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

S&P Global

spglobal.comMHFI, SPGI

Market data, ratings and exchangesFinancial technology and data

Money20/20 attendeeS&P 500

Also in the US AI Visibility Study

Statement period
September 23 to 25, 2026
when the AI assistants were asked
Account no.
159 of 2,219
its rank by overall score
Place in its category
8th of 37 market data companies
Closing balance

Named in

31of 60 answers

by 4 of 4 assistants

Statement note

What this means for S&P Global

AI assistants name S&P Global in 51.7% of answers, much more often than the typical company in its sector, which is named in 1.7% of answers. Its overall score is 41 out of 100, ranking 159th of 2,219 overall and 54th of 574 in its sector. The company's website passes 2 of 14 technical checks for AI tool readiness.

We asked 15 unbranded questions about its market, so no question mentioned S&P Global by name. AI assistants named it in 31 of the 60 answers. Counting only how often it is named, it ranks 4th of 574 in its sector. The typical financial technology and data company is named in 1.7% of answers.

Overall score
41Overall score
  • Visibility42
  • Citations3
  • Sentiment50
  • Site quality93
  • AI readiness14
Summary of account
Named by AI in
51.7%
31 of 60 answers
Share of mentions
27.4%
of the mentions of it and its 5 peers
AI readiness
2/14
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 S&P Global 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

S&P Global came up on 12 of 15 questions. Open any window to read that answer.

  1. 01Why might real-time financial data feeds be delayed or incomplete?0/4
  2. 02Are there specialized analytics providers focused on ESG and sustainability data?4/4
  3. 03Which services offer in-depth credit rating information for large corporations?4/4
  4. 04How do financial professionals use credit ratings in investment decision-making?2/4
  5. 05What are good alternatives to traditional financial analytics platforms?2/4
  6. 06Are there affordable options for accessing global market data as a small institutional investor?0/4
  7. 07Do advanced analytics and global market data services provide enough value for their price?1/4
  8. 08What are the best financial analytics platforms for institutional investors?3/4
  9. 09What are the main applications of market analytics tools in corporate finance strategy?1/4
  10. 10How to resolve issues accessing institutional credit ratings databases?4/4
  11. 11What is the difference between market analytics services and economic forecasting tools?2/4
  12. 12How do financial information providers compare to credit rating agencies in terms of data depth?4/4
  13. 13What is the typical price range for enterprise-level financial information services in the US?2/4
  14. 14Where can I find open-source or free financial information services for market research?0/4
  15. 15Is subscribing to a comprehensive financial data platform worth it for a mid-sized investment firm?2/4
Total namedOpenAI: 9/15Claude: 5/15Perplexity: 7/15Gemini: 10/15All assistants: 31/60
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

“How do financial information providers compare to credit rating agencies in terms of data depth?”

Short answer

Financial information providers (Bloomberg, Refinitiv/ LSEG, FactSet, S&P Global Market Intelligence, etc.) generally offer far greater raw-data depth and transaction-level granularity (real‑time prices, tick/quote history, full financial‑statement time series, analyst models, ownership/issuer linkages, loan/security-level details).

Credit rating agencies (S&P, Moody’s, Fitch) provide shallower raw data but deeper structured credit analysis — forward‑looking ratings, default/recovery studies, rating methodologies, issuer- and instrument‑level credit opinions and surveillance c …

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
    Bloomberg
    20
  2. 02
    Morningstar
    9
  3. 03
    Moody's
    4
  4. 04
    Fitch Ratings
    3

Share of mentions

CompanyShare
  1. S&P Global
    27.4%
  2. Bloomberg
    24.8%
  3. Refinitiv (an LSEG business)
    15.9%
  4. Moody's
    13.3%
  5. Morningstar
    12.4%
  6. Fitch Ratings
    6.2%
ReferrersSection 04

Websites the AI used as sources

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

  1. 01
    spglobal.com (its own website)
    22
  2. 02
    moodys.com
    17
  3. 03
    alpha-sense.com
    14
  4. 04
    globalbankingandfinance.com
    14
  5. 05
    bloomberg.com
    13
  6. 06
    hebbia.com
    12
  7. 07
    github.com
    11
  8. 08
    visualping.io
    10
  9. 09
    justdial.com
    9
  10. 10
    lseg.com
    8

S&P Global is in the study as a market data company.

By assistantSection 05

Which AI assistants named the company

Answers naming it, out of answers received

Gemini
10/15
OpenAI
9/15
Perplexity
7/15
Claude
5/15
Market comparisonSection 06

How S&P Global 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
42

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

Citations
3

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

Sentiment
50

How positively AI describes the company

Site quality
93

How well built the website's own pages are

AI readiness
14

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
51.7%
Ranks 4 of 574. Typical company: 1.7%
AI readiness
14
Ranks 504 of 574. Typical company: 29
Against its categorySection 08

Compared with market data companies

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

Overall score
41
Ranks 8 of 37. Typical company: 36
Named in answers
51.7%
Ranks 4 of 37. Typical company: 15.0%
AI readiness
14
Ranks 30 of 37. 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

The website turns away requests that do not come from a browser. AI agents that say what they are meet the same refusal.

Can an AI agent check out here?

We could not tell. The website turned away our requests for the files an agent would read. An agent arriving by itself is turned away the same way.

Agent payment protocols
  • x402Not present
  • MPPNot present
  • AP2Not present
  • ACPCould not check
  • UCPNot present
Interfaces for AI agents
  • MCP Server CardCould not check
  • A2A Agent CardCould not check
  • Agent SkillsCould not check
  • API CatalogNot present
  • llms.txtCould not check
  • 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.txtCould not check

    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.mdCould not check

    Publish an auth.md describing how agents sign in.

    study: 0.2%
  • MCP Server CardCould not check

    Offer an MCP server and publish its server card under /.well-known.

    study: 0.8%
  • A2A Agent CardCould not check

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

    study: 0.2%
  • Agent SkillsCould not check

    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 manifestCould not check

    Publish an ai-catalog.json listing every agent interface.

    study: 0.2%

Score 47 of 100 · 66% of checks could run · checked on October 3, 2026 · www.spglobal.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

2 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%
  • Not metXML 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%
  • Not metToken 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 1 AI crawler by name. All others follow its general rules.

Training AI

  • GPTBot*allowed
  • ClaudeBotpartly
  • Anthropic-AIpartly
  • Google-Extendedpartly
  • Applebot-Extendedpartly
  • Meta-ExternalAgentpartly
  • FacebookBotpartly
  • Bytespiderpartly
  • CCBotpartly
  • Diffbotpartly
  • Omgilibotpartly

AI search

  • OAI-SearchBotpartly
  • Claude-SearchBotpartly
  • PerplexityBotpartly
  • 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 S&P Global 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 41 of 100 badge for S&P Global

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/spglobal.com"><img src="https://aeo-audit.rezolve.com/finance/badges/spglobal.com.svg" alt="Overall score 41 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