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

Pinwheel

pinwheelapi.com

Banking and fintech infrastructureFinancial technology and data

Money20/20 attendee

Statement period
October 9 to 14, 2026
when the AI assistants were asked
Account no.
22 of 2,219
its rank by overall score
Place in its category
7th of 315 fintech infrastructure companies
Closing balance

Named in

29of 60 answers

by 4 of 4 assistants

Statement note

What this means for Pinwheel

AI assistants name this fintech infrastructure company in 48.3% of answers, compared with 1.7% for the typical company in its sector. Its overall score is 47 out of 100, ranking 22nd of 2,219 in the study and 9th of 574 in its sector. Its website passes 5 out of 14 technical checks for AI tool readiness.

We asked 15 unbranded questions about its market, so no question mentioned Pinwheel by name. AI assistants named it in 29 of the 60 answers. Counting only how often it is named, it ranks 5th of 574 in its sector. The typical financial technology and data company is named in 1.7% of answers.

Overall score
47Overall score
  • Visibility48
  • Citations4
  • Sentiment86
  • Site quality67
  • AI readiness36
Summary of account
Named by AI in
48.3%
29 of 60 answers
Share of mentions
52.7%
of the mentions of it and its 5 peers
AI readiness
5/14
technical checks passed. Typical for its sector: 4
Rank in its sector
9 of 574
by overall score, where the typical financial technology and data company scores 29

Get the full report on Pinwheel 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

Pinwheel came up on 11 of 15 questions. Open any window to read that answer.

  1. 01Low-tech alternatives to bill switching APIs for community credit unions0/4
  2. 02Alternatives to using an API for deposit and bill switching for regional banks0/4
  3. 03What are the best direct deposit and bill switching APIs for banks looking to improve account activation?4/4
  4. 04What role do bill switching APIs play in improving customer stickiness for neobanks?2/4
  5. 05Are there pay-per-switch options for deposit switching APIs, or are most platforms subscription-based?3/4
  6. 06How can digital banks use deposit switching APIs to boost recurring deposit volumes?2/4
  7. 07Does a bill switching API solution lead to a measurable ROI for mid-sized banks?1/4
  8. 08Is investing in an API for direct deposit switching worth it for small financial institutions?1/4
  9. 09Typical pricing models for direct deposit and bill switching API platforms in the US3/4
  10. 10Direct deposit switching APIs vs. traditional onboarding: which has higher activation success for fintechs?4/4
  11. 11Why do some customers fail to complete the direct deposit switch process when using an API?0/4
  12. 12What other solutions exist for automating account funding and bill payments during customer onboarding?2/4
  13. 13Which deposit switching platforms help credit unions increase customer conversion rates?4/4
  14. 14How do API-based deposit switching solutions compare to manual switch kits in terms of conversion rates?3/4
  15. 15Common onboarding issues with direct deposit and bill switching APIs and how to resolve them0/4
Total namedOpenAI: 3/15Claude: 8/15Perplexity: 7/15Gemini: 11/15All assistants: 29/60
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

An answer that names the company

OpenAInamed the company

“Direct deposit switching APIs vs. traditional onboarding: which has higher activation success for fintechs?”

Short answer: direct-deposit switching + instant account‑verification APIs (e.g., Pinwheel, Plaid-style IAV flows) consistently produce materially higher activation/success rates for fintechs than traditional micro‑deposit or manual switch workflows.

Why — evidence summary (key points with sources)

Conversion / activation: vendors and case studies report 2x+ lift in successful direct‑deposit enrollments when using modern “switch” APIs versus legacy flows. (Pinwheel customer results / Switch Kit benchmarks). (casestudydesk.com)

Reduced dro …

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.

Also named

CompanyTimes named
  1. 01
    Atomic
    5
  2. 02
    ClickSwitch
    1

Share of mentions

CompanyShare
  1. Pinwheel
    52.7%
  2. Plaid (Deposit Switch)
    18.2%
  3. Atomic
    14.5%
  4. ClickSwitch
    12.7%
  5. Fiserv (Digital Direct Deposit Switching)
    1.8%
  6. Argyle
    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
    pinwheelapi.com (its own website)
    79
  2. 02
    docs.pinwheelapi.com
    10
  3. 03
    plaid.com
    9
  4. 04
    mastercard.com
    8
  5. 05
    prnewswire.com
    6
  6. 06
    developer.mastercard.com
    5
  7. 07
    mx.com
    4
  8. 08
    q2.com
    4
  9. 09
    finovate.com
    4
  10. 10
    github.com
    4

Pinwheel is in the study as a fintech infrastructure company.

By assistantSection 05

Which AI assistants named the company

Answers naming it, out of answers received

Gemini
11/15
Claude
8/15
Perplexity
7/15
OpenAI
3/15
Market comparisonSection 06

How Pinwheel 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
48

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

Citations
4

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

Sentiment
86

How positively AI describes the company

Site quality
67

How well built the website's own pages are

AI readiness
36

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 financial technology and data companies

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

Overall score
47
Ranks 9 of 574. Typical company: 29
Named in answers
48.3%
Ranks 5 of 574. Typical company: 1.7%
AI readiness
36
Ranks 83 of 574. Typical company: 29
Against its categorySection 08

Compared with fintech infrastructure companies

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

Overall score
47
Ranks 7 of 315. Typical company: 28
Named in answers
48.3%
Ranks 1 of 315. Typical company: 1.7%
AI readiness
36
Ranks 40 of 315. 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. Pinwheel 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.txtPublished
  • 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
50 of 100
  • Markdown negotiationNot met

    Return a markdown version when asked with Accept: text/markdown, for example at the CDN.

    study: 6.2%
  • llms.txtPassed

    An llms.txt that tells language models what the site offers.

    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 36 of 100 · 97% of checks could run · checked on October 9, 2026 · www.pinwheelapi.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

5 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%
  • Passedllms.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 11

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

  • GPTBotallowed
  • ClaudeBotallowed
  • Anthropic-AIallowed
  • Google-Extendedallowed
  • Applebot-Extendedallowed
  • Meta-ExternalAgentallowed
  • FacebookBotallowed
  • Bytespiderallowed
  • CCBotallowed
  • Diffbotallowed
  • Omgilibotallowed

AI search

  • OAI-SearchBotallowed
  • Claude-SearchBotallowed
  • PerplexityBotallowed
  • Applebotallowed
  • Amazonbotallowed
  • YouBotallowed

Answering questions

  • ChatGPT-Userallowed
  • Claude-Userallowed
  • Perplexity-Userallowed
  • DuckAssistBotallowed
  • MistralAI-Userallowed

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 Pinwheel 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

ShareSection 12

Share this result

Overall score 47 of 100 badge for Pinwheel

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/pinwheelapi.com"><img src="https://aeo-audit.rezolve.com/finance/badges/pinwheelapi.com.svg" alt="Overall score 47 of 100, Finance AI Visibility Study 2026" width="280" height="64"></a>
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