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.
1,537 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 Cordant

AI assistants do not name this fintech infrastructure company in any of their 60 answers, while the typical company in its sector is named in 1.7% of answers. Its overall score is 26 out of 100, ranking 1,537th of 2,219 companies in the study. Its website passes 5 of 14 technical checks for AI tools.

We asked 15 unbranded questions about its market, so no question mentioned Cordant 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
  • Citations1
  • 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 Cordant 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

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

  1. 01Financial operations software vs. manual compliance monitoring: pros and cons0/4
  2. 02Common reasons why automated SLA tracking might fail in a financial operations platform0/4
  3. 03Low-code or open-source alternatives to commercial financial operations software for reconciliation tasks0/4
  4. 04Is advanced fee and interchange validation software worth the investment for midsize fintechs?0/4
  5. 05Are there any financial operations tools that offer pay-as-you-go pricing for compliance monitoring?0/4
  6. 06How to resolve discrepancies in settlement reconciliation across multiple payment systems0/4
  7. 07What are the most reliable options for continuous compliance monitoring besides all-in-one platforms?0/4
  8. 08Best practices for partner oversight and missed-payment detection using reconciliation software0/4
  9. 09What are the best financial operations platforms for payment and settlement reconciliation?0/4
  10. 10How does payment reconciliation software compare to traditional spreadsheet tracking for back-office teams?0/4
  11. 11Top software tools for real-time reserve monitoring in financial institutions0/4
  12. 12Alternatives to unified reconciliation platforms for back-office financial oversight0/4
  13. 13How can financial operations software help track commissions and residuals accurately?0/4
  14. 14Typical pricing models for financial reconciliation platforms serving U.S. banks and fintechs0/4
  15. 15What should financial operations leaders look for in a command center platform for back-office controls?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

“Low-code or open-source alternatives to commercial financial operations software for reconciliation tasks”

I'll search for current information on low-code and open-source alternatives for financial reconciliation software.Let me search more specifically for open-source options.Based on my research, here's a comprehensive overview of low-code and open-source alternatives to commercial financial operations software for reconciliation tasks:

Low-Code Alternatives

No-Code Reconciliation Platforms

No-code or low-code platforms reduce IT dependency, allowing business users to configure and modify reconciliation processes independently. SolveXia offers configurable rule-based matching for one-to …

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
    AutoRek
    5
  2. 02
    Trovata
    1

Share of mentions

CompanyShare
  1. AutoRek
    66.7%
  2. Trovata
    33.3%
  3. Cordant
    0.0%
  4. Modern Treasury
    0.0%
  5. Treasury Prime
    0.0%
  6. Stampli
    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
    optimus.tech
    11
  2. 02
    highradius.com
    9
  3. 03
    bluecopa.com
    7
  4. 04
    guideflow.com
    7
  5. 05
    github.com
    6
  6. 06
    airwallex.com
    5
  7. 07
    ramp.com
    5
  8. 08
    numeric.io
    5
  9. 09
    maxima.ai
    4
  10. 10
    prophix.com
    4

Cordant 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 Cordant 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
1

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 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
0.0%
Ranks 168 of 315. Typical company: 1.7%
AI readiness
36
Ranks 40 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 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. Cordant 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.txtPublished
  • 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 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
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.cordant.ai · 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

  • Not metMarkdown content negotiationstudy: 7.4%
  • Passedllms.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 Cordant 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