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.

SWIFT47/60TRANSUNION46/60EXPERIAN42/60COINSTAR41/60NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION41/60ZELLE41/60BLOOMBERG L.P.38/60TRADINGVIEW38/60BANCO POPULAR DE PUERTO RICO37/60PAYPAL37/60VENMO37/60CHEXSYSTEMS33/60EQUIFAX33/60MORNINGSTAR32/60S&P GLOBAL31/60ALPACA MARKETS30/60COINBASE30/60PINWHEEL29/60STRIPE29/60XERO29/60ACORNS28/60AFFIRM28/60PAYFAST (PAYGATE)28/60PAYONEER28/60INTERACTIVE BROKERS26/60CHARLES SCHWAB19/60THE HARTFORD9/60MOODY'S21/60CME GROUP19/60ACCENTURE11/60CHUBB10/60MORGAN STANLEY6/60AMERICAN EXPRESS14/60SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL12/60FACTSET20/60NASDAQ19/60ALLSTATE11/60WELLS FARGO18/60PAYCHEX10/60ARES MANAGEMENT3/60
Rezolve Ai
MethodDemo
Back to the study
AI visibility statementFinance AI Visibility Study 2026Issued October 14, 2026
Account holder
PB

Pearson Booth Consulting

pearsonboothconsulting.co.uk

Consultancies and professional servicesAdvisers and services

Money20/20 attendee

Statement period
October 9 to 14, 2026
when the AI assistants were asked
Account no.
1,968 of 2,219
its rank by overall score
Place in its category
151st of 177 consultancies
Closing balance

Named in

0of 60, its tower is dark

by 0 of 4 assistants

Statement note

What this means for Pearson Booth Consulting

AI assistants do not name this consultancy in any of the 60 answers reviewed. Its overall score is 24 out of 100, ranking 1,968th of 2,219, which is close to the typical company in its sector. Its website passes 4 of 14 technical checks for readiness with AI tools.

We asked 15 unbranded questions about its market, so no question mentioned Pearson Booth Consulting 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
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%
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
281 of 346
by overall score, where the typical advisory or services firm scores 27

Get the full report on Pearson Booth Consulting 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

Pearson Booth Consulting came up on 0 of 15 questions. Open any window to read that answer.

  1. 01Where can payment service providers find expert guidance for future-ready financial operations?0/4
  2. 02How can a strategy consultant help a US bank implement real-time payments solutions?0/4
  3. 03Is hiring a financial services strategy consultant worth it for mid-sized banks looking to scale digital operations?0/4
  4. 04How much should fintech companies budget for payments optimization consulting projects?0/4
  5. 05What other options exist besides payments strategy consultants to boost operational efficiency for fintechs?0/4
  6. 06Alternatives to traditional financial services consulting for banks pursuing digital transformation?0/4
  7. 07Typical pricing models for financial services strategy consulting in the US?0/4
  8. 08How can banks address challenges with scaling global payments through consulting services?0/4
  9. 09What consulting approaches help resolve bottlenecks in digital lending workflows?0/4
  10. 10Digital banking strategy consulting versus traditional financial operations consulting—what are the key differences?0/4
  11. 11What are the top consulting services for optimizing payments and lending operations in banks?0/4
  12. 12How does payments-focused financial consulting compare to lending strategy consulting for fintech companies?0/4
  13. 13What role does consulting play in streamlining digital transformation for payment processors?0/4
  14. 14Best strategy consulting firms in the US for digital transformation in financial services?0/4
  15. 15Does investing in payments and fintech consulting lead to measurable operational improvements for payment service providers?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 OpenAI actually said

The company is not named in this answer

OpenAIdid not name the company

“Where can payment service providers find expert guidance for future-ready financial operations?”

Good question — payment service providers (PSPs) who want to build “future‑ready” financial operations should combine vendor knowledge, industry standards, independent research, and practical implementation guidance. Below is a concise, actionable list of the best places to find expert guidance, grouped so you can pick what fits your needs.

1. Global consultancies and advisory firms

McKinsey, BCG, Bain, Accenture, Deloitte, PwC, EY: strategy, operating model transformation, M&A and large-scale technology modernization programs.

Boutique payments/fintech consultancies (e.g., Aite‑Novarica …

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. McKinsey & Company (Payments & Fintech Consulting)
    30.3%
  2. Accenture (Financial Services Strategy & Consulting)
    27.3%
  3. Deloitte (Payments & Digital Banking Consulting)
    27.3%
  4. Oliver Wyman (Financial Services Consulting)
    15.2%
  5. Pearson Booth Consulting
    0.0%
  6. EY (Ernst & Young) — Financial Services Consulting
    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
    mckinsey.com
    11
  2. 02
    bain.com
    10
  3. 03
    appinventiv.com
    7
  4. 04
    deloitte.com
    7
  5. 05
    bcg.com
    6
  6. 06
    ey.com
    6
  7. 07
    info.praxent.com
    6
  8. 08
    web-assets.bcg.com
    5
  9. 09
    accenture.com
    5
  10. 10
    purrweb.com
    5

Pearson Booth Consulting 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 Pearson Booth Consulting 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 07

Compared with advisory and services firms

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

Overall score
24
Ranks 281 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
24
Ranks 138 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 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. Pearson Booth Consulting 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
63 of 100
  • AI bot rulesPassed

    Explicit robots.txt rules for AI crawlers such as GPTBot, ClaudeBot and PerplexityBot.

    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 32 of 100 · 97% of checks could run · checked on October 9, 2026 · www.pearsonboothconsulting.co.uk · 2,200 companies scanned

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

AI readinessSection 10

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%
  • Not metHTTP 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

  • PassedExplicit 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 11

What AI crawlers may read (robots.txt)

This website sets rules for 13 AI crawlers by name. All others follow its general rules.

Training AI

  • GPTBot*partly
  • ClaudeBot*partly
  • Anthropic-AI*partly
  • Google-Extended*partly
  • Applebot-Extended*partly
  • Meta-ExternalAgent*partly
  • FacebookBot*partly
  • Bytespider*partly
  • CCBot*partly
  • Diffbotpartly
  • Omgilibot*partly

AI search

  • OAI-SearchBotpartly
  • Claude-SearchBotpartly
  • PerplexityBotpartly
  • Applebotpartly
  • Amazonbot*partly
  • YouBot*partly

Answering questions

  • ChatGPT-Userpartly
  • Claude-Userpartly
  • Perplexity-Userpartly
  • DuckAssistBot*partly
  • 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 Pearson Booth Consulting 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

End of statement
All 2,219 companiesHow we measured this
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