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.
1,955 of 2,219
its rank by overall score
Closing balance

Named in

0of 60, its tower is dark

by 0 of 4 assistants

Statement note

What this means for MissionOG

AI assistants do not name this venture capital firm in any of their 60 answers. Its overall score is 24 out of 100, ranking 1,955th of 2,219 companies, compared with a typical company in its sector scoring 28. The website passes 4 of 14 technical checks for readiness for AI tools.

We asked 15 unbranded questions about its market, so no question mentioned MissionOG 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 quality67
  • AI readiness29
Summary of account
Named by AI in
0.0%
0 of 60 answers
Share of mentions
0.0%
no answer named it or its 5 peers
AI readiness
4/14
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 MissionOG 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

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

  1. 01When does it make sense for a SaaS company to approach growth-stage investors?0/4
  2. 02What criteria do top growth-stage investors in the tech industry look for in potential investments?0/4
  3. 03Why is my tech startup struggling to secure growth-stage funding?0/4
  4. 04Alternatives to growth-stage venture funding for expanding a technology business in the US?0/4
  5. 05How do growth equity investments compare to traditional venture capital for tech startups?0/4
  6. 06Typical equity stakes taken by growth-stage venture capital firms in technology companies?0/4
  7. 07How can a growth-stage venture capital firm help scale a B2B technology platform?0/4
  8. 08What funding options are available for tech companies beyond traditional venture capital?0/4
  9. 09Growth-stage venture capital vs. early-stage venture capital — what's the difference for technology companies?0/4
  10. 10Common reasons growth-stage venture investors might decline a US-based tech startup?0/4
  11. 11What are common fee structures or terms for investing in US-based growth-stage tech startups?0/4
  12. 12How do I find investment partners for scaling my tech business?0/4
  13. 13Is partnering with a growth-stage venture capital firm worth it for tech entrepreneurs?0/4
  14. 14What are the best growth-stage venture capital firms for technology startups in the US?0/4
  15. 15What should I look for when seeking a growth-stage investment partner as a technology company?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. MissionOG
    0.0%
  2. Bain Capital Ventures
    0.0%
  3. OpenView Partners
    0.0%
  4. Scale Venture Partners
    0.0%
  5. Updata Partners
    0.0%
  6. Felicis
    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
    rho.co
    14
  2. 02
    linkedin.com
    10
  3. 03
    qubit.capital
    7
  4. 04
    mercury.com
    7
  5. 05
    growthequityinterviewguide.com
    6
  6. 06
    angelinvestorsnetwork.com
    6
  7. 07
    phoenixstrategy.group
    4
  8. 08
    crv.com
    4
  9. 09
    ctacquisitions.com
    4
  10. 10
    failory.com
    3

MissionOG is in the study as a venture capital firm.

By assistantSection 04

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 05

How MissionOG 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
67

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 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
29
Ranks 51 of 238. Typical company: 29
Against its categorySection 07

Compared with venture capital firms

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

Overall score
24
Ranks 46 of 59. Typical company: 26
Named in answers
0.0%
Ranks 25 of 59. Typical company: 0.0%
AI readiness
29
Ranks 10 of 59. Typical company: 29
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
Can an AI agent check out here?

Not by itself. MissionOG 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
77 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 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 25 of 100 · 97% of checks could run · checked on October 9, 2026 · missionog.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

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%
AI crawlersSection 10

What AI crawlers may read (robots.txt)

This website sets no rules for any AI crawler by name, like 86% of the websites whose rules we could read. Every AI crawler follows its general rules.

Training AI

  • GPTBotpartly
  • ClaudeBotpartly
  • Anthropic-AIpartly
  • Google-Extendedpartly
  • Applebot-Extendedpartly
  • Meta-ExternalAgentpartly
  • FacebookBotpartly
  • Bytespiderpartly
  • CCBotpartly
  • Diffbotpartly
  • Omgilibotpartly

AI search

  • OAI-SearchBotpartly
  • Claude-SearchBotpartly
  • PerplexityBotpartly
  • Applebotpartly
  • Amazonbotpartly
  • YouBotpartly

Answering questions

  • ChatGPT-Userpartly
  • Claude-Userpartly
  • Perplexity-Userpartly
  • DuckAssistBotpartly
  • MistralAI-Userpartly

Read from the website’s own rules file (robots.txt). An asterisk marks a crawler the file names. The rest follow its general rules. “Partly” means only some pages are blocked.

Take it with you

Get the full report on MissionOG 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