AI SEO Statistics: Financial Advisor (2026-07 edition)
15 questions · 45 AI responses · 3 models · measured 2026-07-04
The question bank
The questions we tested — sampled from real buyer journeys in financial advisor.
Each model answered every question once, same wording, same day. These are the prompts behind every percentage on this page.
Show all 15 questions
Model by model
25-point average divergence: which AI you ask changes the answer.
The divergence index is the average gap between the most and least likely model per behavior. Higher = the models disagree more about financial advisor buyers.
| ChatGPT | Claude | Gemini | Consensus | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recommends hiring a professional | 80% | 73% | 53% | 53% |
| Suggests DIY first | 27% | 40% | 13% | 60% |
| Names specific providers | 0% | 27% | 33% | 60% |
| Gives price or cost info | 33% | 33% | 33% | 53% |
| Tells to check reviews | 7% | 13% | 0% | 80% |
| Tells to verify credentials | 40% | 27% | 27% | 40% |
| Mentions case studies / portfolio | 20% | 0% | 0% | 80% |
| Mentions local proximity | 7% | 7% | 13% | 87% |
| Gives selection criteria | 53% | 40% | 47% | 33% |
| Warns about red flags | 20% | 13% | 20% | 80% |
| Asks a clarifying question | 40% | 53% | 0% | 40% |
| Recommends multiple quotes | 20% | 7% | 0% | 80% |
By model
How each assistant handled Financial Advisor questions.
Reading the 45 answers model by model shows how differently the three assistants treat the same financial advisor questions. On the most consequential behavior — whether to send the buyer to a professional at all — the rate ranged from 80% (ChatGPT) down to 53.3% (Gemini), a 27-point gap on an identical question set.
Across the 15 financial advisor answers it produced, ChatGPT recommended hiring a professional in 80% of them and suggested a DIY approach first 26.7% of the time. It named a specific provider in 0% of answers (about 0 distinct providers per answer) and included price or cost information 33.3% of the time. ChatGPT asked a clarifying question before answering in 40% of cases, warned about red flags or scams in 20%, and told the buyer to verify credentials in 40%, averaging 609 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 20%, 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 20%.
Across the 15 financial advisor answers it produced, Claude recommended hiring a professional in 73.3% of them and suggested a DIY approach first 40% of the time. It named a specific provider in 26.7% of answers (about 0.9 distinct providers per answer) and included price or cost information 33.3% of the time. Claude asked a clarifying question before answering in 53.3% of cases, warned about red flags or scams in 13.3%, and told the buyer to verify credentials in 26.7%, averaging 311 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 0%, and framed the choice around local proximity in 6.7%; a selection-criteria checklist appeared in 40% of its answers and a recommendation to gather multiple quotes in 6.7%.
Across the 15 financial advisor answers it produced, Gemini recommended hiring a professional in 53.3% of them and suggested a DIY approach first 13.3% of the time. It named a specific provider in 33.3% of answers (about 1.3 distinct providers per answer) and included price or cost information 33.3% 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 26.7%, averaging 237 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 13.3%; a selection-criteria checklist appeared in 46.7% of its answers and a recommendation to gather multiple quotes in 0%.
Taken together, ChatGPT is the assistant most likely to route a financial advisor buyer to a professional (80%) and Gemini the least (53.3%). ChatGPT produced the longest answers, at 609 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.
The divergence index for this study is 25.2 points — the average distance between the most and least likely model across the coded behaviors. The gaps below are where which assistant a financial advisor buyer happens to ask matters most:
- Asks a clarifying question: from 0% (Gemini) to 53.3% (Claude) — a 53-point spread.
- Names a specific provider: from 0% (ChatGPT) to 33.3% (Gemini) — a 33-point spread.
- Recommends hiring a professional: from 53.3% (Gemini) to 80% (ChatGPT) — a 27-point spread.
- Suggests a DIY approach first: from 13.3% (Gemini) to 40% (Claude) — a 27-point spread.
