Fintech AI-Visibility Scorecard
How AI assistants describe the leading fintech tools when a founder asks for recommendations — scored on Visibility, Citation, and Recommendation. Every score below is derived only from verbatim, page-cited transcripts, so any reader can re-derive it.
Version 1 — Claude surface only. This is a point-in-time snapshot, not an audit. One of four intended AI surfaces is scored here (Claude). ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Gemini are pending founder-provided access and are shown empty — never estimated or simulated.
Why this matters for a fintech
We cannot tell you how many of your buyers ask an AI assistant before they ask anyone else, and nor can anyone else. What you can find out is what the answer says when they do.
0 of 4 engines cited our own domain when asked a “best tool” question. They cite third-party listicles instead.
up to 60% of the sources an engine cites change between two identical questions asked the same day.
Source: CitePack’s own A/A probe ledger, 2026-07-18 — 137 grounded category probes and 12 same-prompt pairs per engine, measured against citepack.com itself. We publish our own numbers rather than borrowed vendor statistics. If an AI assistant does not name, cite, or recommend your product when a founder asks for the category, you are absent from the shortlist before a human ever compares features. This scorecard shows exactly where each fintech stands on that surface today.
How it was measured
Reproducibility header — the exact conditions this column was scored under.
Claude, via the model API
10 July 2026, 14:04 IST
Off, no live retrieval
Model called directly, not the web app
We did not record it, so this run cannot be reproduced exactly.
The scorecard — Claude surface
surface_score = Visibility + Citation + Recommendation (0–6). One tool per fintech category; each scored strictly against the browsing-OFF condition above.
| # | Tool | Vis. | Cite | Rec. | /6 | Why (tied to transcript) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Stripestripe.com | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 | Payments: named as top pick + default. Recommended; named own domain. |
| 2 | QuickBooksquickbooks.intuit.com | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 | Accounting: top pick + default. Recommended as the starting standard. |
| 3 | Unitunit.co | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 | Banking-as-a-service: listed first among leading options, in shortlist. |
| 4 | Rampramp.com | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 | Expense management: top pick, “often the default” for lean teams. |
| 5 | Mintretired / redirecting | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | Personal finance: appeared only as a discontinued/negative reference — explicitly not recommended. Score reflects product discontinuation, not a CitePack-fixable gap. |
| 6 | Mercurymercury.com | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 | Business banking: named as the startup default. Recommended as first account. |
| 7 | Stripe Radarstripe.com/radar | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 | Fraud / risk: named first as the “if you’re on Stripe” default. |
| 8 | Affirmaffirm.com | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 | Lending / BNPL: named first, top shortlist pick for US BNPL. |
| 9 | Bill (Bill.com)bill.com | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 | Invoicing / AP & AR: named first, “usual default” for dedicated AP/AR. |
| 10 | Coinbasecoinbase.com | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 | Crypto / trading: named first as the default US fintech pick. |
Read the clustering honestly
Nine of ten tools score 6/6 — but that reflects three real conditions of this single surface at this moment, not a finished verdict: (a) browsing is OFF, so Citation collapses to “does the model know the canonical domain” — which it does for these well-known vendors, inflating Citation versus a browsing-on run; (b) each tool is the leader of its own category, so unprompted Visibility is naturally high; (c) with no live retrieval, the model leans on established incumbents. Scores will spread out once the browsing-on surfaces (ChatGPT / Perplexity / Gemini) are run, where citing a live own-domain link is a much harder bar. Treat this Claude column as one point-in-time input.
Composite view — 3 surfaces pending
The finished scorecard composites four surfaces (max 24 = 4 × 6). Three are intentionally empty until real access is provided — never estimated.
| Surface | Status | What it needs | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude | Scored | Captured 2026-07-10, browsing OFF | up to 6 / 6 |
| ChatGPT | Pending | Founder’s logged-in chat.openai.com session or an OpenAI API key | — |
| Perplexity | Pending | Founder’s logged-in perplexity.ai session or a Perplexity API key | — |
| Gemini | Pending | Founder’s logged-in gemini.google.com session or a Google AI API key | — |
Where your fintech would sit
This scorecard covers ten category leaders. To see your own product scored the same way — the exact question asked, the verbatim answer, and a per-line Visibility / Citation / Recommendation score you can re-derive yourself — CitePack runs the same glass-box probe on your category. Every number stays page-cited to a transcript; nothing is estimated. That transcript is the artifact you take into a positioning or GEO decision.
Claims-lint statement
This scorecard reports verified, point-in-time, page-cited observations of what the Claude surface said at the recorded timestamp. It is not an audit; it is not “complete”; it makes no guarantee and no “100%” claim. It is one of four intended surfaces — three remain pending — so it is a partial, point-in-time snapshot by design.
Glass-box source — every score is re-derivable from the verbatim probe transcripts (CitePack task T-0115).
Run it on your own product
The free scan reads your page, tells you which of the seven on-page signals need work, and asks Perplexity one question about your category. Asking all four engines whether they name you, cite you and recommend you is the $49 report. No signup either way.