AI SEO Statistics: Investment Firm (2026-07 edition)

Reading the 45 answers model by model shows how differently the three assistants treat the same investment firm questions. On the most consequential behavior — whether to send the buyer to a professional at all — the rate ranged from 53.3% (ChatGPT) down to 26.7% (Claude), a 27-point gap on an identical question set.

Across the 15 investment firm answers it produced, ChatGPT recommended hiring a professional in 53.3% of them and suggested a DIY approach first 26.7% of the time. It named a specific provider in 6.7% of answers (about 0.2 distinct providers per answer) and included price or cost information 20% of the time. ChatGPT asked a clarifying question before answering in 26.7% of cases, warned about red flags or scams in 26.7%, and told the buyer to verify credentials in 20%, averaging 611 words per answer. On the remaining cues it told the buyer to check reviews in 6.7%, pointed to case studies or a portfolio in 0%, and framed the choice around local proximity in 6.7%; a selection-criteria checklist appeared in 33.3% of its answers and a recommendation to gather multiple quotes in 13.3%.

Across the 15 investment firm answers it produced, Claude recommended hiring a professional in 26.7% of them and suggested a DIY approach first 20% of the time. It named a specific provider in 6.7% of answers (about 0.5 distinct providers per answer) and included price or cost information 26.7% of the time. Claude asked a clarifying question before answering in 46.7% of cases, warned about red flags or scams in 26.7%, and told the buyer to verify credentials in 13.3%, averaging 301 words per answer. On the remaining cues it told the buyer to check reviews in 13.3%, pointed to case studies or a portfolio in 6.7%, and framed the choice around local proximity in 6.7%; a selection-criteria checklist appeared in 46.7% of its answers and a recommendation to gather multiple quotes in 6.7%.

Across the 15 investment firm answers it produced, Gemini recommended hiring a professional in 33.3% of them and suggested a DIY approach first 20% of the time. It named a specific provider in 33.3% of answers (about 1.5 distinct providers per answer) and included price or cost information 26.7% of the time. Gemini asked a clarifying question before answering in 0% of cases, warned about red flags or scams in 20%, and told the buyer to verify credentials in 20%, averaging 248 words per answer. On the remaining cues it told the buyer to check reviews in 0%, pointed to case studies or a portfolio in 0%, and framed the choice around local proximity in 6.7%; a selection-criteria checklist appeared in 53.3% of its answers and a recommendation to gather multiple quotes in 0%.

Taken together, ChatGPT is the assistant most likely to route an investment firm buyer to a professional (53.3%) and Claude the least (26.7%). ChatGPT produced the longest answers, at 611 words on average. Specific providers were named most often by Gemini (33.3%) — even there, roughly one answer in 3 carried a name.

On other behaviors the three models move almost in lockstep — the points of near-consensus for investment firm, where all three landed within a few points of each other:

• Mentions local proximity: 6.7% across all three models.
• Suggests a DIY approach first: 20%–26.7% across all three (a 7-point spread).
• Gives price or cost information: 20%–26.7% across all three (a 7-point spread).
• Tells the buyer to verify credentials: 13.3%–20% across all three (a 7-point spread).

Measured question by question, the three assistants coded a response the same way most consistently on "mentions local proximity" (identical coding in 100% of questions) and least consistently on "asks a clarifying question" (40%).

Beyond whether to hire, the rubric codes how carefully each assistant protects the investment firm buyer once a decision is made. Telling the buyer to check reviews or ratings appeared in 6.7% of answers on average. Verifying credentials or certifications appeared in 17.8%. Warning about red flags or scams appeared in 24.5%.

On structuring the decision, a selection-criteria checklist showed up in 44.4% of answers on average and a recommendation to gather multiple quotes in 6.7%. The single least-reproduced protective signal for investment firm is "tells the buyer to check reviews" at 6.7% on average — the clearest opening for content that supplies it, since the models are not yet reliably surfacing that guidance on their own.

The 15 questions behind every percentage on this page were drawn from real investment firm (financial services; buyer hiring decisions for this specific service) buyer journeys. Each was put to all 3 models once, with identical wording, so the rates above describe how the assistants handled this exact investment firm question set — not a general prior or a hand-picked subset. The full list is shown earlier on this page; the coded percentages are what those specific questions produced.