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.

Back to the study
AI visibility statementFinance AI Visibility Study 2026Issued October 14, 2026
Account holder
Statement period
October 9 to 14, 2026
when the AI assistants were asked
Account no.
1,534 of 2,219
its rank by overall score
Closing balance

Named in

0of 60, its tower is dark

by 0 of 4 assistants

Statement note

What this means for Complif

AI assistants do not name this fraud and identity company in any of their 60 answers. Its overall score is 26 out of 100, ranking 1,534th of 2,219 companies in the study and 418th of 574 in its sector. Its website passes 5 of 14 technical checks for readiness with AI tools.

We asked 15 unbranded questions about its market, so no question mentioned Complif 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
26Overall score
  • Visibility0
  • Citations0
  • Sentiment50
  • Site quality73
  • AI readiness36
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
5/14
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 Complif 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

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

  1. 01How can financial institutions decide if end-to-end compliance automation is right for them?0/4
  2. 02How does compliance automation software differ from manual compliance management systems?0/4
  3. 03Common challenges when implementing compliance automation in financial organizations and how to solve them?0/4
  4. 04Customer onboarding automation vs transaction monitoring platforms for banks — which adds the most efficiency?0/4
  5. 05Typical pricing models for compliance automation platforms serving financial institutions in the U.S.?0/4
  6. 06Top-rated platforms for centralizing compliance workflows in U.S. credit unions?0/4
  7. 07Why isn't ongoing screening working as expected in my compliance automation platform?0/4
  8. 08Best practices for automating online account opening in U.S. financial institutions?0/4
  9. 09What is the best compliance automation software for financial institutions looking to streamline onboarding and AML monitoring?0/4
  10. 10How can AI agents be used in AML monitoring for regulated organizations?0/4
  11. 11Is investing in AI-driven compliance platforms worth it for small banks?0/4
  12. 12What factors influence the cost of centralized compliance solutions for banks?0/4
  13. 13Alternatives to unified compliance automation platforms for onboarding and regulatory monitoring?0/4
  14. 14What are some different approaches to centralizing compliance without using a dedicated automation platform?0/4
  15. 15Manual compliance processes vs. automated compliance tools — pros and cons for credit unions?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 OpenAI actually said

The company is not named in this answer

OpenAIdid not name the company

“Why isn't ongoing screening working as expected in my compliance automation platform?”

I can help — but I need more details. Briefly answer the questions below and I’ll give targeted troubleshooting steps and fixes.

Quick questions

1. Which compliance automation platform / product and version are you using? (e.g., ComplyAdvantage, World-Check via Refinitiv, LexisNexis BridgerInsight, in-house system, etc.)

2. What do you mean by “isn’t working” — no screenings run at all, only some records screened, screenings run but no matches when you expect matches, or results delayed? Give one or two concrete examples (record IDs and timestamps if possible).

3. When did this start? Any rec …

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.

Share of mentions

CompanyShare
  1. ComplyAdvantage
    80.0%
  2. Alloy
    20.0%
  3. Complif
    0.0%
  4. Hummingbird
    0.0%
  5. Unit21
    0.0%
  6. Socure
    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
    vanta.com
    7
  2. 02
    jinba.io
    6
  3. 03
    wolterskluwer.com
    5
  4. 04
    riskinmind.ai
    5
  5. 05
    sphinxhq.com
    4
  6. 06
    lucinity.com
    4
  7. 07
    smartsuite.com
    4
  8. 08
    bcg.com
    3
  9. 09
    ibm.com
    3
  10. 10
    diligent.com
    3

Complif is in the study as a fraud and identity 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 Complif 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
36

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
0.0%
Ranks 334 of 574. Typical company: 1.7%
AI readiness
36
Ranks 83 of 574. Typical company: 29
Against its categorySection 08

Compared with fraud and identity companies

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

Overall score
26
Ranks 132 of 171. Typical company: 30
Named in answers
0.0%
Ranks 103 of 171. Typical company: 1.7%
AI readiness
36
Ranks 35 of 171. Typical company: 36
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 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. Complif 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
36 of 100
  • robots.txtNot met

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

    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
50 of 100
  • Markdown negotiationPassed

    Requests sent with Accept: text/markdown receive a markdown version of the page.

    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 26 of 100 · 97% of checks could run · checked on October 9, 2026 · www.complif.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

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 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%
  • 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 Complif 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

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