- Visibility11
- Citations2
- Sentiment93
- Site quality73
- AI readiness21
AI assistants name T. Rowe Price in 10% of answers, which is more often than the typical company in its sector at 3.3%. Its overall score is 36 out of 100, ranking 761st of 2,047 companies. The website passes 3 of 14 technical checks for readiness for AI tools.
We asked 15 unbranded questions about the finance market: none named T. Rowe Price. AI assistants named it in 6 of 60 answers (10.0%). The typical finance company is named in 3.3% of answers. By how often it is named, T. Rowe Price ranks 50 of 205 in its sector.
Every dot is a company in the study. Hover one to see it; click to open its report.
This companySame sectorEvery other companyNever named
Five parts, each scored out of 100.
How often AI assistants name the company
How often AI uses the company's own website as a source
How positively AI describes the company
How well built the website's own pages are
How easily AI tools can read and use the website
Visibility is calculated from the answers on this page. How the score is built.
205 companies in this sector. The line on each bar is the typical company.
An answer that names the company
“Top active fund managers for US individual investors interested in outperforming index funds?”
Reality Check on Active Management
It's important to understand the baseline challenge: across all categories, an investor selecting an active manager at random would face a 60% probability of them underperforming their average passive peer. More specifically, just 21% of active funds survived and came out ahead over the 10 years ending in 2025.
Where Active Managers Have Had Success
Despite these odds, some active managers have outperformed, especially when adjusting performance for risk, and in some parts of the market—particularly among non-US stocks and bonds—active management has …
The AI’s answer as we received it, shortened and not checked for accuracy.
How the mentions in these answers were split between this company and its rivals
Answers naming it, out of answers received
What this website publishes for an AI agent to read, use and buy from, on a scale of six levels.
- 0
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
Level 1: Basic web presence. Two of robots.txt, a sitemap and Link headers are in place.
- Content Signals
Show every check, for your technical teamHide the checks
- study: 92.0%robots.txtPassed
A valid robots.txt with crawl rules at the site root.
- study: 86.8%SitemapPartly met
Serve an XML sitemap and reference it from robots.txt.
- study: 0.3%Link headersNot met
Send Link headers such as rel="api-catalog" or rel="describedby" on the homepage.
- study: 5.5%DNS for AI DiscoveryNot present
Advertise agent endpoints with SVCB records under _agents.
- study: 1.9%Markdown negotiationNot met
Return a markdown version when asked with Accept: text/markdown, for example at the CDN.
- study: 25.1%llms.txtCould not check
Publish an llms.txt with a short summary and the key links.
- study: 93.4%AI bot rulesPartly met
Add explicit robots.txt groups for the main AI crawlers.
- study: 1.4%Content SignalsNot met
Add a Content-Signal line for search, ai-input and ai-train to robots.txt.
- study: 0.2%Web Bot AuthCould not check
Only relevant if you run your own agents or crawlers: publish a signing key directory.
- study: 0.3%API CatalogCould not check
List public APIs in a linkset at /.well-known/api-catalog.
- study: 11.8%OAuth discoveryCould not check
Publish OpenID Connect or OAuth server metadata under /.well-known.
- study: 10.3%OAuth Protected ResourceCould not check
Serve protected resource metadata at /.well-known/oauth-protected-resource.
- study: 0.0%auth.mdCould not check
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: 0.1%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: 33.7%WebMCPCould not check
Register key actions such as search or cart as WebMCP tools.
- study: 0.1%ARD manifestCould not check
Publish an ai-catalog.json listing every agent interface.
Score 43 of 100 · 53% of checks could run · checked on October 5, 2026 · www.troweprice.com · 2,047 companies scanned
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 checksHide them
- Passedrobots.txt publishedstudy: 85.0%
- PassedXML sitemapstudy: 73.2%
- Not metHTTP Link headers (RFC 8288)study: 29.0%
- Not metMarkdown content negotiationstudy: 8.3%
- Not metllms.txt publishedstudy: 21.7%
- PassedToken budget (page weight)study: 95.2%
- Not metExplicit AI bot rulesstudy: 13.0%
- 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%
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.
- GPTBotpartly
- ClaudeBotpartly
- Anthropic-AIpartly
- Google-Extendedpartly
- Applebot-Extendedpartly
- Meta-ExternalAgentpartly
- FacebookBotpartly
- Bytespiderpartly
- CCBotpartly
- Diffbotpartly
- Omgilibotpartly
- OAI-SearchBotpartly
- Claude-SearchBotpartly
- PerplexityBotpartly
- Applebotpartly
- Amazonbotpartly
- YouBotpartly
- 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.
How many times each website was listed as a source in these answers
In the study as S&P 500.
- How do mutual funds and ETFs differ for investors seeking actively managed solutions?
- Alternatives to using investment management firms for building a diversified portfolio?
- Top active fund managers for US individual investors interested in outperforming index funds?
- Are the expense ratios for actively managed funds justified by their performance?
- What fees should US investors expect from active investment management firms?
- What are alternatives to traditional mutual funds for hands-off investors?
- Active management vs passive investing: which is better for building retirement savings?
- How can institutional clients use investment management firms to diversify large portfolios?
- What are the best investment management firms for long-term portfolio growth?
- Best options for investors looking for lower-cost alternatives to active fund management?
- How can investors tell if their fund manager is consistently beating the benchmark?
- Strategies for using active ETFs to navigate market volatility in the US?
- Is investing in an actively managed mutual fund worth it for beginners?
- What should I do if my actively managed fund is underperforming the market?
- Should financial advisors recommend actively managed portfolios to conservative clients?
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.
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/troweprice.com"><img src="https://aeo-audit.rezolve.com/us/badges/troweprice.com.svg" alt="Overall score 36 of 100, US AI Visibility Study 2026" width="280" height="64"></a>