AI names Fidelity most in investing platforms, 16 points clear

When buyers ask AI assistants questions like “What are the best investment and wealth platforms to consider in 2026?” or “Best affordable investment platforms under $100 for beginners?”, a small set of investing platformsget cited every time. Most don't. This report measures which.

Who AI cites most

Fidelity is cited in 58 of 100 prompt-engine pairs (58%). 95% confidence interval 49-68.

Concentration

The top 3 brands (Fidelity, Charles Schwab, Vanguard) capture 41% of all citations in this segment. 10 of 20 tracked brands are cited in fewer than 1 in 10 prompt-engine pairs.

Where the field sits

Of 20 brands tested: 1 in repeat-use, 5 in first-encounter, 14 not yet cited. Overall, AI cites a brand from this segment in 16% of buyer-intent prompt-engine pairs.

Engine asymmetry

Fidelity is cited in 95% of Gemini prompts but only 0% on Claude, visibility is engine-specific, not universal.

Wildcard competitor

AI also cites Schwab Intelligent Portfolios 165 times across these prompts, even though it is not on our tracked-brand list. A citation-share leak worth investigating.

Average Panel Score across the segment is 19.

Analyst note. Fidelity leads with a Panel Score of 59 but no brand achieves leader status in this segment.

Fidelity has the highest Panel Score at 59 but is still in the foothold tier. Its visibility varies across engines, scoring 95 on Gemini and 0 on Claude. Charles Schwab and Vanguard follow with Panel Scores of 43 and 37. Fourteen out of 20 brands are invisible, showing concentrated visibility among a few players. Discovery prompts favor Fidelity with a 67% citation rate, while comparison prompts drop to 55%.

Risk. Fidelity's 0% citation rate on Claude is a risk as competitors like Vanguard perform better on other engines.

Ranked by Panel Score, a 0 to 100 score that weights four buying phases: Discovery, Filtered Discovery, Comparison and Evaluation. Citations count fully and mentions count at half weight; engines are weighted equally. Spread is the gap between a brand's best and worst engine: under 15pp is durable, 50pp and up is engine-dependent. Engine columns count the prompts (out of 20) where that engine cited the brand as a recommendation.

Default choice (75+)

AI's go-to recommendation in investing platforms. The tier other brands are competing into.

Repeat use (50 to 74)

Cited often enough to feel reliably present across prompts and engines. One signal away from default.

First encounter (25 to 49)

Discovered and cited occasionally, but visibility is inconsistent. Real to AI, not yet trusted.

Not yet cited (0 to 24)

AI does not surface this brand for buyer-intent prompts in investing platforms.

How often each engine cites a brand from this category as a recommendation, averaged across all 20 brands tested. Perplexity and Grok search the live web; ChatGPT and Claude lean more on trained knowledge; Gemini blends both.

Citation rate by buying phase, averaged across all brands tested.

Each cell is the brand's citation rate for that phase, shaded darker as the rate rises. A solid dark row is a durable brand: AI cites it across the whole funnel. Dark on the left and pale on the right is awareness without recommendation, the demand-leak pattern. Pale on the left and dark on the right is a brand AI weighs in Comparison and Evaluation but does not surface in Discovery.

Derived metrics computed from the same data, showing how this segment behaves on AI search. The State of AI Search compares them across segments.

Aggregated across every brand, prompt and engine combination tested. These are the names AI surfaces when buyers ask about investing platforms.

Ranked by mention count and engine breadth. These are panel candidates: brands AI treats as part of the category even though we are not measuring them yet. Open a row to read the AI quote that surfaced it.

The Panel Score is calibrated to a generic shopping-assistant prompt. Buyers don't arrive generically. We re-ran the same 20 canonical prompts five more times, each with a different buyer-persona signal in the system prompt: budget-conscious, premium, working professional, first-time, values-driven.

We re-ran the same 20 canonical prompts under eight demographic system-prompt variants: gender (men, women) crossed with generation (Gen Z 18-29, Millennial 30-45, Gen X 46-61, Boomer 62+). Age ranges follow Pew Research boundaries. The system prompt names the age range only; the labels here are descriptive.

Each is a category-specific decision drawn from this month's data, with the mapou service that puts it into practice.

1. Concentration risk

   In investing platforms, AI effectively recommends 11.8 of 20 tracked brands. The top brand captures 16% of citations. The next 2 capture another 11%. Visibility is concentrated but not winner-takes-all.

   How mapou helps: GEO & Citation Architecture restructures your entity data so you can break into the top set.

2. Engines split

   Engines disagree on the investing platforms leaderboard. Mean cross-engine agreement is only 0.12 (1.0 = perfect agreement, 0 = independent). Optimizing for ChatGPT will not necessarily improve your Claude or Gemini visibility. You need engine-specific strategy.

   How mapou helps: AI Visibility Audit maps your position separately on each of the 5 engines.

3. Persona-volatile category

   Investing platforms rankings shift meaningfully by buyer persona. Betterment is the baseline #1 brand, but loses the top spot under at least one buyer signal (budget, premium, professional, first-time, values-driven). Top-3 overlap with baseline is only 73% across personas. Your baseline visibility number is incomplete.

   How mapou helps: Persona-Tuned Panel Score computes the visibility number for your actual buyer mix.

4. Visibility tier mix

   In investing platforms, 0 of 20 tracked brands clear Panel Score 75 (default-choice tier). 14 are below Panel Score 25 (not yet cited). The strategy differs at each tier. If you are below 25, you need foundational visibility infrastructure before tactical optimization.

   How mapou helps: AI Visibility Audit identifies your tier; GEO & Citation Architecture moves you up.

The 20 canonical prompts span the four Panel Score phases (Discovery, Filtered Discovery, Comparison, Evaluation). The set is fixed at methodology v1.0 and reused every monthly run, so Panel Score changes are paired comparisons, not noise.

The exact prompt templates and phase-weighting formula are part of mapou's proprietary methodology, shared with paying clients alongside custom benchmarks for their brand. See the framework.