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
September 23 to 29, 2026
when the AI assistants were asked
Account no.
1,451 of 2,219
its rank by overall score
Place in its category
17th of 22 wealth managers
Closing balance

Named in

2of 60 answers

by 2 of 4 assistants

Statement note

What this means for LPL Financial

AI assistants rarely name this wealth manager, naming it in 2 of 60 answers. The overall score is 26 out of 100, ranking 1,451st of 2,219. Its website does not pass any of the 14 technical checks for AI tool readiness.

We asked 15 unbranded questions about its market, so no question mentioned LPL Financial by name. AI assistants named it in 2 of the 60 answers. Counting only how often it is named, it ranks 82nd 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
26Overall score
  • Visibility5
  • Citations1
  • Sentiment50
  • Site quality87
  • AI readiness0
Summary of account
Named by AI in
3.3%
2 of 60 answers
Share of mentions
8.3%
of the mentions of it and its 5 peers
AI readiness
0/14
technical checks passed. Typical for its sector: 4
Rank in its sector
149 of 238
by overall score, where the typical investing and wealth company scores 28

Get the full report on LPL Financial 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

LPL Financial came up on 2 of 15 questions. Open any window to read that answer.

  1. 01What should you do if technology integrations aren't working smoothly for your advisory practice?0/4
  2. 02What are some alternatives to using a full-service independent wealth management platform?0/4
  3. 03Best ways independent advisors can use advanced platforms to personalize client portfolios0/4
  4. 04How can financial institutions scale their wealth management programs using independent advisor solutions?0/4
  5. 05What is the typical cost structure for independent wealth management platforms in the U.S.?0/4
  6. 06How can financial advisors address common onboarding challenges with new wealth management platforms?0/4
  7. 07What are the best independent advisor platforms for wealth management in the U.S.?0/4
  8. 08Top technology solutions for financial advisors looking to grow their practice0/4
  9. 09Do independent advisor platforms charge platform fees or a percentage of assets under management?0/4
  10. 10What tools and support services are most important for financial advisors starting an independent practice?1/4
  11. 11Is it worth switching to an independent wealth management platform as a financial advisor?0/4
  12. 12What features should I look for when choosing a platform to support my independent advisory business?0/4
  13. 13Low-cost options for technology and compliance support for independent advisory firms1/4
  14. 14How do custodial platforms compare to turnkey asset management platforms for independent advisors?0/4
  15. 15Independent wealth management platforms vs. wirehouse platforms: what’s the difference?0/4
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

“Low-cost options for technology and compliance support for independent advisory firms”

… For compliance support without hiring full-time staff, firms often use outside providers rather than building everything internally. SmartAsset lists providers such as Dynasty Financial Partners and LPL Financial as sources of technology infrastructure, back-office staffing, billing, account administration, and compliance support, though pricing is quote-based rather than standardized. Another source emphasizes that the true cost of technology includes not just software fees but also training, implementation time, support, and efficiency losses.

A few low-cost …

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.

Share of mentions

CompanyShare
  1. Advisor Group
    91.7%
  2. LPL Financial
    8.3%
  3. Raymond James Financial
    0.0%
  4. Commonwealth Financial Network
    0.0%
  5. Cetera Financial Group
    0.0%
  6. Cambridge Investment Research
    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
    smartasset.com
    26
  2. 02
    investmentnews.com
    21
  3. 03
    wealthmanagement.com
    19
  4. 04
    kitces.com
    18
  5. 05
    savvywealth.com
    11
  6. 06
    hubbis.com
    11
  7. 07
    thewealthmosaic.com
    9
  8. 08
    backbase.com
    9
  9. 09
    rightcapital.com
    9
  10. 10
    dakota.com
    8

LPL Financial is in the study as a wealth manager.

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 LPL Financial 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
5

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

Citations
1

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

Sentiment
50

How positively AI describes the company

Site quality
87

How well built the website's own pages are

AI readiness
0

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 investing and wealth companies

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

Overall score
26
Ranks 149 of 238. Typical company: 28
Named in answers
3.3%
Ranks 82 of 238. Typical company: 0.8%
AI readiness
0
Ranks 235 of 238. Typical company: 29
Against its categorySection 08

Compared with wealth managers

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

Overall score
26
Ranks 17 of 22. Typical company: 35
Named in answers
3.3%
Ranks 8 of 22. Typical company: 3.3%
AI readiness
0
Ranks 22 of 22. Typical company: 21
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.

This website turned most of our scan away, so it has no level. Only 49% of the checks could run. That reflects the website’s rules for automated visitors, and an AI agent arriving by itself meets the same rules.

Can an AI agent check out here?

Not by itself. LPL Financial 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.txtCould not check
  • WebMCPCould not check
Show every check, for your technical team
Discoverability
0 of 100
  • robots.txtCould not check

    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 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
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.txtCould not check

    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 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 manifestCould not check

    Publish an ai-catalog.json listing every agent interface.

    study: 0.2%

Score 0 of 100 · 49% of checks could run · checked on October 4, 2026 · lpl.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

0 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%
  • Not metToken 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 LPL Financial 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