AI SEO Statistics: Investment Firm (2026-07 edition)
15 questions · 45/45 expected AI responses · 3 models · measured 2026-07-04
The question bank
The questions we tested — a frozen buyer-intent benchmark for investment firm.
The question set was curated from a predefined buyer-intent taxonomy and held constant for this edition. Each model received the same wording. These are the prompts behind every percentage on this page.
Show all 15 questions
Model by model
18.9% question-level model disagreement.
This rate is the average pairwise disagreement between binary behavior codes across questions and behaviors. It is not the gap between the highest and lowest aggregated model percentages.
Behavior prevalence across 15 investment firm benchmark questions, 2026-07 edition. Last column: equal-model mean.
| Behavior | ChatGPT | Claude | Gemini | Equal-model mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recommends hiring a professional | 53.3% | 26.7% | 33.3% | 37.8% |
| Suggests DIY first | 26.7% | 20% | 20% | 22.2% |
| Names specific providers | 6.7% | 6.7% | 33.3% | 15.6% |
| Gives price or cost info | 20% | 26.7% | 26.7% | 24.5% |
| Tells to check reviews | 6.7% | 13.3% | 0% | 6.7% |
| Tells to verify credentials | 20% | 13.3% | 20% | 17.8% |
| Mentions case studies / portfolio | 0% | 6.7% | 0% | 2.2% |
| Mentions local proximity | 6.7% | 6.7% | 6.7% | 6.7% |
| Gives selection criteria | 33.3% | 46.7% | 53.3% | 44.4% |
| Warns about red flags | 26.7% | 26.7% | 20% | 24.5% |
| Asks a clarifying question | 26.7% | 46.7% | 0% | 24.5% |
| Recommends multiple quotes | 13.3% | 6.7% | 0% | 6.7% |
Question-level agreement
How often all measured models received the same binary code.
Agreement is calculated question by question for each behavior. A high value can coexist with a low behavior prevalence; it means the models usually agreed on whether the behavior appeared.
All-model binary agreement by behavior across 15 benchmark questions.
| Behavior | All-model agreement |
|---|---|
| Recommends hiring a professional | 66.7% |
| Suggests DIY first | 93.3% |
| Names specific providers | 73.3% |
| Gives price or cost info | 73.3% |
| Tells to check reviews | 80% |
| Tells to verify credentials | 60% |
| Mentions case studies / portfolio | 93.3% |
| Mentions local proximity | 100% |
| Gives selection criteria | 46.7% |
| Warns about red flags | 46.7% |
| Asks a clarifying question | 40% |
| Recommends multiple quotes | 86.7% |
By model
How each assistant handled Investment Firm questions.
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.
Where they disagree
The behaviors where the choice of model changes the answer.
Question-level model disagreement is 18.9% — the average pairwise rate at which models received different binary codes across questions and behaviors. The observed rate spreads below are a separate measure showing where which assistant an investment firm buyer happens to ask matters most:
- Asks a clarifying question: from 0% (Gemini) to 46.7% (Claude) — a 47-point spread.
- Recommends hiring a professional: from 26.7% (Claude) to 53.3% (ChatGPT) — a 27-point spread.
- Names a specific provider: from 6.7% (ChatGPT) to 33.3% (Gemini) — a 27-point spread.
- Gives selection criteria: from 33.3% (ChatGPT) to 53.3% (Gemini) — a 20-point spread.
- Tells the buyer to check reviews: from 0% (Gemini) to 13.3% (Claude) — a 13-point spread.
The widest single gap — asks a clarifying question, 47 points — means an investment firm buyer can receive materially different guidance on the same question depending only on which assistant they happen to open, so any visibility strategy built on a single model's behavior describes only part of the investment firm market.
Where they agree
The points of near-consensus in Investment Firm.
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%).
Every behavior, measured
All twelve coded behaviors for Investment Firm, averaged across the three models.
