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

Sanction Scanner

sanctionscanner.com

Fraud, identity and complianceFinancial technology and data

Money20/20 attendee

Statement period
October 9 to 14, 2026
when the AI assistants were asked
Account no.
214 of 2,219
its rank by overall score
Place in its category
24th of 171 fraud and identity companies
Closing balance

Named in

2of 60 answers

by 2 of 4 assistants

Statement note

What this means for Sanction Scanner

AI assistants rarely name this fraud and identity company in their answers, with just 2 of 60 answers mentioning it. Its overall score is 41 out of 100, ranking 214th of 2,219 in the study. The company's website passes 8 of 14 technical checks for readiness with AI tools.

We asked 15 unbranded questions about its market, so no question mentioned Sanction Scanner by name. AI assistants named it in 2 of the 60 answers. Counting only how often it is named, it ranks 223rd of 574 in its sector. The typical financial technology and data company 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
41Overall score
  • Visibility5
  • Citations1
  • Sentiment100
  • Site quality87
  • AI readiness57
Summary of account
Named by AI in
3.3%
2 of 60 answers
Share of mentions
7.7%
of the mentions of it and its 5 peers
AI readiness
8/14
technical checks passed. Typical for its sector: 4
Rank in its sector
54 of 574
by overall score, where the typical financial technology and data company scores 29

Get the full report on Sanction Scanner 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

Sanction Scanner came up on 2 of 15 questions. Open any window to read that answer.

  1. 01Should I prioritize unified risk scoring features when selecting compliance solutions?0/4
  2. 02What are common challenges with integrating KYC/KYB onboarding modules with existing compliance dashboards?0/4
  3. 03How does transaction monitoring differ from transaction screening in AML software?0/4
  4. 04AML screening versus ongoing monitoring: which is more effective for banks?0/4
  5. 05Do most AML platforms charge extra for API-based compliance checks?0/4
  6. 06What are the main alternatives to AI-powered AML platforms for risk management?1/4
  7. 07What are the best AML compliance software options for fintech companies in the US?1/4
  8. 08Which anti-money laundering platforms offer comprehensive transaction and fraud monitoring features?0/4
  9. 09What AML solutions are recommended for digital asset businesses and crypto exchanges?0/4
  10. 10Is AI-powered anti-money laundering software worth the investment for smaller financial institutions?0/4
  11. 11Why might adverse media screening tools generate false positives in AML compliance checks?0/4
  12. 12Are there open-source solutions available for basic transaction screening and fraud detection?0/4
  13. 13What are typical pricing models for robust anti-money laundering software in the US market?0/4
  14. 14How can financial institutions automate regulatory reporting within their AML compliance systems?0/4
  15. 15Which manual tools are still used for anti-money laundering compliance in small credit unions?0/4
Total namedOpenAI: 0/15Claude: 1/15Perplexity: 0/15Gemini: 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 Claude actually said

An answer that names the company

Claudenamed the company

“What are the best AML compliance software options for fintech companies in the US?”

… Sanction Scanner is ideal for smaller banks and FinTechs on a budget, offering big-league compliance tools in a small-league package with an affordable yet effective way to meet AML obligations.

For US-Centric Operations:

Alloy is best suited for US-based fintechs and banks that want to unify identity verification, KYC, and AML screening in a single orchestration layer.

Enterprise Options

NICE Actimize and Oracle serve large institutions needing deep investigation workflows and enterprise-scale reporting.

Other Notable Platforms

Additional strong options include Sardine, Fener …

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
    ComplyAdvantage
    7
  2. 02
    Sumsub
    6
  3. 03
    Ondato
    1
  4. 04
    NameScan
    1
  5. 05
    Tookitaki
    1

Share of mentions

CompanyShare
  1. ComplyAdvantage
    53.8%
  2. Sumsub
    26.9%
  3. Sanction Scanner
    7.7%
  4. NameScan
    3.8%
  5. Ondato
    3.8%
  6. Tookitaki
    3.8%
ReferrersSection 04

Websites the AI used as sources

How many times each website was listed as a source in these answers

  1. 01
    github.com
    14
  2. 02
    amlwatcher.com
    10
  3. 03
    flagright.com
    8
  4. 04
    financialcrimeacademy.org
    7
  5. 05
    binderr.com
    5
  6. 06
    symphonyai.com
    5
  7. 07
    oracle.com
    5
  8. 08
    fraudio.com
    4
  9. 09
    learn.g2.com
    4
  10. 10
    fraud.net
    4

Sanction Scanner is in the study as a fraud and identity company.

By assistantSection 05

Which AI assistants named the company

Answers naming it, out of answers received

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

How Sanction Scanner 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
100

How positively AI describes the company

Site quality
87

How well built the website's own pages are

AI readiness
57

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
41
Ranks 54 of 574. Typical company: 29
Named in answers
3.3%
Ranks 223 of 574. Typical company: 1.7%
AI readiness
57
Ranks 9 of 574. Typical company: 29
Against its categorySection 08

Compared with fraud and identity companies

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

Overall score
41
Ranks 19 of 171. Typical company: 30
Named in answers
3.3%
Ranks 71 of 171. Typical company: 1.7%
AI readiness
57
Ranks 3 of 171. Typical company: 36
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. Sanction Scanner 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 CardPublished
  • A2A Agent CardNot present
  • Agent SkillsPublished
  • API CatalogPublished
  • llms.txtPublished
  • WebMCPCould not check
Show every check, for your technical team
Discoverability
100 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 headersPassed

    HTTP Link headers on the homepage that point agents at machine readable resources.

    study: 1.5%
  • DNS for AI DiscoveryNot present

    Advertise agent endpoints with SVCB records under _agents.

    study: 4.3%
Content accessibility
100 of 100
  • Markdown negotiationPassed

    Requests sent with Accept: text/markdown receive a markdown version of the page.

    study: 6.2%
  • llms.txtPassed

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

    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
53 of 100
  • API CatalogPassed

    A linkset at /.well-known/api-catalog listing APIs, specs and docs.

    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 CardPassed

    A server card describing the MCP server, its transport and capabilities.

    study: 0.8%
  • A2A Agent CardNot met

    Publish an agent card at /.well-known/agent-card.json.

    study: 0.2%
  • Agent SkillsPassed

    A skills index at /.well-known/agent-skills/index.json that agents can load.

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

8 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

  • PassedMarkdown content negotiationstudy: 7.4%
  • Passedllms.txt publishedstudy: 28.1%
  • PassedToken budget (page weight)study: 97.3%

Bot Access Control

  • PassedExplicit AI bot rulesstudy: 11.5%

API / Auth / MCP

  • PassedAPI 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 4 AI crawlers by name. All others follow its general rules.

Training AI

  • GPTBot*partly
  • ClaudeBot*partly
  • Anthropic-AIpartly
  • Google-Extended*partly
  • Applebot-Extendedpartly
  • Meta-ExternalAgentpartly
  • FacebookBotpartly
  • Bytespiderpartly
  • CCBotpartly
  • Diffbotpartly
  • Omgilibotpartly

AI search

  • OAI-SearchBotpartly
  • Claude-SearchBotpartly
  • PerplexityBot*partly
  • 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 Sanction Scanner 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