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.
1,812 of 2,219
its rank by overall score
Place in its category
127th of 177 consultancies
Closing balance

Named in

0of 60, its tower is dark

by 0 of 4 assistants

Statement note

What this means for Lazer Technologies

AI assistants do not name Lazer Technologies in any of the 60 answers about the market, while the typical company in its sector is also rarely named. Lazer Technologies has an overall score of 25 out of 100, ranking 1,812th of 2,219 companies. Its website passes 2 of 14 technical checks for readiness for AI tools.

We asked 15 unbranded questions about its market, so no question mentioned Lazer Technologies 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
25Overall score
  • Visibility0
  • Citations0
  • Sentiment50
  • Site quality80
  • AI readiness14
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
253 of 346
by overall score, where the typical advisory or services firm scores 27

Get the full report on Lazer Technologies 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

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

  1. 01How do AI-focused engineering consultancies compare to traditional IT service firms?0/4
  2. 02Custom software development agencies vs in-house engineering teams: what are the pros and cons?0/4
  3. 03What are some non-consultancy options for startups needing advanced AI engineering?0/4
  4. 04How are software & AI engineering consultancy fees structured in the US?0/4
  5. 05Examples of startups that have scaled with external software engineering partners0/4
  6. 06How to handle miscommunication with an AI engineering partner during a build?0/4
  7. 07What should I do if my software development project falls behind schedule with a consultancy?0/4
  8. 08Most recommended US-based software & AI consultancies for fast-growing companies0/4
  9. 09How do I know if my business needs a custom AI solution versus off-the-shelf software?0/4
  10. 10Are there cost advantages to working with a boutique software engineering consultancy versus a larger firm?0/4
  11. 11What are the top software & AI engineering consultancies for startups in the US?0/4
  12. 12Alternatives to hiring a custom software development consultancy for building AI products0/4
  13. 13Is partnering with a software & AI consultancy worth it for an early-stage startup?0/4
  14. 14Best enterprise software development partners for scaling companies0/4
  15. 15What are common real-world use cases for enterprise AI engineering firms?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 AI-focused engineering consultancies compare to traditional IT service firms?”

AI-focused engineering consultancies and traditional IT service firms both offer technology solutions, but they differ significantly in their specialization, approach, and how they drive value for clients.

Here's a comparison:

AI-Focused Engineering Consultancies

Specialization: These firms concentrate specifically on artificial intelligence, machine learning, and related cutting-edge technologies. They possess deep expertise in areas like machine learning engineering, data architecture, automation design, natural language processing, computer vision, and AI governance.

Se …

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
    Slalom
    4
  2. 02
    Cognizant
    2
  3. 03
    Thoughtworks
    2
  4. 04
    WillowTree
    1

Share of mentions

CompanyShare
  1. Thoughtworks
    33.3%
  2. Slalom
    33.3%
  3. Cognizant
    25.0%
  4. WillowTree
    8.3%
  5. Lazer Technologies
    0.0%
  6. DataArt
    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
    keyholesoftware.com
    6
  2. 02
    linkedin.com
    6
  3. 03
    alicelabs.ai
    4
  4. 04
    intuz.com
    4
  5. 05
    raftlabs.com
    3
  6. 06
    dbbsoftware.com
    3
  7. 07
    reddit.com
    3
  8. 08
    groovyweb.co
    3
  9. 09
    ibm.com
    3
  10. 10
    classicinformatics.com
    2

Lazer Technologies 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 Lazer Technologies 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
14

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
25
Ranks 253 of 346. Typical company: 27
Named in answers
0.0%
Ranks 149 of 346. Typical company: 0.0%
AI readiness
14
Ranks 301 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
25
Ranks 122 of 177. Typical company: 27
Named in answers
0.0%
Ranks 62 of 177. Typical company: 0.0%
AI readiness
14
Ranks 154 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. Lazer Technologies 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
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 7 of 100 · 97% of checks could run · checked on October 9, 2026 · www.lazertechnologies.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

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 Lazer Technologies 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