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

CIFC

cifc.com

Asset managersInvesting and wealth

Money20/20 attendee

Statement period
October 9, 2026
when the AI assistants were asked
Account no.
1,904 of 2,219
its rank by overall score
Place in its category
16th of 20 asset managers
Closing balance

Named in

0of 60, its tower is dark

by 0 of 4 assistants

Statement note

What this means for CIFC

AI assistants do not name this asset manager in any of their 60 answers, while the typical company in its sector is named in 0.8% of answers. Its overall score is 24 out of 100, ranking 1,904th of 2,219 companies. Its website passes 3 of 14 technical checks for AI tool readiness.

We asked 15 unbranded questions about its market, so no question mentioned CIFC by name. AI assistants named it in none of the 60 answers. Counting only how often it is named, it ranks 120th of 238 in its sector. The typical investing and wealth company is named in 0.8% 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
24Overall score
  • Visibility0
  • Citations0
  • Sentiment50
  • Site quality73
  • AI readiness21
Summary of account
Named by AI in
0.0%
0 of 60 answers
Share of mentions
0.0%
no answer named it or its 5 peers
AI readiness
3/14
technical checks passed. Typical for its sector: 4
Rank in its sector
202 of 238
by overall score, where the typical investing and wealth company scores 28

Get the full report on CIFC 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

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

  1. 01Are separately managed accounts better than commingled funds for credit investments?0/4
  2. 02How can credit managers mitigate risks during elevated market volatility?0/4
  3. 03Which types of credit investment solutions are commonly used by US pension funds?0/4
  4. 04What should investors do if a credit asset manager underperforms benchmarks for multiple quarters?0/4
  5. 05How can tailored credit solutions be used to meet specific liability-driven investment (LDI) needs?0/4
  6. 06Are performance fees common on private credit fund offerings for large investors?0/4
  7. 07What role do research-driven credit strategies play in constructing institutional portfolios?0/4
  8. 08What are some alternatives to traditional credit asset management for fixed income exposure?0/4
  9. 09Is it worthwhile for institutional investors to allocate to opportunistic credit strategies in the current market environment?0/4
  10. 10What are typical fee structures for US-based credit asset management firms serving institutional clients?0/4
  11. 11Which non-traditional fixed income strategies might be considered instead of direct lending?0/4
  12. 12What are some sustainable or ESG-focused options within the credit asset management industry?0/4
  13. 13How do senior secured loan funds compare to high-yield credit funds for risk-adjusted returns?0/4
  14. 14Direct lending vs structured credit: which is more suitable for portfolio diversification?0/4
  15. 15What are the best credit asset management strategies for institutional investors looking for income generation?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.

PayeesSection 02

Where the mentions went

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

Share of mentions

CompanyShare
  1. CIFC
    0.0%
  2. Oak Hill Advisors
    0.0%
  3. GoldenTree Asset Management
    0.0%
  4. Crescent Capital Group
    0.0%
  5. Ares Management – Credit Division
    0.0%
  6. Apollo Global Management – Credit
    0.0%
ReferrersSection 03

Websites the AI used as sources

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

  1. 01
    blackrock.com
    23
  2. 02
    morganstanley.com
    15
  3. 03
    invesco.com
    11
  4. 04
    pimco.com
    9
  5. 05
    russellinvestments.com
    9
  6. 06
    ssga.com
    7
  7. 07
    kkr.com
    7
  8. 08
    callan.com
    6
  9. 09
    smartasset.com
    6
  10. 10
    ubs.com
    6

CIFC is in the study as an asset manager.

By assistantSection 04

Which AI assistants named the company

Answers naming it, out of answers received

Gemini
0/15
Perplexity
0/15
Claude
0/15
OpenAI
0/15
Market comparisonSection 05

How CIFC 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
73

How well built the website's own pages are

AI readiness
21

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 06

Compared with investing and wealth companies

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

Overall score
24
Ranks 202 of 238. Typical company: 28
Named in answers
0.0%
Ranks 120 of 238. Typical company: 0.8%
AI readiness
21
Ranks 140 of 238. Typical company: 29
Against its categorySection 07

Compared with asset managers

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

Overall score
24
Ranks 16 of 20. Typical company: 28
Named in answers
0.0%
Ranks 9 of 20. Typical company: 0.0%
AI readiness
21
Ranks 11 of 20. Typical company: 25
AI agentsSection 08

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 0: Not yet agent-ready. Agents struggle to find basic information about the site.

To reach level 1:
  • 2 of robots.txt, Sitemap, Link headers
Can an AI agent check out here?

Not by itself. CIFC 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 SkillsNot present
  • API CatalogNot present
  • llms.txtNot present
  • WebMCPCould not check
Show every check, for your technical team
Discoverability
31 of 100
  • robots.txtNot met

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

    study: 86.1%
  • SitemapPartly met

    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.txtNot met

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

    study: 31.0%
Bot access control
0 of 100
  • AI bot rulesNot met

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

    study: 92.7%
  • Content SignalsNot met

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

    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
0 of 100
  • API CatalogNot met

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

    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 SkillsNot met

    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 manifestNot met

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

    study: 0.2%

Score 7 of 100 · 97% of checks could run · checked on October 9, 2026 · cifc.com · 2,200 companies scanned

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

AI readinessSection 09

The checks behind the AI readiness score

3 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%
  • PassedXML sitemapstudy: 79.4%
  • PassedHTTP 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 CIFC 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