The behaviors AI models reproduce most often for investment firm are gives selection criteria (44.4% on average), recommends hiring a professional (37.8%) and gives price or cost information (24.5%); the rarest are mentions case studies or portfolio (2.2%), recommends multiple quotes (6.7%) and mentions local proximity (6.7%). Each figure below is the share of a model's 15 answers in which the behavior appeared at least once, averaged across the 3 models with the full per-model range in parentheses:
- Gives selection criteria: 44.4% on average (ChatGPT 33.3%, Claude 46.7%, Gemini 53.3%) — a 20-point spread.
- Recommends hiring a professional: 37.8% on average (ChatGPT 53.3%, Claude 26.7%, Gemini 33.3%) — a 27-point spread.
- Gives price or cost information: 24.5% on average (ChatGPT 20%, Claude 26.7%, Gemini 26.7%) — a 7-point spread.
- Warns about red flags or scams: 24.5% on average (ChatGPT 26.7%, Claude 26.7%, Gemini 20%) — a 7-point spread.
- Asks a clarifying question: 24.5% on average (ChatGPT 26.7%, Claude 46.7%, Gemini 0%) — a 47-point spread.
- Suggests a DIY approach first: 22.2% on average (ChatGPT 26.7%, Claude 20%, Gemini 20%) — a 7-point spread.
- Tells the buyer to verify credentials: 17.8% on average (ChatGPT 20%, Claude 13.3%, Gemini 20%) — a 7-point spread.
- Names a specific provider: 15.6% on average (ChatGPT 6.7%, Claude 6.7%, Gemini 33.3%) — a 27-point spread.
- Tells the buyer to check reviews: 6.7% on average (ChatGPT 6.7%, Claude 13.3%, Gemini 0%) — a 13-point spread.
- Mentions local proximity: 6.7% on average (ChatGPT 6.7%, Claude 6.7%, Gemini 6.7%).
- Recommends multiple quotes: 6.7% on average (ChatGPT 13.3%, Claude 6.7%, Gemini 0%) — a 13-point spread.
- Mentions case studies or portfolio: 2.2% on average (ChatGPT 0%, Claude 6.7%, Gemini 0%) — a 7-point spread.
Trust signals
How well the models protect the investment firm buyer.
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.
Referral behavior
Do AI models name Investment Firm providers?
For service providers the decisive question is whether these systems name anyone at all. Across 45 investment firm answers, a specific provider was named in 15.6% of responses on average — roughly 0.7 distinct providers per answer. In practice the assistants behave far more as an explanatory layer than as a referral engine for investment firm: visibility comes from being the reasoning a model reproduces, not from being the named recommendation.
The question set
What these 15 Investment Firm questions cover.
The 15 questions behind every percentage on this page form a frozen investment firm (financial services; buyer hiring decisions for this specific service) buyer-intent benchmark. 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.
How to read this
A note on the numbers.
A percentage here is the share of a model's 15 answers in which the behavior appeared at least once — not a confidence score. Because each model answered every question exactly once on 2026-07-04, the figures describe this specific investment firm question set and snapshot rather than a general prior. The full protocol and coding rubric are documented in the study methodology.
Methodology
A controlled snapshot, documented end to end.
15 frozen benchmark questions, one expected response per model per question (ChatGPT API (gpt-5-mini), Claude API (claude-sonnet-5), Gemini API (gemini-3-flash-preview)), collected 2026-07-04 and coded against a fixed 12-behavior rubric. The pipeline validates the schema, recomputes aggregates and reports consistency issues. AI outputs vary with model version, location and time, so the figures describe this edition's exact sample and measurement window. Read the full methodology →
Citation
Cite this edition.
Authority Specialist. “AI SEO Statistics: Investment Firm (2026-07 edition).” AuthoritySpecialist.com. https://authorityspecialist.com/research/ai-seo-statistics/services/financial/investment-firm