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

Corestar Partners

corestarpartners.com

Investment banks and capital marketsInvesting and wealth

Money20/20 attendee

Statement period
October 9 to 14, 2026
when the AI assistants were asked
Account no.
1,538 of 2,219
its rank by overall score
Place in its category
21st of 27 investment banks
Closing balance

Named in

0of 60, its tower is dark

by 0 of 4 assistants

Statement note

What this means for Corestar Partners

AI assistants do not name this investment bank in any of their 60 answers to market-related questions; they do name others such as FT Partners and Qatalyst Partners. Corestar Partners' overall score is 26 out of 100, ranking 1,538th of 2,219 companies in the study. Its website passes 4 of 14 technical checks for AI tool readiness.

We asked 15 unbranded questions about its market, so no question mentioned Corestar Partners 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
26Overall score
  • Visibility0
  • Citations0
  • Sentiment50
  • Site quality80
  • AI readiness29
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
4/14
technical checks passed. Typical for its sector: 4
Rank in its sector
149 of 238
by overall score, where the typical investing and wealth company scores 28

Get the full report on Corestar Partners 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

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

  1. 01How do general investment banking services compare with firms focused specifically on fintech advisory?0/4
  2. 02Are there effective non-bank advisory options for fintech mergers and acquisitions?0/4
  3. 03What role do investment banks play in structuring buy-side and sell-side deals within the fintech industry?0/4
  4. 04What are the differences between boutique and large investment banks in the fintech sector?0/4
  5. 05How can specialized advisory services help fintech firms navigating cross-border transactions?0/4
  6. 06Is hiring a sector-focused strategic advisor worth the cost for a mid-sized fintech looking to raise capital?0/4
  7. 07What are the best investment banking firms for fintech companies in the United States?0/4
  8. 08What are common challenges fintech businesses face when preparing for a strategic acquisition?0/4
  9. 09Which types of consultants or advisory firms can help fintechs prepare for an IPO outside of traditional investment banking?0/4
  10. 10Why is my fintech company struggling to attract investment banker interest for a potential sale?0/4
  11. 11Should a fintech founder choose an independent investment banking firm for M&A or go with a full-service financial advisory?0/4
  12. 12What are alternatives to traditional investment banks for fintech companies seeking strategic advice?0/4
  13. 13What should a fintech company expect to pay for investment banking services on a capital raise?0/4
  14. 14What should I look for in a strategic advisor specializing in financial technology mergers and acquisitions?0/4
  15. 15How are advisory fees structured for fintech M&A services in the US?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 Gemini actually said

The company is not named in this answer

Geminidid not name the company

“Are there effective non-bank advisory options for fintech mergers and acquisitions?”

Yes, there are many effective non-bank advisory options for fintech mergers and acquisitions. These often come in the form of boutique advisory firms and independent advisors who specialize in the fintech sector.

Here's why these non-bank options are often effective and some examples:

Why Non-Bank Fintech M&A Advisors are Effective:

Specialized Fintech Expertise: Fintech M&A is complex, with unique valuation drivers, regulatory dynamics, and a distinct buyer landscape. Non-bank advisors specializing in fintech understand these nuances, including metrics like net revenue retentio …

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
    FT Partners
    2
  2. 02
    Qatalyst Partners
    2

Share of mentions

CompanyShare
  1. FT Partners
    61.5%
  2. Qatalyst Partners
    30.8%
  3. Moelis & Company (FinTech Investment Banking)
    7.7%
  4. Corestar Partners
    0.0%
  5. Financial Technology Advisory (FTA)
    0.0%
  6. Raine Group
    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
    windsordrake.com
    19
  2. 02
    techbullion.com
    8
  3. 03
    peony.ink
    7
  4. 04
    mercury.com
    7
  5. 05
    ctacquisitions.com
    6
  6. 06
    733park.com
    5
  7. 07
    waveup.com
    4
  8. 08
    papermark.com
    4
  9. 09
    pcecompanies.com
    4
  10. 10
    procloser.ai
    3

Corestar Partners is in the study as an investment bank.

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 Corestar Partners 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
80

How well built the website's own pages are

AI readiness
29

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 investing and wealth companies

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

Overall score
26
Ranks 149 of 238. Typical company: 28
Named in answers
0.0%
Ranks 120 of 238. Typical company: 0.8%
AI readiness
29
Ranks 51 of 238. Typical company: 29
Against its categorySection 08

Compared with investment banks

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

Overall score
26
Ranks 21 of 27. Typical company: 29
Named in answers
0.0%
Ranks 18 of 27. Typical company: 5.0%
AI readiness
29
Ranks 8 of 27. 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. Corestar Partners 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
72 of 100
  • robots.txtPassed

    A valid robots.txt with crawl rules at the site root.

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

4 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%
  • 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 Corestar Partners 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