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

Solid Processing

solid.com

Payment processors, acquirers and point of saleCards and payments

Money20/20 attendee

Statement period
October 9 and 10, 2026
when the AI assistants were asked
Account no.
665 of 2,219
its rank by overall score
Place in its category
47th of 203 payment processors
Closing balance

Named in

0of 60, its tower is dark

by 0 of 4 assistants

Statement note

What this means for Solid Processing

AI assistants do not name Solid Processing in any of the 60 answers reviewed. Its overall score is 35 out of 100, which ranks 665th of 2,219, while the typical company in its sector scores 27. Its website passes 4 of 14 technical checks for readiness for AI tools.

We asked 15 unbranded questions about its market, so no question mentioned Solid Processing by name. AI assistants named it in none of the 60 answers. Counting only how often it is named, it ranks 179th of 375 in its sector. The typical cards and payments company 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
35Overall score
  • Visibility0
  • Citations2
  • Sentiment100
  • Site quality67
  • AI readiness43
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
88 of 375
by overall score, where the typical cards and payments company scores 27

Get the full report on Solid Processing 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

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

  1. 01What are typical causes of poor mobile signal coverage even after installing a DAS, and how can they be fixed?0/4
  2. 02Alternatives to using distributed antenna systems for expanding mobile coverage indoors?0/4
  3. 03Top solutions for seamless mobile connectivity in hospitals and healthcare facilities?0/4
  4. 04Innovative trends in distributed antenna systems and networking for next-generation 5G coverage?0/4
  5. 05Common issues with distributed antenna system installation in multi-story buildings and how to resolve them?0/4
  6. 06Best practices for using DAS to provide essential mobile coverage in underground facilities?0/4
  7. 07What other types of technologies can address mobile connectivity challenges in challenging venues?0/4
  8. 08Distributed antenna systems vs small cell networks: which is better for high-density venues?0/4
  9. 09How much does it cost to deploy a distributed antenna system in a shopping mall?0/4
  10. 10Typical expenses associated with maintaining telecommunications networking equipment in enterprise settings?0/4
  11. 11What are the best distributed antenna systems for improving mobile coverage in large commercial buildings?0/4
  12. 12How do optical transport solutions compare to traditional copper-based networking for telecom infrastructure?0/4
  13. 13How can distributed antenna systems support reliable wireless service during large events?0/4
  14. 14What should I consider before implementing a scalable networking solution for a stadium?0/4
  15. 15Are distributed antenna systems worth the investment for enterprise office complexes?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

“Top solutions for seamless mobile connectivity in hospitals and healthcare facilities?”

Below are the top, field-proven approaches for delivering seamless mobile connectivity in hospitals and healthcare facilities — what they do, why they matter, pros/cons, implementation considerations, and representative vendors to evaluate.

1) Enterprise Wi‑Fi (Wi‑Fi 6 / 6E, and planning for Wi‑Fi 7)

What: High‑capacity, low‑latency campus Wi‑Fi for staff devices, clinician apps, patient Wi‑Fi and many IoT devices. Wi‑Fi 6/6E adds capacity, better multi-user performance and spectrum in 6 GHz. (arubanetworks.com …

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.

Named instead

CompanyTimes named
  1. 01
    JMA Wireless
    3
  2. 02
    CommScope
    2
  3. 03
    SOLiD
    1
  4. 04
    Nextivity
    1

Share of mentions

CompanyShare
  1. CommScope
    30.8%
  2. JMA Wireless
    30.8%
  3. Corning (Corning Optical Communications)
    23.1%
  4. Comba Telecom
    7.7%
  5. Nextivity
    7.7%
  6. Solid Processing
    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
    cts1.com
    14
  2. 02
    thenetworkinstallers.com
    9
  3. 03
    business.att.com
    7
  4. 04
    callmc.com
    7
  5. 05
    cox.com
    6
  6. 06
    dassystems.com
    6
  7. 07
    ericsson.com
    5
  8. 08
    solid.com (its own website)
    5
  9. 09
    image-ppubs.uspto.gov
    5
  10. 10
    wilsonconnectivity.com
    4

Solid Processing is in the study as a payment processor.

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 Solid Processing 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
2

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

Sentiment
100

How positively AI describes the company

Site quality
67

How well built the website's own pages are

AI readiness
43

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 cards and payments companies

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

Overall score
35
Ranks 88 of 375. Typical company: 27
Named in answers
0.0%
Ranks 179 of 375. Typical company: 0.0%
AI readiness
43
Ranks 15 of 375. Typical company: 29
Against its categorySection 08

Compared with payment processors

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

Overall score
35
Ranks 42 of 203. Typical company: 27
Named in answers
0.0%
Ranks 91 of 203. Typical company: 0.0%
AI readiness
43
Ranks 8 of 203. 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. Solid Processing 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 · solid.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

  • 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 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 Solid Processing 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