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 October 1, 2026
when the AI assistants were asked
Account no.
1,245 of 2,219
its rank by overall score
Closing balance

Named in

2of 60 answers

by 2 of 4 assistants

Statement note

What this means for RenaissanceRe

AI assistants rarely name this commercial insurer or broker, appearing in 2 of 60 answers. Swiss Re and Munich Re are also named in those cases. Its overall score is 27 out of 100, ranking 1,245th of 2,219 companies. The website passes 4 of 14 technical checks for AI tool readiness.

We asked 15 unbranded questions about its market, so no question mentioned RenaissanceRe by name. AI assistants named it in 2 of the 60 answers. Counting only how often it is named, it ranks 28th of 97 in its sector. The typical insurer is named in 1.7% 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
27Overall score
  • Visibility8
  • Citations1
  • Sentiment50
  • Site quality67
  • AI readiness29
Summary of account
Named by AI in
3.3%
2 of 60 answers
Share of mentions
22.2%
of the mentions of it and its 5 peers
AI readiness
4/14
technical checks passed. Typical for its sector: 3
Rank in its sector
55 of 97
by overall score, where the typical insurer scores 28

Get the full report on RenaissanceRe 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

RenaissanceRe came up on 1 of 15 questions. Open any window to read that answer.

  1. 01How do reinsurance rates differ between facultative and treaty placements in the US market?0/4
  2. 02What factors influence the cost of property and casualty reinsurance for US insurers?0/4
  3. 03How can insurance companies address common claim disputes with reinsurers?0/4
  4. 04How does property catastrophe reinsurance differ from casualty and specialty reinsurance?0/4
  5. 05When should an insurer seek specialty reinsurance for credit risk exposure?0/4
  6. 06What are the best property and casualty reinsurance solutions for regional insurance companies in the US?0/4
  7. 07Is it worth purchasing excess of loss reinsurance for a mid-sized insurer?0/4
  8. 08What are the key differences between proportional and non-proportional reinsurance agreements?0/4
  9. 09What are typical reasons for delays in reinsurance payouts for catastrophic events?0/4
  10. 10What should institutional clients consider before entering into a property reinsurance contract?0/4
  11. 11Are insurance-linked securities a viable option instead of catastrophe reinsurance for US-based carriers?0/4
  12. 12How can quota share reinsurance help companies manage exposure during hurricane season?0/4
  13. 13How do US-based insurance carriers find top-rated catastrophe risk reinsurers?0/4
  14. 14What alternatives exist to traditional property reinsurance for insurance companies?0/4
  15. 15Which types of capital partners are most active in the US reinsurance market?2/4
Total namedOpenAI: 0/15Claude: 0/15Perplexity: 1/15Gemini: 1/15All 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

“Which types of capital partners are most active in the US reinsurance market?”

… ILS funds and cat bond investors are a major subset of that capital markets base. Aon says the investor base has expanded from a narrow set of dedicated ILS funds to a broader institutional ecosystem, and Artemis lists large active ILS managers such as RenaissanceRe Capital Partners, Stone Ridge, and Vantage Partnership Capital.

Traditional reinsurer capital partners still matter, but the market is increasingly supplemented by nontraditional sources like sidecars, catastrophe bonds, and managed funds.

If you want, I can also break this down by property-cat vs. lif …

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
    Swiss Re
    5
  2. 02
    Munich Re
    1
  3. 03
    Everest Re
    1

Share of mentions

CompanyShare
  1. Munich Re
    44.4%
  2. RenaissanceRe
    22.2%
  3. Swiss Re
    22.2%
  4. Everest Re
    11.1%
  5. Hannover Re
    0.0%
  6. Arch Re
    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
    insurancebusinessmag.com
    32
  2. 02
    munichre.com
    20
  3. 03
    content.naic.org
    19
  4. 04
    irmi.com
    17
  5. 05
    aon.com
    16
  6. 06
    reinsurance.org
    14
  7. 07
    artemis.bm
    14
  8. 08
    casact.org
    10
  9. 09
    swissre.com
    10
  10. 10
    guycarp.com
    9

RenaissanceRe is in the study as a commercial insurer or broker.

By assistantSection 05

Which AI assistants named the company

Answers naming it, out of answers received

Gemini
1/15
Perplexity
1/15
Claude
0/15
OpenAI
0/15
Market comparisonSection 06

How RenaissanceRe 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
8

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
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 insurers

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

Overall score
27
Ranks 55 of 97. Typical company: 28
Named in answers
3.3%
Ranks 28 of 97. Typical company: 1.7%
AI readiness
29
Ranks 22 of 97. Typical company: 29
Against its categorySection 08

Compared with commercial insurers and brokers

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

Overall score
27
Ranks 15 of 29. Typical company: 27
Named in answers
3.3%
Ranks 6 of 29. Typical company: 1.7%
AI readiness
29
Ranks 4 of 29. 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.

  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. RenaissanceRe 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
31 of 100
  • robots.txtNot met

    Publish a valid robots.txt with crawl rules and a Sitemap line.

    study: 86.1%
  • SitemapPartly 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
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 25 of 100 · 97% of checks could run · checked on October 5, 2026 · www.renre.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

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

  • Not metrobots.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%
Take it with you

Get the full report on RenaissanceRe 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