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

Flagship Advisory Partners

flagshipadvisorypartners.com

Consultancies and professional servicesAdvisers and services

Money20/20 attendee

Statement period
October 9 to 14, 2026
when the AI assistants were asked
Account no.
514 of 2,219
its rank by overall score
Place in its category
25th of 177 consultancies
Closing balance

Named in

2of 60 answers

by 2 of 4 assistants

Statement note

What this means for Flagship Advisory Partners

AI assistants rarely name this consultancy, mentioning it in 2 out of 60 answers. FT Partners also appears in some of those answers. The consultancy has an overall score of 37 out of 100, ranking 514th of 2,219 in the study. Its website passes 4 of 14 technical checks for readiness with AI tools.

We asked 15 unbranded questions about its market, so no question mentioned Flagship Advisory Partners by name. AI assistants named it in 2 of the 60 answers. Counting only how often it is named, it ranks 96th of 346 in its sector. The typical advisory or services firm is named in 0.0% 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
37Overall score
  • Visibility6
  • Citations0
  • Sentiment100
  • Site quality80
  • AI readiness29
Summary of account
Named by AI in
3.3%
2 of 60 answers
Share of mentions
13.3%
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
59 of 346
by overall score, where the typical advisory or services firm scores 27

Get the full report on Flagship Advisory 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

Flagship Advisory Partners came up on 1 of 15 questions. Open any window to read that answer.

  1. 01How do payments and fintech consultancies price transaction support engagements?0/4
  2. 02Payments sector M&A consulting vs. general financial advisory services—what are the main differences?0/4
  3. 03Ways fintech consultancies assist with compliance and regulatory challenges in US payments0/4
  4. 04What should a payments firm do if their growth strategy is stalling despite market expansion efforts?0/4
  5. 05How do boutique payments consultancies compare to larger generalist consulting firms for fintech strategy projects?0/4
  6. 06What are the top considerations when choosing a fintech consultancy for mergers and acquisitions support?0/4
  7. 07How can fintech companies overcome common challenges in cross-border M&A transactions?0/4
  8. 08How valuable is expert advisory for financial institutions entering embedded finance?0/4
  9. 09Best strategy advisory firms for payments companies scaling in the US market2/4
  10. 10Typical fee structures for strategy consulting in the payments sector0/4
  11. 11Is it worth hiring a specialist fintech consultancy for transaction support during an acquisition?0/4
  12. 12Leading fintech consulting topics for 2024 US market trends0/4
  13. 13Examples of consulting services that help payments providers launch new B2B solutions0/4
  14. 14Alternatives to using external advisors for fintech M&A due diligence0/4
  15. 15Other options besides hiring a consultancy for growth strategy in digital payments0/4
Total namedOpenAI: 0/15Claude: 1/15Perplexity: 1/15Gemini: 0/15All assistants: 2/60
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

“Best strategy advisory firms for payments companies scaling in the US market”

For a payments company scaling in the US, the strongest shortlist is McKinsey, BCG, Bain, Oliver Wyman, Accenture, Cornerstone Advisors, and Flagship Advisory Partners. The right choice depends on whether the priority is enterprise growth, payments-market expertise, implementation, regulatory readiness, or fundraising/M&A.

Firm · Best for · Why consider it

McKinsey & Company · Enterprise growth strategy and transformation · Broad payments coverage spanning strategy, implementation, operating models, and capability building.

Boston Consulting Group · Oper …

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
    FT Partners
    1

Share of mentions

CompanyShare
  1. McKinsey & Company – Payments Practice
    46.7%
  2. Oliver Wyman – Payments Consulting
    20.0%
  3. Flagship Advisory Partners
    13.3%
  4. The Strawhecker Group (TSG)
    13.3%
  5. FT Partners
    6.7%
  6. Bain & Company – Payments and Fintech Practice
    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
    mckinsey.com
    7
  2. 02
    733park.com
    6
  3. 03
    windsordrake.com
    5
  4. 04
    bcg.com
    5
  5. 05
    mercury.com
    4
  6. 06
    bain.com
    4
  7. 07
    worldmetrics.org
    3
  8. 08
    papermark.com
    3
  9. 09
    edgardunn.com
    3
  10. 10
    gitnux.org
    3

Flagship Advisory Partners is in the study as a consultancy.

By assistantSection 05

Which AI assistants named the company

Answers naming it, out of answers received

Claude
1/15
Perplexity
1/15
Gemini
0/15
OpenAI
0/15
Market comparisonSection 06

How Flagship Advisory 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
6

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
100

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 advisory and services firms

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

Overall score
37
Ranks 59 of 346. Typical company: 27
Named in answers
3.3%
Ranks 96 of 346. Typical company: 0.0%
AI readiness
29
Ranks 96 of 346. Typical company: 29
Against its categorySection 08

Compared with consultancies

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

Overall score
37
Ranks 21 of 177. Typical company: 27
Named in answers
3.3%
Ranks 37 of 177. Typical company: 0.0%
AI readiness
29
Ranks 48 of 177. 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. Flagship Advisory 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
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 · flagshipadvisorypartners.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

  • 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 Flagship Advisory 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