Back to the study

PJT Partners

pjtpartners.com · Finance · PJT

Ranked 1,086 of 2,047 companies in the study

32Overall score
  • Visibility5
  • Citations0
  • Sentiment75
  • Site quality80
  • AI readiness21
What this means for PJT Partners

AI assistants rarely name PJT Partners, mentioning it in 2 out of 60 answers, sometimes alongside Evercore and Lazard. Its overall score is 32 out of 100, ranking 1,086th of 2,047 companies. The website passes 3 of 14 technical checks for AI tool readiness.

We asked 15 unbranded questions about the finance market: none named PJT Partners. AI assistants named it in 2 of 60 answers (3.3%). The typical finance company is named in 3.3% of answers. By how often it is named, PJT Partners ranks 87 of 205 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
3.3%
2 of 60 answers
Share of mentions
6.3%
compared with 5 rivals
AI readiness
3/14
technical checks passed. Typical for its sector: 3
Rank in its sector
69 of 205
by overall score, where the typical finance company scores 29
How PJT Partners 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
5

How often AI assistants name the company

Citations
0

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

Sentiment
75

How positively AI describes the company

Site quality
80

How well built the website's own pages are

AI readiness
21

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 finance

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

Overall score32
Ranks 69 of 205. Typical company: 29
Named in answers3%
Ranks 87 of 205. Typical company: 3%
AI readiness21
Ranks 82 of 205. Typical company: 21
What Gemini actually said

An answer that names the company

“Best financial advisory options for corporate restructurings in the United States”

For corporate restructurings in the United States, several financial advisory firms are recognized for their expertise in guiding companies through complex financial challenges, turnarounds, and bankruptcies. These firms offer a range of services from strategic advisory and financial modeling to liquidity management and distressed M&A.

Leading financial advisory firms for corporate restructuring in the US include:

Top-Tier Restructuring Consulting Firms:

Alvarez & Marsal: Widely regarded as a leader in the field, they are known for handling large and complex restructuring engage …

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

Also named
Evercore6Houlihan Lokey5Lazard2Moelis & Company1
Share of mentions

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

Evercore
29.6%
Houlihan Lokey
25.9%
Lazard
18.5%
Moelis & Company
14.8%
PJT Partners
7.4%
Centerview Partners
3.7%
Which AI assistants named the company

Answers naming it, out of answers received

Gemini
1/15
OpenAI
1/15
Claude
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 · www.pjtpartners.com · 2,047 companies scanned

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

The checks behind the AI readiness score

3 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%
  • Not metHTTP 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
  • GPTBotallowed
  • ClaudeBotallowed
  • Anthropic-AIallowed
  • Google-Extendedallowed
  • Applebot-Extendedallowed
  • Meta-ExternalAgentallowed
  • FacebookBotallowed
  • Bytespiderallowed
  • CCBotallowed
  • Diffbotallowed
  • Omgilibotallowed
AI search
  • OAI-SearchBotallowed
  • Claude-SearchBotallowed
  • PerplexityBotallowed
  • Applebotallowed
  • Amazonbotallowed
  • YouBotallowed
Answering questions
  • ChatGPT-Userallowed
  • Claude-Userallowed
  • Perplexity-Userallowed
  • DuckAssistBotallowed
  • MistralAI-Userallowed

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

axial.net
14
hl.com
11
dealroom.net
10
deloitte.com
10
ctacquisitions.com
10
linkedin.com
9
mergersandinquisitions.com
7
investorreadycapital.com
7
mckinsey.com
6
wallstreetprep.com
5

In the study as US-listed.

Every question, and where the company came up (1 of 15)
QuestionOpenAIClaudePerplexityGemini
  • Are independent financial advisory services worth the premium for corporate transactions?
  • How do you know if your company needs specialized advisory for capital raising?
  • How can corporate boards leverage investment banking expertise for transformative deals?
  • Common challenges when hiring an advisor for financial restructurings and how to avoid them
  • Typical fee structures for investment banks advising on billion-dollar transactions in the US
  • What factors influence the cost of restructuring advisory services for major corporations?
  • Alternatives to using investment banks for divestiture planning and execution
  • Use cases for independent financial advisors during large cross-border transactions
  • What should you do if a merger deal stalls during negotiation with an advisory bank?
  • Options for companies seeking capital markets advisory without traditional banking engagement
  • What are the key services offered by independent investment banks for large-scale mergers and acquisitions?
  • Investment banking vs management consulting: Which is better for strategic corporate guidance?
  • Best financial advisory options for corporate restructurings in the United States
  • How do boutique investment banks compare to full-service investment banks for complex transaction advisory?
  • Leading trends in financial advisory services for US-based institutional investors
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