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

Cobrowse.io

cobrowse.io

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.
28 of 2,219
its rank by overall score
Place in its category
8th of 315 fintech infrastructure companies
Closing balance

Named in

12of 60 answers

by 4 of 4 assistants

Statement note

What this means for Cobrowse.io

AI assistants name Cobrowse.io in 20% of answers, which is much more often than the typical company in its sector at 1.7%. Its overall score is 47 out of 100, ranking 28th of 2,219 in the study. The website passes 3 out of 14 technical checks for readiness for AI tools.

We asked 15 unbranded questions about its market, so no question mentioned Cobrowse.io by name. AI assistants named it in 12 of the 60 answers. Counting only how often it is named, it ranks 46th of 574 in its sector. The typical financial technology and data company is named in 1.7% of answers.

Overall score
47Overall score
  • Visibility27
  • Citations10
  • Sentiment94
  • Site quality93
  • AI readiness21
Summary of account
Named by AI in
20.0%
12 of 60 answers
Share of mentions
42.9%
of the mentions of it and its 5 peers
AI readiness
3/14
technical checks passed. Typical for its sector: 4
Rank in its sector
9 of 574
by overall score, where the typical financial technology and data company scores 29

Get the full report on Cobrowse.io 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

Cobrowse.io came up on 6 of 15 questions. Open any window to read that answer.

  1. 01What are the most effective enterprise cobrowsing tools for supporting customers on both web and mobile apps?4/4
  2. 02How does standard screen sharing compare to enterprise-grade cobrowsing platforms for customer support?0/4
  3. 03Why might a customer support agent not be able to connect during a live cobrowsing session?0/4
  4. 04What are some no-download options for securely assisting customers on digital platforms besides cobrowsing?1/4
  5. 05Best practices for using cobrowsing tools to support customers navigating mobile applications0/4
  6. 06Which collaborative browsing solutions offer seamless integration with both human and AI support agents?4/4
  7. 07Are there additional costs associated with onboarding or scaling cobrowsing solutions for large organizations?1/4
  8. 08Cobrowsing vs live chat for resolving complex customer issues—what are the pros and cons?0/4
  9. 09What are typical pricing models for enterprise-grade cobrowsing software in the US?0/4
  10. 10Alternatives to cobrowsing technology for providing visual customer support online0/4
  11. 11What are common challenges when implementing cobrowsing solutions in enterprise environments?0/4
  12. 12How can remote agents use collaborative browsing to guide users through complicated financial transactions?1/4
  13. 13Is investing in real-time collaborative browsing software worth it for large customer support teams?0/4
  14. 14Best ways to enhance digital customer experience with collaborative browsing solutions0/4
  15. 15How can enterprise businesses evaluate if cobrowsing technology will improve their customer loyalty metrics?1/4
Total namedOpenAI: 3/15Claude: 4/15Perplexity: 2/15Gemini: 3/15All assistants: 12/60
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

“Which collaborative browsing solutions offer seamless integration with both human and AI support agents?”

The strongest matches are:

Cobrowse.io — explicitly supports both human and AI agents, allowing them to see, navigate, annotate, and guide customers across websites, mobile apps, and third-party content. It also supports AI-to-human escalation while preserving context.

Fullview — combines co-browsing and session replay with an AI support agent that can understand an app’s interface and guide users by clicking, scrolling, and typing. It integrates with Intercom, Zendesk, and Salesforce Service Cloud.

Glia — offers co-browsing alongside AI-driven digital customer s …

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
    Surfly
    5
  2. 02
    Upscope
    3
  3. 03
    Acquire
    1

Share of mentions

CompanyShare
  1. Cobrowse.io
    42.9%
  2. Surfly
    25.0%
  3. Glance Networks
    17.9%
  4. Upscope
    14.3%
  5. Loom Systems by ServiceNow
    0.0%
  6. Acquire
    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
    cobrowse.io (its own website)
    25
  2. 02
    revechat.com
    18
  3. 03
    glance.cx
    13
  4. 04
    zoho.com
    13
  5. 05
    g2.com
    11
  6. 06
    guideflow.com
    11
  7. 07
    fullview.io
    11
  8. 08
    blitzz.co
    11
  9. 09
    unblu.com
    8
  10. 10
    userview.com
    7

Cobrowse.io 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
4/15
Gemini
3/15
OpenAI
3/15
Perplexity
2/15
Market comparisonSection 06

How Cobrowse.io 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
27

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

Citations
10

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

Sentiment
94

How positively AI describes the company

Site quality
93

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 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
47
Ranks 9 of 574. Typical company: 29
Named in answers
20.0%
Ranks 46 of 574. Typical company: 1.7%
AI readiness
21
Ranks 401 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
47
Ranks 7 of 315. Typical company: 28
Named in answers
20.0%
Ranks 18 of 315. Typical company: 1.7%
AI readiness
21
Ranks 215 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 1: Basic web presence. Two of robots.txt, a sitemap and Link headers are in place.

To reach level 2:
  • Content Signals
Can an AI agent check out here?

Not by itself. Cobrowse.io 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
77 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 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
32 of 100
  • AI bot rulesPartly 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 25 of 100 · 97% of checks could run · checked on October 9, 2026 · cobrowse.io · 2,200 companies scanned

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

AI readinessSection 10

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

  • Passedrobots.txt publishedstudy: 85.1%
  • PassedXML 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%
AI crawlersSection 11

What AI crawlers may read (robots.txt)

This website sets no rules for any AI crawler by name, like 86% of the websites whose rules we could read. Every AI crawler follows its general rules.

Training AI

  • GPTBotpartly
  • ClaudeBotpartly
  • Anthropic-AIpartly
  • Google-Extendedpartly
  • Applebot-Extendedpartly
  • Meta-ExternalAgentpartly
  • FacebookBotpartly
  • Bytespiderpartly
  • CCBotpartly
  • Diffbotpartly
  • Omgilibotpartly

AI search

  • OAI-SearchBotpartly
  • Claude-SearchBotpartly
  • PerplexityBotpartly
  • Applebotpartly
  • Amazonbotpartly
  • YouBotpartly

Answering questions

  • ChatGPT-Userpartly
  • Claude-Userpartly
  • Perplexity-Userpartly
  • 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.

Take it with you

Get the full report on Cobrowse.io 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 12

Share this result

Overall score 47 of 100 badge for Cobrowse.io

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/cobrowse.io"><img src="https://aeo-audit.rezolve.com/finance/badges/cobrowse.io.svg" alt="Overall score 47 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