AI visibility statementFinance AI Visibility Study 2026Issued October 14, 2026

Account holder

Turnkey

turnkey.com

Stablecoins and digital asset infrastructure Crypto and digital assets

Money20/20 attendee

Statement period: October 9 to 14, 2026; when the AI assistants were asked
Account no.: 203 of 2,219; its rank by overall score
Place in its category: 8th of 80 digital asset infrastructure companies

Closing balance

Named in

5of 60 answers

by 3 of 4 assistants

Statement note

What this means for Turnkey

AI assistants name this digital asset infrastructure company in 8.3% of answers, much more often than the typical company in its sector at 1.7%. Its overall score is 41 out of 100, ranking 203rd of 2,219 companies and 7th of 102 in its sector. The website passes 5 out of 14 technical checks for readiness with AI tools.

We asked 15 unbranded questions about its market, so no question mentioned Turnkey by name. AI assistants named it in 5 of the 60 answers. Counting only how often it is named, it ranks 31st of 102 in its sector. The typical crypto and digital asset company is named in 1.7% of answers.

Overall score

Visibility11
Citations8
Sentiment100
Site quality80
AI readiness36

Summary of account

Named by AI in: 8.3%; 5 of 60 answers
Share of mentions: 17.2%; of the mentions of it and its 5 peers
AI readiness: 5/14; technical checks passed. Typical for its sector: 4
Rank in its sector: 7 of 102; by overall score, where the typical crypto and digital asset company scores 30

Get the full report on Turnkey as a PDF

Enter your work email to download it.

We’ll use your email to follow up about this report. Privacy policy

Line items01

Every question, and where the company came up

Turnkey came up on 3 of 15 questions. Open any window to read that answer.

01What affects the cost of large-scale wallet creation and private key management for Web3 businesses?0/4
02What are the most secure Wallet-as-a-Service solutions for developers building blockchain applications?3/4
03Decentralized solutions as alternatives to centralized wallet infrastructure: what are the pros and cons?0/4
04Best options for private key management infrastructure when launching a new onchain product?1/4
05How are Wallet-as-a-Service providers typically priced in the United States?1/4
06Best practices for automating wallet creation and transaction signing in consumer-facing blockchain apps?0/4
07Alternatives to using dedicated Wallet-as-a-Service if you want to self-manage wallets?0/4
08Do Wallet-as-a-Service platforms provide enough security for managing high-volume crypto transactions?0/4
09How do you resolve failed onchain transaction executions in Wallet-as-a-Service environments?0/4
10How does embedded Wallet-as-a-Service compare to custodial wallet platforms for enterprise onchain tools?0/4
11Is investing in dedicated private key management infrastructure worth it for a small Web3 startup?0/4
12What are other secure approaches to private key management besides WaaS platforms?0/4
13API-first wallet infrastructure vs open-source wallet SDKs: which is more flexible for multi-chain support?0/4
14How can Wallet-as-a-Service infrastructure support AI-generated onchain transactions?0/4
15What are common issues developers face when integrating Wallet-as-a-Service APIs?0/4

Total named0/151/152/152/155/60

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 detail02

What Perplexity actually said

An answer that names the company

Perplexitynamed the company

“What are the most secure Wallet-as-a-Service solutions for developers building blockchain applications?”

The strongest shortlist for security-conscious developers is Turnkey, Fireblocks, Coinbase Developer Platform, Privy, Dynamic, and Openfort. The best choice depends on whether the application needs institutional custody, embedded consumer wallets, non-custodial key control, or smart-account features.
Provider · Best fit · Security strengths · Main trade-off
Turnkey · Developer-first wallet infrastructure and high signing volume · TEE-backed architecture, programmable policies, API-based signing, and support for EVM, Bitcoin, Solana, and Cosmos ecosystems …

The AI’s answer as we received it, shortened and not checked for accuracy.

Payees03

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

01
Fireblocks
11
02
BitGo
5

Share of mentions

CompanyShare

Fireblocks
37.9%
BitGo
20.7%
Cypherglass (Privy)
20.7%
Turnkey
17.2%
Magic
3.4%
Fordefi
0.0%

Referrers04

Websites the AI used as sources

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

01
turnkey.com (its own website)
20
02
openfort.io
16
03
fireblocks.com
11
04
chainscorelabs.com
9
05
cobo.com
7
06
dev.to
6
07
f6s.com
5
08
medium.com
5
09
startupik.com
4
10
cregis.com
3

Turnkey is in the study as a digital asset infrastructure company.

By assistant05

Which AI assistants named the company

Answers naming it, out of answers received

Gemini

2/15

Perplexity

2/15

Claude

1/15

OpenAI

0/15

Market comparison06

How Turnkey 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

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

Citations

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

Sentiment

100

How positively AI describes the company

Site quality

How well built the website's own pages are

AI readiness

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 sector07

Compared with crypto and digital asset companies

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

Overall score

Ranks 7 of 102. Typical company: 30

Named in answers

8.3%

Ranks 31 of 102. Typical company: 1.7%

AI readiness

Ranks 21 of 102. Typical company: 33

Against its category08

Compared with digital asset infrastructure companies

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

Overall score

Ranks 5 of 80. Typical company: 29

Named in answers

8.3%

Ranks 23 of 80. Typical company: 1.7%

AI readiness

Ranks 16 of 80. Typical company: 36

AI agents09

Ready for AI agents

What this website publishes for an AI agent to read, use and pay through, on a scale of six levels.

0Not yet agent-ready
1Basic web presence
2Bot-aware
3Agent-readable
4Agent-integrated
5Agent-native

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. Turnkey 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

36 of 100

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

50 of 100

Markdown negotiationPassed
Requests sent with Accept: text/markdown receive a markdown version of the page.
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 26 of 100 · 97% of checks could run · checked on October 9, 2026 · www.turnkey.com · 2,200 companies scanned

See how every company did, and how this was measured.

AI readiness10

The checks behind the AI readiness score

5 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%
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 Turnkey 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

Share11

Share this result

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/turnkey.com"><img src="https://aeo-audit.rezolve.com/finance/badges/turnkey.com.svg" alt="Overall score 41 of 100, Finance AI Visibility Study 2026" width="280" height="64"></a>

End of statement

All 2,219 companies How we measured this

Turnkey

What this means for Turnkey

Get the full report on Turnkey as a PDF

Every question, and where the company came up

What Perplexity actually said

Where the mentions went

Also named

Share of mentions

Websites the AI used as sources

Which AI assistants named the company

How Turnkey compares with all 2,219 companies

What makes up the score

Compared with crypto and digital asset companies

Compared with digital asset infrastructure companies

Ready for AI agents

The checks behind the AI readiness score

Discoverability

Content Accessibility

Bot Access Control

API / Auth / MCP

Get the full report on Turnkey as a PDF

Share this result

Want AI assistants to name your company?