Back to the study

Pagaya technologies

pagaya.com · Technology · PGY

Ranked 1,495 of 2,047 companies in the study

28Overall score
  • Visibility0
  • Citations0
  • Sentiment50
  • Site quality80
  • AI readiness43
What this means for Pagaya technologies

AI assistants do not name Pagaya Technologies in any of their 60 answers. Its overall score is 28 out of 100, ranking 1,495th of 2,047 companies, while the typical company in the sector has a higher score of 36. The company's website passes 4 of 14 technical checks, reflecting how ready it is for AI tools.

We asked 15 unbranded questions about the technology market: none named Pagaya technologies. AI assistants named it in none of 60 answers. The typical technology company is named in 10.0% of answers. By how often it is named, Pagaya technologies ranks 236 of 273 in its sector.

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 rivals.

Named by AI in
0.0%
0 of 60 answers
Share of mentions
0.0%
compared with 5 rivals
AI readiness
4/14
technical checks passed. Typical for its sector: 4
Rank in its sector
220 of 273
by overall score, where the typical technology company scores 36
How Pagaya technologies compares with all 2,047 companies

Every dot is a company in the study. Hover one to see it; click to open its report.

This companySame sectorEvery other companyNever named

What makes up the score

Five parts, each scored out of 100.

Visibility
0

How often AI assistants name the company

Citations
0

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

Sentiment
50

How positively AI describes the company

Site quality
80

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.

Compared with technology

273 companies in this sector. The line on each bar is the typical company.

Overall score28
Ranks 220 of 273. Typical company: 36
Named in answers0%
Ranks 236 of 273. Typical company: 10%
AI readiness43
Ranks 14 of 273. Typical company: 29
What Perplexity actually said

The company is not named in this answer

“Average pricing models for AI-based credit approval systems for financial institutions”

For AI-based credit approval systems, the most common pricing models for financial institutions are enterprise/custom contracts, usage-based pricing (per application, decision, or activity), and hybrid pricing that combines a subscription base with variable consumption or outcome-based fees.

Typical market patterns look like this:

Pricing model · How it is usually charged · Typical fit

Enterprise / custom contract · Annual or multi-year license with implementation and support fees · Banks, large lenders, and regulated institut …

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

Named instead
Zest AI6Provenir3Upstart2
Share of mentions

How the mentions in these answers were split between this company and its rivals

Zest AI
46.2%
Provenir
30.8%
Upstart
23.1%
Pagaya technologies
0.0%
Amount
0.0%
Blend
0.0%
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
Ready for AI agents

What this website publishes for an AI agent to read, use and buy from, 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
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: 92.0%
  • SitemapPassed

    An XML sitemap listing the pages, ideally referenced from robots.txt.

    study: 86.8%
  • Link headersNot met

    Send Link headers such as rel="api-catalog" or rel="describedby" on the homepage.

    study: 0.3%
  • DNS for AI DiscoveryNot present

    Advertise agent endpoints with SVCB records under _agents.

    study: 5.5%
Content accessibility
0 of 100
  • Markdown negotiationNot met

    Return a markdown version when asked with Accept: text/markdown, for example at the CDN.

    study: 1.9%
  • llms.txtNot met

    Publish an llms.txt with a short summary and the key links.

    study: 25.1%
Bot access control
32 of 100
  • AI bot rulesPartly met

    Add explicit robots.txt groups for the main AI crawlers.

    study: 93.4%
  • Content SignalsNot met

    Add a Content-Signal line for search, ai-input and ai-train to robots.txt.

    study: 1.4%
  • Web Bot AuthNot present

    Only relevant if you run your own agents or crawlers: publish a signing key directory.

    study: 0.2%
APIs, auth and MCP
0 of 100
  • API CatalogNot met

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

    study: 0.3%
  • OAuth discoveryNot met

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

    study: 11.8%
  • OAuth Protected ResourceNot met

    Serve protected resource metadata at /.well-known/oauth-protected-resource.

    study: 10.3%
  • auth.mdNot met

    Publish an auth.md describing how agents sign in.

    study: 0.0%
  • MCP Server CardNot met

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

    study: 0.2%
  • A2A Agent CardNot met

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

    study: 0.1%
  • Agent SkillsNot met

    Publish a skills index with the main tasks agents can do.

    study: 0.2%
  • WebMCPCould not check

    Register key actions such as search or cart as WebMCP tools.

    study: 33.7%
  • ARD manifestNot met

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

    study: 0.1%

Score 25 of 100 · 97% of checks could run · checked on October 5, 2026 · pagaya.com · 2,047 companies scanned

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

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: 85.0%
  • PassedXML sitemapstudy: 73.2%
  • PassedHTTP Link headers (RFC 8288)study: 29.0%
Content Accessibility
  • Not metMarkdown content negotiationstudy: 8.3%
  • Not metllms.txt publishedstudy: 21.7%
  • PassedToken budget (page weight)study: 95.2%
Bot Access Control
  • Not metExplicit AI bot rulesstudy: 13.0%
API / Auth / MCP
  • Not metAPI Catalog (.well-known/api-catalog)study: 0.2%
  • Not metOAuth Authorization Server discoverystudy: 10.1%
  • Not metOAuth Protected Resource discoverystudy: 9.3%
  • Not metMCP Server Cardstudy: 0.0%
  • Not metA2A Agent Cardstudy: 0.0%
  • Not metWebMCP toolsstudy: 4.2%
  • Not metAgent Skills declaredstudy: 0.0%
What AI crawlers may read (robots.txt)

This website sets no rules for any AI crawler by name, like 84% of the websites whose rules we could read. Every AI crawler follows its general rules.

Training AI
  • GPTBotpartly
  • 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.

Websites the AI used as sources

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

timvero.com
13
lendflow.com
10
experian.com
9
theasianbanker.com
8
loanpro.io
8
crestmontcapital.com
8
finance.yahoo.com
8
zest.ai
8
businesswire.com
7
leewayhertz.com
7

In the study as US-listed.

Every question, and where the company came up (0 of 15)
QuestionOpenAIClaudePerplexityGemini
  • What should financial institutions consider before switching to an automated credit evaluation system?
  • Why might an AI-powered lending network be inaccurately rejecting qualified applicants?
  • Average pricing models for AI-based credit approval systems for financial institutions
  • How can online lenders leverage an AI-powered lending network to increase loan approvals safely?
  • Alternatives to using an AI-powered lending network for streamlining credit approvals
  • Is investing in an AI-powered lending platform worth it for regional banks?
  • Ways credit unions can use AI-driven lending platforms to expand their member base
  • What factors influence the cost of implementing an AI lending network in a mid-sized bank?
  • How do AI lending networks differ from traditional loan approval systems?
  • Manual underwriting vs automated credit decision tools: how do they compare as solutions?
  • What are the key benefits of using an AI-driven lending network for financial institutions?
  • Machine learning vs rule-based credit analysis for loan approvals
  • How do lenders address data privacy concerns when integrating automated credit analysis platforms?
  • What types of financial institutions benefit most from AI-driven credit analysis networks?
  • Best AI-powered credit approval platforms for US-based lenders
named the companyanswered without naming itdid not answer

Columns, left to right: OpenAI, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini. The AI assistants often disagree. Across the study, on 40% of the questions where a company is named, only one of the four names it.

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