US3/4
  14. 14Alternatives to embedded banking platforms for enabling consumer authentication in fintech apps0/4
  15. 15How does embedded banking infrastructure differ from traditional banking APIs for fintechs?0/4
Total namedOpenAI: 0/15Claude: 1/15Perplexity: 1/15Gemini: 1/15All assistants: 3/60
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 Perplexity actually said

An answer that names the company

Perplexitynamed the company

“Best options for fintechs to enable direct deposit switching for customers in the US”

The strongest US options are Pinwheel, Mastercard Deposit Switch, Atomic, and ClickSWITCH. For most fintechs, Pinwheel is the best starting point if speed, broad payroll coverage, and a credential-less experience matter; Mastercard is a strong alternative for institutions already using its Open Finance ecosystem.

Leading options

Provider · Best fit · Key strengths · Main considerations

Pinwheel Direct Deposit Switch / Switch Kit · Digital-first fintechs, neobanks, lenders · API-based and AI-enabled switching; customers generally do not need to log i …

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.

Also named

CompanyTimes named
  1. 01
    Plaid
    4
  2. 02
    Pinwheel
    3

Share of mentions

CompanyShare
  1. Plaid
    41.7%
  2. Pinwheel
    33.3%
  3. Atomic Financial
    25.0%
  4. Argyle
    0.0%
  5. Finch
    0.0%
  6. Astra
    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
    pinwheelapi.com
    14
  2. 02
    openbankingtracker.com
    9
  3. 03
    stripe.com
    7
  4. 04
    sdk.finance
    6
  5. 05
    mastercard.com
    6
  6. 06
    alloy.com
    5
  7. 07
    backbase.com
    4
  8. 08
    wallester.com
    4
  9. 09
    zigpoll.com
    4
  10. 10
    connectpay.com
    3

Atomic Financial 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
1/15
Gemini
1/15
Perplexity
1/15
OpenAI
0/15
Market comparisonSection 06

How Atomic Financial 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
10

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
70

How well built the website's own pages are

AI readiness
7

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
26
Ranks 418 of 574. Typical company: 29
Named in answers
5.0%
Ranks 192 of 574. Typical company: 1.7%
AI readiness
7
Ranks 533 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
26
Ranks 220 of 315. Typical company: 28
Named in answers
5.0%
Ranks 85 of 315. Typical company: 1.7%
AI readiness
7
Ranks 293 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.

This website turned most of our scan away, so it has no level. Only 16% of the checks could run. That reflects the website’s rules for automated visitors, and an AI agent arriving by itself meets the same rules.

Can an AI agent check out here?

We could not tell. The website turned away our requests for the files an agent would read. An agent arriving by itself is turned away the same way.

Agent payment protocols
  • x402Not present
  • MPPCould not check
  • AP2Not present
  • ACPCould not check
  • UCPCould not check
Interfaces for AI agents
  • MCP Server CardCould not check
  • A2A Agent CardCould not check
  • Agent SkillsCould not check
  • API CatalogCould not check
  • llms.txtCould not check
  • WebMCPCould not check
Show every check, for your technical team
Discoverability
0 of 100
  • robots.txtCould not check

    Publish a valid robots.txt with crawl rules and a Sitemap line.

    study: 86.1%
  • SitemapCould not check

    Serve an XML sitemap and reference it from robots.txt.

    study: 87.9%
  • Link headersNot met

    Send Link headers such as rel="api-catalog" or rel="describedby" on the homepage.

    study: 1.5%
  • DNS for AI DiscoveryNot present

    Advertise agent endpoints with SVCB records under _agents.

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

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

    study: 6.2%
  • llms.txtCould not check

    Publish an llms.txt with a short summary and the key links.

    study: 31.0%
Bot access control
  • AI bot rulesCould not check

    Add explicit robots.txt groups for the main AI crawlers.

    study: 92.7%
  • Content SignalsCould not check

    Add a Content-Signal line for search, ai-input and ai-train to robots.txt.

    study: 2.3%
  • Web Bot AuthCould not check

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

    study: 0.3%
APIs, auth and MCP
  • API CatalogCould not check

    List public APIs in a linkset at /.well-known/api-catalog.

    study: 1.3%
  • OAuth discoveryCould not check

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

    study: 6.3%
  • OAuth Protected ResourceCould not check

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

    study: 5.3%
  • auth.mdCould not check

    Publish an auth.md describing how agents sign in.

    study: 0.2%
  • MCP Server CardCould not check

    Offer an MCP server and publish its server card under /.well-known.

    study: 0.8%
  • A2A Agent CardCould not check

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

    study: 0.2%
  • Agent SkillsCould not check

    Publish a skills index with the main tasks agents can do.

    study: 1.0%
  • WebMCPCould not check

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

    study: 0.0%
  • ARD manifestCould not check

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

    study: 0.2%

Score 0 of 100 · 16% of checks could run · checked on October 9, 2026 · atomicfi.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

1 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

  • Not metrobots.txt publishedstudy: 85.1%
  • Not metXML sitemapstudy: 79.4%
  • Not metHTTP Link headers (RFC 8288)study: 42.5%

Content Accessibility

  • Not metMarkdown content negotiationstudy: 7.4%
  • Not metllms.txt publishedstudy: 28.1%
  • PassedToken budget (page weight)study: 97.3%

Bot Access Control

  • Not metExplicit AI bot rulesstudy: 11.5%

API / Auth / MCP

  • Not metAPI 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%
Take it with you

Get the full report on Atomic Financial 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

ShareSection 11

Share this result

Overall score 26 of 100 badge for Atomic Financial

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/finance/atomicfi.com"><img src="https://aeo-audit.rezolve.com/finance/badges/atomicfi.com.svg" alt="Overall score 26 of 100, Finance AI Visibility Study 2026" width="280" height="64"></a>
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