AI visibility statementFinance AI Visibility Study 2026Issued October 14, 2026

Account holder

Interpayments

interpayments.com

Payment processors, acquirers and point of sale Cards and payments

Money20/20 attendee

Statement period: October 9 to 14, 2026; when the AI assistants were asked
Account no.: 157 of 2,219; its rank by overall score
Place in its category: 9th of 203 payment processors

Closing balance

Named in

5of 60 answers

by 3 of 4 assistants

Statement note

What this means for Interpayments

AI assistants name this payment processor in 8.3% of answers, while the typical company in its sector is named in 0% of answers. Interpayments has an overall score of 42 out of 100, ranking 157th of 2,219 overall and 23rd of 375 in its sector. Its website passes 4 of 14 technical checks for AI tool readiness.

We asked 15 unbranded questions about its market, so no question mentioned Interpayments by name. AI assistants named it in 5 of the 60 answers. Counting only how often it is named, it ranks 80th of 375 in its sector. The typical cards and payments company is named in 0.0% of answers.

Overall score

Visibility18
Citations6
Sentiment100
Site quality80
AI readiness29

Summary of account

Named by AI in: 8.3%; 5 of 60 answers
Share of mentions: 45.5%; 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: 23 of 375; by overall score, where the typical cards and payments company scores 27

Get the full report on Interpayments as a PDF

Enter your work email to download it.

We’ll use your email to follow up about this report. Privacy policy

Line items01

Every question, and where the company came up

Interpayments came up on 4 of 15 questions. Open any window to read that answer.

01Credit card surcharge platforms vs. convenience fee solutions—what are the key differences?0/4
02What should merchants look for in an automated surcharge compliance solution?0/4
03How can payment processors enable automated fee recovery while following US regulations?0/4
04How does managed surcharging compare to absorbed credit card fees for merchants?0/4
05Are there alternatives to automated surcharge platforms for credit card fee recovery?1/4
06Why might a surcharge not be applied correctly at checkout, and how can this be fixed?0/4
07How much do compliant credit card surcharge solutions generally cost for small businesses?1/4
08What is the typical pricing structure for managed surcharging platforms?1/4
09Alternatives to credit card surcharging for US merchants looking to offset card fees0/4
10What are the best compliant credit card surcharging platforms for US merchants?2/4
11How do B2B companies implement compliant surcharging without risking legal issues?0/4
12Best practices for integrating compliant credit card surcharge solutions with payment gateways0/4
13Is it worth using a compliant surcharging provider for recovering credit card processing fees?0/4
14How can merchants recover payment processing fees without using a surcharge platform?0/4
15Common compliance pitfalls when adding surcharges to credit card transactions in the US0/4

Total named2/151/150/152/155/60

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 detail02

What OpenAI actually said

An answer that names the company

OpenAInamed the company

“What are the best compliant credit card surcharging platforms for US merchants?”

Short answer — for US merchants who want to add card surcharges while staying compliant, the most commonly recommended options are:
InterPayments (managed surcharge / turnkey compliance). InterPayments specialises in handling the card‑brand paperwork, per‑card detection, and compliance/indemnity services so merchants and platforms can safely add surcharges without building the whole rules engine themselves. (interpayments.com)
Helcim (Fee Saver / “pass‑on” feature). Helcim’s Fee Saver and related documentation explain surcharging/fee‑pass through and in …

The AI’s answer as we received it, shortened and not checked for accuracy.

Payees03

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

Interpayments
45.5%
CardX (a Stax Company)
36.4%
Payroc Surcharging Solutions
9.1%
Payroc Surcharging Solutions
9.1%
SurchX (by Interceptas)
0.0%
Maverick Payments Surcharging
0.0%

Referrers04

Websites the AI used as sources

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

01
interpayments.com (its own website)
16
02
staxpayments.com
13
03
stripe.com
12
04
strictlyzero.com
10
05
usa.visa.com
10
06
getflexpoint.com
8
07
coastalpay.com
7
08
highradius.com
7
09
legalclarity.org
7
10
centime.com
6

Interpayments is in the study as a payment processor.

By assistant05

Which AI assistants named the company

Answers naming it, out of answers received

Gemini

2/15

OpenAI

2/15

Claude

1/15

Perplexity

0/15

Market comparison06

How Interpayments 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

How often AI assistants name the company, and how that compares with its peers

Citations

How often AI uses the company's own website as a source

Sentiment

100

How positively AI describes the company

Site quality

How well built the website's own pages are

AI readiness

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 sector07

Compared with cards and payments companies

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

Overall score

Ranks 23 of 375. Typical company: 27

Named in answers

8.3%

Ranks 80 of 375. Typical company: 0.0%

AI readiness

Ranks 106 of 375. Typical company: 29

Against its category08

Compared with payment processors

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

Overall score

Ranks 7 of 203. Typical company: 27

Named in answers

8.3%

Ranks 30 of 203. Typical company: 0.0%

AI readiness

Ranks 59 of 203. Typical company: 29

AI agents09

Ready for AI agents

What this website publishes for an AI agent to read, use and pay through, on a scale of six levels.

0Not yet agent-ready
1Basic web presence
2Bot-aware
3Agent-readable
4Agent-integrated
5Agent-native

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

Some checks could not run. With them, up to level 2 would be possible.

Can an AI agent check out here?

Not by itself. Interpayments 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 CatalogCould not check
llms.txtNot present
WebMCPCould not check

Show every check, for your technical team

Discoverability

52 of 100

robots.txtCould not check
Publish a valid robots.txt with crawl rules and a Sitemap line.
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

AI bot rulesCould not check
Add explicit robots.txt groups for the main AI crawlers.
study: 92.7%
Content SignalsCould not check
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 CatalogCould not check
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 12 of 100 · 60% of checks could run · checked on October 9, 2026 · www.interpayments.com · 2,200 companies scanned

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

AI readiness10

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%

Take it with you

Get the full report on Interpayments 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

Share11

Share this result

A badge of this result that you can show on your own website. Copy the code below.

<a href="https://aeo-audit.rezolve.com/us/finance/interpayments.com"><img src="https://aeo-audit.rezolve.com/finance/badges/interpayments.com.svg" alt="Overall score 42 of 100, Finance AI Visibility Study 2026" width="280" height="64"></a>

End of statement

All 2,219 companies How we measured this

Interpayments

What this means for Interpayments

Get the full report on Interpayments as a PDF

Every question, and where the company came up

What OpenAI actually said

Where the mentions went

Share of mentions

Websites the AI used as sources

Which AI assistants named the company

How Interpayments compares with all 2,219 companies

What makes up the score

Compared with cards and payments companies

Compared with payment processors

Ready for AI agents

The checks behind the AI readiness score

Discoverability

Content Accessibility

Bot Access Control

API / Auth / MCP

Get the full report on Interpayments as a PDF

Share this result

Want AI assistants to name your company?