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
FP

FairPlay

fairplay.ai

Fraud, identity and complianceFinancial technology and data

Money20/20 attendee

Statement period
October 9 and 10, 2026
when the AI assistants were asked
Account no.
1,330 of 2,219
its rank by overall score
Place in its category
121st of 171 fraud and identity companies
Closing balance

Named in

0of 60, its tower is dark

by 0 of 4 assistants

Statement note

What this means for FairPlay

AI assistants do not name this fraud and identity 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 27 out of 100, ranking 1,330th of 2,219. The company's website passes 5 of 14 technical checks for AI tool readiness.

We asked 15 unbranded questions about its market, so no question mentioned FairPlay 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
27Overall score
  • Visibility0
  • Citations0
  • Sentiment50
  • Site quality80
  • 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
360 of 574
by overall score, where the typical financial technology and data company scores 29

Get the full report on FairPlay 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

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

  1. 01Alternatives to automated AI validation platforms for ensuring compliance in financial AI applications0/4
  2. 02What options exist for managing and validating high-risk AI systems in banking without specialized software?0/4
  3. 03Why might a predictive model fail validation in a financial services compliance review?0/4
  4. 04Is investing in an all-in-one AI validation platform worth it for a mid-sized credit union?0/4
  5. 05Are there pay-as-you-go options for model risk management software, or only enterprise plans?0/4
  6. 06Comparing risk management tools for machine learning models versus those for AI agents in finance0/4
  7. 07Common issues when optimizing agentic systems for regulatory requirements in US finance0/4
  8. 08What are some approaches besides dedicated agentic optimization platforms for improving model performance in finance?0/4
  9. 09What are the best AI risk management platforms for financial institutions looking to validate predictive models?0/4
  10. 10How does agentic testing differ from traditional model validation in financial services?0/4
  11. 11Recommended solutions for testing and optimizing autonomous AI agents in US banking environments0/4
  12. 12Best practices for maintaining exam readiness for AI-driven decision systems in banking0/4
  13. 13Typical costs for AI enablement platforms tailored to financial institutions in the United States0/4
  14. 14Do financial institutions need specialized software for ML model risk governance, or are generic tools sufficient?0/4
  15. 15How can automated testing platforms help accelerate AI risk reviews in lending?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 Perplexity actually said

The company is not named in this answer

Perplexitydid not name the company

“Alternatives to automated AI validation platforms for ensuring compliance in financial AI applications”

Alternatives to a single automated AI-validation platform generally fall into four approaches: model-risk-management tools, enterprise GRC platforms, specialized AI-testing tools, and internally governed validation programs.

Leading alternatives

Approach · Examples · Best fit

Model risk management · ValidMind, SAS, Monitaur, ModelOp · Banks needing model inventories, validation workflows, documentation, approvals, monitoring, and audit trails. ValidMind is positioned around documentation and validation aligned with frameworks such as SR 11-7, SS1/23, and OSFI E …

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
    Fiddler AI
    4
  2. 02
    ModelOp
    2
  3. 03
    Credo AI
    2
  4. 04
    Monitaur
    1

Share of mentions

CompanyShare
  1. Fiddler AI
    41.7%
  2. ModelOp
    33.3%
  3. Credo AI
    16.7%
  4. Monitaur
    8.3%
  5. FairPlay
    0.0%
  6. TruEra
    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
    arxiv.org
    15
  2. 02
    ones.com
    12
  3. 03
    federalreserve.gov
    7
  4. 04
    deloitte.com
    6
  5. 05
    neurons-lab.com
    6
  6. 06
    ibm.com
    5
  7. 07
    occ.gov
    5
  8. 08
    rpc.cfainstitute.org
    4
  9. 09
    aicompliancevendors.com
    4
  10. 10
    validmind.com
    4

FairPlay 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 FairPlay 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
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
27
Ranks 360 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
27
Ranks 112 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 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. FairPlay 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
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
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 36 of 100 · 97% of checks could run · checked on October 9, 2026 · fairplay.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%
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

  • GPTBotallowed
  • ClaudeBotallowed
  • Anthropic-AIallowed
  • Google-Extendedallowed
  • Applebot-Extendedallowed
  • Meta-ExternalAgentallowed
  • FacebookBotallowed
  • Bytespiderallowed
  • CCBotallowed
  • Diffbotallowed
  • Omgilibotallowed

AI search

  • OAI-SearchBotallowed
  • Claude-SearchBotallowed
  • PerplexityBotallowed
  • Applebotallowed
  • Amazonbotallowed
  • YouBotallowed

Answering questions

  • ChatGPT-Userallowed
  • Claude-Userallowed
  • Perplexity-Userallowed
  • DuckAssistBotallowed
  • MistralAI-Userallowed

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 FairPlay 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