- Mentions case studies or portfolio: from 0% (Claude) to 20% (ChatGPT) — a 20-point spread.
The widest single gap — asks a clarifying question, 53 points — means a financial advisor 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 financial advisor market.
Where they agree
The points of near-consensus in Financial Advisor.
On other behaviors the three models move almost in lockstep — the points of near-consensus for financial advisor, where all three landed within a few points of each other:
- Gives price or cost information: 33.3% across all three models.
- Mentions local proximity: 6.7%–13.3% across all three (a 7-point spread).
- Warns about red flags or scams: 13.3%–20% across all three (a 7-point spread).
- Tells the buyer to check reviews: 0%–13.3% across all three (a 13-point spread).
Measured question by question, the three assistants coded a response the same way most consistently on "mentions local proximity" (identical coding in 86.7% of questions) and least consistently on "gives selection criteria" (33.3%).
Every behavior, measured
All twelve coded behaviors for Financial Advisor, averaged across the three models.
The behaviors AI models reproduce most often for financial advisor are recommends hiring a professional (68.9% on average), gives selection criteria (46.7%) and gives price or cost information (33.3%); the rarest are mentions case studies or portfolio (6.7%), tells the buyer to check reviews (6.7%) and recommends multiple quotes (8.9%). 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:
- Recommends hiring a professional: 68.9% on average (ChatGPT 80%, Claude 73.3%, Gemini 53.3%) — a 27-point spread.
- Gives selection criteria: 46.7% on average (ChatGPT 53.3%, Claude 40%, Gemini 46.7%) — a 13-point spread.
- Gives price or cost information: 33.3% on average (ChatGPT 33.3%, Claude 33.3%, Gemini 33.3%).
- Tells the buyer to verify credentials: 31.1% on average (ChatGPT 40%, Claude 26.7%, Gemini 26.7%) — a 13-point spread.
- Asks a clarifying question: 31.1% on average (ChatGPT 40%, Claude 53.3%, Gemini 0%) — a 53-point spread.
- Suggests a DIY approach first: 26.7% on average (ChatGPT 26.7%, Claude 40%, Gemini 13.3%) — a 27-point spread.
- Names a specific provider: 20% on average (ChatGPT 0%, Claude 26.7%, Gemini 33.3%) — a 33-point spread.
- Warns about red flags or scams: 17.8% on average (ChatGPT 20%, Claude 13.3%, Gemini 20%) — a 7-point spread.
- Mentions local proximity: 8.9% on average (ChatGPT 6.7%, Claude 6.7%, Gemini 13.3%) — a 7-point spread.
- Recommends multiple quotes: 8.9% on average (ChatGPT 20%, Claude 6.7%, Gemini 0%) — a 20-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 case studies or portfolio: 6.7% on average (ChatGPT 20%, Claude 0%, Gemini 0%) — a 20-point spread.
Trust signals
How well the models protect the financial advisor buyer.
Beyond whether to hire, the rubric codes how carefully each assistant protects the financial advisor 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 31.1%. Warning about red flags or scams appeared in 17.8%.
On structuring the decision, a selection-criteria checklist showed up in 46.7% of answers on average and a recommendation to gather multiple quotes in 8.9%. The single least-reproduced protective signal for financial advisor 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 Financial Advisor providers?
For service providers the decisive question is whether these systems name anyone at all. Across 45 financial advisor answers, a specific provider was named in 20% 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 financial advisor: visibility comes from being the reasoning a model reproduces, not from being the named recommendation.
The question set
What these 15 Financial Advisor questions cover.
The 15 questions behind every percentage on this page were drawn from real financial advisor (professional 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 financial advisor 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 financial advisor 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 standardized buyer questions per industry, one response per model per question (ChatGPT (gpt-5-mini), Claude (claude-sonnet-5), Gemini (gemini-3-flash-preview)), collected 2026-07-04, coded against a fixed 12-behavior rubric with human QA. AI outputs vary with model version, location and time — figures describe this sample and window, and are refreshed each edition. Read the full methodology →