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

Further

hellofurther.com

Retirement and workplace benefitsInvesting and wealth

Money20/20 attendee

Statement period
October 9, 2026
when the AI assistants were asked
Account no.
1,923 of 2,219
its rank by overall score
Place in its category
10th of 10 retirement and benefits providers
Closing balance

Named in

0of 60, its tower is dark

by 0 of 4 assistants

Statement note

What this means for Further

AI assistants do not name this retirement or benefits provider in any of their 60 answers. Its overall score is 24 out of 100, ranking 1,923rd of 2,219, while the typical company in its sector scores 28. Its website passes 1 of 14 technical checks for AI tool readiness.

We asked 15 unbranded questions about its market, so no question mentioned Further 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
24Overall score
  • Visibility0
  • Citations0
  • Sentiment50
  • Site quality80
  • AI readiness7
Summary of account
Named by AI in
0.0%
0 of 60 answers
Share of mentions
0.0%
no answer named it or its 0 peers
AI readiness
1/14
technical checks passed. Typical for its sector: 4
Rank in its sector
202 of 238
by overall score, where the typical investing and wealth company scores 28

Get the full report on Further 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

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

  1. 01What are some alternatives to using natural supplements for enhancing mental sharpness?0/4
  2. 02Are there affordable options for plant-based energy products?0/4
  3. 03How much do high-quality focus supplements typically cost in the US?0/4
  4. 04Common mistakes users make when trying new productivity supplements0/4
  5. 05Is it worth investing in brain health supplements for increased productivity?0/4
  6. 06Popular approaches for managing mental fatigue without prescription medication0/4
  7. 07What is the best way to use herbal supplements to combat afternoon fatigue?0/4
  8. 08Best methods to improve daily focus and mental clarity naturally0/4
  9. 09Why am I not noticing results from natural energy boosters?0/4
  10. 10How do energy-boosting supplements compare to traditional caffeine sources?0/4
  11. 11How can professionals integrate focus-boosting products into a morning routine?0/4
  12. 12Mental performance products versus lifestyle changes—is one more effective for concentration?0/4
  13. 13Non-supplement strategies for keeping energy levels high throughout the workday0/4
  14. 14What should I consider before purchasing a daily focus aid?0/4
  15. 15What are the top-rated solutions for enhancing productivity at work?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.

PayeesSection 02

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. Further
    0.0%
ReferrersSection 03

Websites the AI used as sources

How many times each website was listed as a source in these answers

  1. 01
    health.harvard.edu
    16
  2. 02
    webmd.com
    8
  3. 03
    healthline.com
    8
  4. 04
    health.clevelandclinic.org
    7
  5. 05
    pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
    7
  6. 06
    amazon.com
    6
  7. 07
    trygraymatter.com
    6
  8. 08
    mindlabpro.com
    6
  9. 09
    goodrx.com
    5
  10. 10
    pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
    5

Further is in the study as a retirement or benefits provider.

By assistantSection 04

Which AI assistants named the company

Answers naming it, out of answers received

Gemini
0/15
Perplexity
0/15
Claude
0/15
OpenAI
0/15
Market comparisonSection 05

How Further 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
7

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 06

Compared with investing and wealth companies

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

Overall score
24
Ranks 202 of 238. Typical company: 28
Named in answers
0.0%
Ranks 120 of 238. Typical company: 0.8%
AI readiness
7
Ranks 219 of 238. Typical company: 29
Against its categorySection 07

Compared with retirement and benefits providers

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

Overall score
24
Ranks 10 of 10. Typical company: 31
Named in answers
0.0%
Ranks 7 of 10. Typical company: 1.7%
AI readiness
7
Ranks 9 of 10. Typical company: 21
AI agentsSection 08

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

The website turns away requests that do not come from a browser. AI agents that say what they are meet the same refusal.

Can an AI agent check out here?

We could not tell. The website turned away our requests for the files an agent would read. An agent arriving by itself is turned away the same way.

Agent payment protocols
  • x402Not present
  • MPPNot present
  • AP2Not present
  • ACPNot present
  • UCPCould not check
Interfaces for AI agents
  • MCP Server CardNot present
  • A2A Agent CardNot present
  • Agent SkillsNot present
  • API CatalogNot present
  • llms.txtCould not check
  • WebMCPCould not check
Show every check, for your technical team
Discoverability
100 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 headersCould not check

    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
  • Markdown negotiationCould not check

    Return a markdown version when asked with Accept: text/markdown, for example at the CDN.

    study: 6.2%
  • llms.txtCould not check

    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.mdCould not check

    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 · 68% of checks could run · checked on October 9, 2026 · hellofurther.com · 2,200 companies scanned

See how every company did, and how this was measured.

AI readinessSection 09

The checks behind the AI readiness score

1 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

  • Not metrobots.txt publishedstudy: 85.1%
  • Not metXML sitemapstudy: 79.4%
  • Not metHTTP 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%
Take it with you

Get the full report on Further 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