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
October 9 and 10, 2026
when the AI assistants were asked
Account no.
1,861 of 2,219
its rank by overall score
Place in its category
6th of 6 investing apps
Closing balance

Named in

0of 60, its tower is dark

by 0 of 4 assistants

Statement note

What this means for Troutwood

AI assistants do not name Troutwood in any of the 60 answers, while the typical company in its sector is named in 0.8% of answers. Its overall score is 25 out of 100, ranking 1,861st of 2,219 companies. Its website passes 1 of 14 technical checks for AI tool readiness.

We asked 15 unbranded questions about its market, so no question mentioned Troutwood by name. AI assistants named it in none of the 60 answers. Counting only how often it is named, it ranks 120th of 238 in its sector. The typical investing and wealth company is named in 0.8% 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
25Overall score
  • Visibility0
  • Citations0
  • Sentiment50
  • Site quality87
  • AI readiness7
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
1/14
technical checks passed. Typical for its sector: 4
Rank in its sector
184 of 238
by overall score, where the typical investing and wealth company scores 28

Get the full report on Troutwood 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

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

  1. 01Use cases for deploying engagement software to boost client retention in wealth management0/4
  2. 02Does client engagement technology really improve financial outcomes for advisors?0/4
  3. 03How can relationship infrastructure help financial advisors connect better with clients?0/4
  4. 04Relationship infrastructure versus traditional client management solutions for financial services0/4
  5. 05What features should I look for in a client engagement platform for financial services?0/4
  6. 06Why am I experiencing low adoption rates with my financial relationship platform?0/4
  7. 07What are the best platforms to improve client engagement for financial institutions?0/4
  8. 08Common reasons for friction or delays in implementing relationship infrastructure in financial institutions0/4
  9. 09Financial engagement platforms vs. standard CRM tools for banks and credit unions0/4
  10. 10Examples of how relationship infrastructure platforms strengthen advisor-client trust0/4
  11. 11Are there affordable relationship engagement solutions for small credit unions?0/4
  12. 12How much does relationship infrastructure software typically cost for banks?0/4
  13. 13Is investing in relationship infrastructure software worth it for a mid-sized financial institution?0/4
  14. 14Alternatives to relationship infrastructure platforms for connecting clients with financial expertise0/4
  15. 15What other ways can financial institutions improve client relationships without specialized software?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 Gemini actually said

The company is not named in this answer

Geminidid not name the company

“What are the best platforms to improve client engagement for financial institutions?”

Financial institutions can significantly enhance client engagement by adopting platforms that offer personalized experiences, streamline communication, and leverage data and AI. These platforms often fall into categories such as CRM (Customer Relationship Management) systems, digital banking engagement platforms, and specialized wealth management tools.

Here are some of the best platforms and key features to consider:

1. CRM Platforms (Client Relationship Management)

CRMs are foundational for managing client data, tracking interactions, and building stronger relationships. They centraliz …

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
    Wealthbox
    4
  2. 02
    Practifi
    1

Share of mentions

CompanyShare
  1. Wealthbox
    80.0%
  2. Practifi
    20.0%
  3. Troutwood
    0.0%
  4. ForwardLane
    0.0%
  5. innovatEd Financial Technology (Woveos)
    0.0%
  6. Addepar
    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
    vantagepoint.io
    11
  2. 02
    creatio.com
    8
  3. 03
    abrigo.com
    7
  4. 04
    marketintelo.com
    6
  5. 05
    investglass.com
    6
  6. 06
    emoneyadvisor.com
    6
  7. 07
    smartasset.com
    6
  8. 08
    meniga.com
    5
  9. 09
    salesforce.com
    5
  10. 10
    wolf.financial
    5

Troutwood is in the study as an investing app.

By assistantSection 05

Which AI assistants named the company

Answers naming it, out of answers received

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

How Troutwood 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
0

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

Sentiment
50

How positively AI describes the company

Site quality
87

How well built the website's own pages are

AI readiness
7

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 investing and wealth companies

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

Overall score
25
Ranks 184 of 238. Typical company: 28
Named in answers
0.0%
Ranks 120 of 238. Typical company: 0.8%
AI readiness
7
Ranks 219 of 238. Typical company: 29
Against its categorySection 08

Compared with investing apps

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

Overall score
25
Ranks 5 of 6. Typical company: 38
Named in answers
0.0%
Ranks 4 of 6. Typical company: 9.2%
AI readiness
7
Ranks 6 of 6. Typical company: 33
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. Troutwood 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 · www.troutwood.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

1 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%
  • 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%
  • 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 Troutwood 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