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.
1,590 of 2,219
its rank by overall score
Place in its category
109th of 177 consultancies
Closing balance

Named in

0of 60, its tower is dark

by 0 of 4 assistants

Statement note

What this means for i3strategies

AI assistants do not name this consultancy in any of their 60 answers, while the typical company in its sector is also named in 0% of answers. It has an overall score of 26 out of 100, ranking 1,590th of 2,219 companies. Its website passes 2 of 14 technical checks for AI tool readiness.

We asked 15 unbranded questions about its market, so no question mentioned i3strategies by name. AI assistants named it in none of the 60 answers. Counting only how often it is named, it ranks 149th 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
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
2/14
technical checks passed. Typical for its sector: 4
Rank in its sector
204 of 346
by overall score, where the typical advisory or services firm scores 27

Get the full report on i3strategies 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

i3strategies came up on 0 of 15 questions. Open any window to read that answer.

  1. 01What are effective alternatives to using a formal strategy consulting firm for board-level decision support?0/4
  2. 02What are the main differences between traditional management consulting and board-focused strategy consulting?0/4
  3. 03Are there in-house solutions for boards seeking expert strategic guidance instead of hiring outside advisors?0/4
  4. 04How does strategic advisory differ for boards compared to institutional investors?0/4
  5. 05How can investor groups evaluate if they should outsource strategic planning to a consulting service?0/4
  6. 06What qualifications should boards look for in a strategy consulting service provider?0/4
  7. 07How do institutional investors use strategic advisory services during periods of market uncertainty?0/4
  8. 08How do costs compare between ongoing strategic advisory retainers and project-based consulting engagements?0/4
  9. 09Is hiring a strategy consulting firm for board-level decisions worth the investment?0/4
  10. 10What should a board do if their current strategy consulting partner is underperforming?0/4
  11. 11What are the top strategy consulting services for boards of directors in the US?0/4
  12. 12How can institutional investors resolve conflicts with their strategic advisory consultants?0/4
  13. 13How do forward-thinking institutional investors find the best advisory partners for strategic planning?0/4
  14. 14What are common scenarios where boards of directors turn to external strategy consulting?0/4
  15. 15What is the typical fee structure for high-end strategy consulting firms 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

“How do costs compare between ongoing strategic advisory retainers and project-based consulting engagements?”

Costs differ significantly between ongoing strategic advisory retainers and project-based consulting engagements, primarily due to their scope, duration, and staffing models.

Strategic Advisory Retainers:

Pricing Structure: Typically involve a fixed monthly or quarterly fee for ongoing access to a senior individual's time and expertise consultingdemand.com, adviser.link.

Monthly Cost: Generally lower per month than project work, …

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
    Bain & Company
    2
  2. 02
    FTI Consulting
    2
  3. 03
    McKinsey & Company
    2
  4. 04
    Boston Consulting Group (BCG)
    1

Share of mentions

CompanyShare
  1. Bain & Company
    31.6%
  2. Boston Consulting Group (BCG)
    31.6%
  3. McKinsey & Company
    26.3%
  4. FTI Consulting
    10.5%
  5. i3strategies
    0.0%
  6. AlixPartners
    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
    consulting.us
    7
  2. 02
    selectadvisorsinstitute.com
    6
  3. 03
    umbrex.com
    6
  4. 04
    worldmetrics.org
    6
  5. 05
    consultingdemand.com
    5
  6. 06
    hackingthecaseinterview.com
    5
  7. 07
    vivaldigroup.com
    4
  8. 08
    connectd.com
    4
  9. 09
    zipdo.co
    3
  10. 10
    diligent.com
    3

i3strategies is in the study as a consultancy.

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 i3strategies 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 advisory and services firms

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

Overall score
26
Ranks 204 of 346. Typical company: 27
Named in answers
0.0%
Ranks 149 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
26
Ranks 97 of 177. Typical company: 27
Named in answers
0.0%
Ranks 62 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 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. i3strategies 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
0 of 100
  • robots.txtNot met

    Publish a valid robots.txt with crawl rules and a Sitemap line.

    study: 86.1%
  • SitemapNot 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
0 of 100
  • AI bot rulesNot 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 0 of 100 · 97% of checks could run · checked on October 9, 2026 · i3strategies.us · 2,200 companies scanned

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

AI readinessSection 10

The checks behind the AI readiness score

2 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%
  • 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%
Take it with you

Get the full report on i3strategies 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