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 to 14, 2026
when the AI assistants were asked
Account no.
2,143 of 2,219
its rank by overall score
Place in its category
175th of 177 consultancies
Closing balance

Named in

0of 60, its tower is dark

by 0 of 4 assistants

Statement note

What this means for VARTEQ

AI assistants do not name this consultancy in any of their 60 answers. Its overall score is 22 out of 100, which ranks 2,143rd of 2,219. The website passes 2 out of 14 technical checks for AI tool readiness.

We asked 15 unbranded questions about its market, so no question mentioned VARTEQ by name. AI assistants named it in none of the 60 answers. Counting only how often it is named, it ranks 149th of 346 in its sector. The typical advisory or services firm 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
22Overall score
  • Visibility0
  • Citations0
  • Sentiment50
  • Site quality67
  • AI readiness14
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
2/14
technical checks passed. Typical for its sector: 4
Rank in its sector
332 of 346
by overall score, where the typical advisory or services firm scores 27

Get the full report on VARTEQ 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

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

  1. 01Typical pricing tiers for dedicated development teams specializing in healthcare solutions0/4
  2. 02Common challenges when working with remote software development teams and how to overcome them0/4
  3. 03Are dedicated software development teams worth the higher investment for long-term healthcare projects?0/4
  4. 04Best practices for using an external tech team to launch a HIPAA-compliant healthcare application0/4
  5. 05What are some options besides dedicated technology teams for rapid prototype development?0/4
  6. 06Dedicated technology teams vs. hybrid delivery models: which is more efficient for education software?0/4
  7. 07How do dedicated software development teams compare to project outsourcing for web application builds?0/4
  8. 08Alternatives to outsourcing e-learning software development services in the US0/4
  9. 09Other ways businesses can access IT expertise without long-term contracts or retainer teams0/4
  10. 10How do custom software development costs vary between project-based and team-based engagement models?0/4
  11. 11How to leverage custom development services to build interactive corporate training platforms0/4
  12. 12Should my business use an outsourced team or hire in-house developers for custom web solutions?0/4
  13. 13Top-rated dedicated software development teams for e-learning projects in the US0/4
  14. 14How can quality assurance be improved in outsourced e-learning software development?0/4
  15. 15What are the best custom software development services for healthcare organizations?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

“What are the best custom software development services for healthcare organizations?”

Short answer

There’s no single “best” — the right custom software development partner for a healthcare organization depends on your goals (enterprise modernization vs. a patient app vs. device firmware), required certifications (HIPAA, HITRUST, SOC 2), scale, and integrations (Epic/Cerner, FHIR/HL7).

Vendors fall into useful categories: large systems integrators for enterprise-scale modernization and payer/provider programs; midsize firms with deep healthcare practices for clinical apps and integrations; and specialized/boutique firms for fast product builds, device/embedded work, or FHI …

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
    Intellectsoft
    2

Share of mentions

CompanyShare
  1. Intellectsoft
    100.0%
  2. VARTEQ
    0.0%
  3. ELEKS
    0.0%
  4. BairesDev
    0.0%
  5. Oxagile
    0.0%
  6. Kanda Software
    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
    cleveroad.com
    5
  2. 02
    blaze.tech
    4
  3. 03
    zfort.com
    4
  4. 04
    spaceotechnologies.com
    4
  5. 05
    tactionsoft.com
    4
  6. 06
    hhs.gov
    4
  7. 07
    keyholesoftware.com
    3
  8. 08
    linkedin.com
    3
  9. 09
    moldstud.com
    3
  10. 10
    riseuplabs.com
    3

VARTEQ is in the study as a consultancy.

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 VARTEQ 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
67

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 advisory and services firms

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

Overall score
22
Ranks 332 of 346. Typical company: 27
Named in answers
0.0%
Ranks 149 of 346. Typical company: 0.0%
AI readiness
14
Ranks 301 of 346. Typical company: 29
Against its categorySection 08

Compared with consultancies

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

Overall score
22
Ranks 168 of 177. Typical company: 27
Named in answers
0.0%
Ranks 62 of 177. Typical company: 0.0%
AI readiness
14
Ranks 154 of 177. 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 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?

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
  • UCPCould not check
Interfaces for AI agents
  • MCP Server CardCould not check
  • A2A Agent CardCould not check
  • Agent SkillsCould not check
  • API CatalogCould not check
  • llms.txtNot present
  • WebMCPCould not check
Show every check, for your technical team
Discoverability
31 of 100
  • robots.txtNot met

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

    study: 86.1%
  • SitemapPartly met

    Serve an XML sitemap and reference it 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
0 of 100
  • AI bot rulesNot 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 AuthCould not check

    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 CatalogCould not check

    List public APIs in a linkset at /.well-known/api-catalog.

    study: 1.3%
  • OAuth discoveryCould not check

    Publish OpenID Connect or OAuth server metadata under /.well-known.

    study: 6.3%
  • OAuth Protected ResourceCould not check

    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 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 11 of 100 · 65% of checks could run · checked on October 9, 2026 · varteq.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

  • Not metrobots.txt publishedstudy: 85.1%
  • Not metXML 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%
Take it with you

Get the full report on VARTEQ 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