AI SEO Statistics: Crypto (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 crypto.
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
20.4% 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 crypto benchmark questions, 2026-07 edition. Last column: equal-model mean.
| Behavior | ChatGPT | Claude | Gemini | Equal-model mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recommends hiring a professional | 73.3% | 80% | 66.7% | 73.3% |
| Suggests DIY first | 13.3% | 0% | 6.7% | 6.7% |
| Names specific providers | 26.7% | 33.3% | 46.7% | 35.6% |
| Gives price or cost info | 13.3% | 20% | 26.7% | 20% |
| Tells to check reviews | 6.7% | 13.3% | 0% | 6.7% |
| Tells to verify credentials | 26.7% | 20% | 0% | 15.6% |
| Mentions case studies / portfolio | 20% | 33.3% | 6.7% | 20% |
| Mentions local proximity | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Gives selection criteria | 46.7% | 60% | 60% | 55.6% |
| Warns about red flags | 20% | 26.7% | 6.7% | 17.8% |
| Asks a clarifying question | 46.7% | 53.3% | 0% | 33.3% |
| Recommends multiple quotes | 26.7% | 6.7% | 0% | 11.1% |
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 | 73.3% |
| Suggests DIY first | 86.7% |
| Names specific providers | 60% |
| Gives price or cost info | 80% |
| Tells to check reviews | 86.7% |
| Tells to verify credentials | 60% |
| Mentions case studies / portfolio | 60% |
| Mentions local proximity | 100% |
| Gives selection criteria | 53.3% |
| Warns about red flags | 66.7% |
| Asks a clarifying question | 40% |
| Recommends multiple quotes | 66.7% |
By model
How each assistant handled Crypto questions.
Reading the 45 answers model by model shows how differently the three assistants treat the same crypto questions. On the most consequential behavior — whether to send the buyer to a professional at all — the rate ranged from 80% (Claude) down to 66.7% (Gemini), a 13-point gap on an identical question set.
Across the 15 crypto answers it produced, ChatGPT recommended hiring a professional in 73.3% of them and suggested a DIY approach first 13.3% 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 13.3% of the time. ChatGPT asked a clarifying question before answering in 46.7% of cases, warned about red flags or scams in 20%, and told the buyer to verify credentials in 26.7%, averaging 780 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 0%; a selection-criteria checklist appeared in 46.7% of its answers and a recommendation to gather multiple quotes in 26.7%.
Across the 15 crypto answers it produced, Claude recommended hiring a professional in 80% of them and suggested a DIY approach first 0% of the time. It named a specific provider in 33.3% of answers (about 1.8 distinct providers per answer) and included price or cost information 20% of the time. Claude asked a clarifying question before answering in 53.3% of cases, warned about red flags or scams in 26.7%, and told the buyer to verify credentials in 20%, averaging 347 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 33.3%, and framed the choice around local proximity in 0%; a selection-criteria checklist appeared in 60% of its answers and a recommendation to gather multiple quotes in 6.7%.
Across the 15 crypto answers it produced, Gemini recommended hiring a professional in 66.7% of them and suggested a DIY approach first 6.7% of the time. It named a specific provider in 46.7% of answers (about 2.5 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 6.7%, and told the buyer to verify credentials in 0%, averaging 238 words per answer. On the remaining cues it told the buyer to check reviews in 0%, pointed to case studies or a portfolio in 6.7%, and framed the choice around local proximity in 0%; a selection-criteria checklist appeared in 60% of its answers and a recommendation to gather multiple quotes in 0%.
Taken together, Claude is the assistant most likely to route a crypto buyer to a professional (80%) and Gemini the least (66.7%). ChatGPT produced the longest answers, at 780 words on average. Specific providers were named most often by Gemini (46.7%) — even there, roughly one answer in 2 carried a name.
Where they disagree
The behaviors where the choice of model changes the answer.
Question-level model disagreement is 20.4% — 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 a crypto buyer happens to ask matters most:
- Asks a clarifying question: from 0% (Gemini) to 53.3% (Claude) — a 53-point spread.
- Tells the buyer to verify credentials: from 0% (Gemini) to 26.7% (ChatGPT) — a 27-point spread.
- Recommends multiple quotes: from 0% (Gemini) to 26.7% (ChatGPT) — a 27-point spread.
- Mentions case studies or portfolio: from 6.7% (Gemini) to 33.3% (Claude) — a 27-point spread.
- Names a specific provider: from 26.7% (ChatGPT) to 46.7% (Gemini) — a 20-point spread.
The widest single gap — asks a clarifying question, 53 points — means a crypto 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 crypto market.
Where they agree
The points of near-consensus in Crypto.
On other behaviors the three models move almost in lockstep — the points of near-consensus for crypto, where all three landed within a few points of each other:
- Mentions local proximity: 0% across all three models.
- Recommends hiring a professional: 66.7%–80% across all three (a 13-point spread).
- Suggests a DIY approach first: 0%–13.3% across all three (a 13-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 100% of questions) and least consistently on "asks a clarifying question" (40%).
Every behavior, measured
All twelve coded behaviors for Crypto, averaged across the three models.
The behaviors AI models reproduce most often for crypto are recommends hiring a professional (73.3% on average), gives selection criteria (55.6%) and names a specific provider (35.6%); the rarest are mentions local proximity (0%), tells the buyer to check reviews (6.7%) and suggests a DIY approach first (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:
- Recommends hiring a professional: 73.3% on average (ChatGPT 73.3%, Claude 80%, Gemini 66.7%) — a 13-point spread.
- Gives selection criteria: 55.6% on average (ChatGPT 46.7%, Claude 60%, Gemini 60%) — a 13-point spread.
- Names a specific provider: 35.6% on average (ChatGPT 26.7%, Claude 33.3%, Gemini 46.7%) — a 20-point spread.
- Asks a clarifying question: 33.3% on average (ChatGPT 46.7%, Claude 53.3%, Gemini 0%) — a 53-point spread.
- Gives price or cost information: 20% on average (ChatGPT 13.3%, Claude 20%, Gemini 26.7%) — a 13-point spread.
- Mentions case studies or portfolio: 20% on average (ChatGPT 20%, Claude 33.3%, Gemini 6.7%) — a 27-point spread.
- Warns about red flags or scams: 17.8% on average (ChatGPT 20%, Claude 26.7%, Gemini 6.7%) — a 20-point spread.
- Tells the buyer to verify credentials: 15.6% on average (ChatGPT 26.7%, Claude 20%, Gemini 0%) — a 27-point spread.
- Recommends multiple quotes: 11.1% on average (ChatGPT 26.7%, Claude 6.7%, Gemini 0%) — a 27-point spread.
- Suggests a DIY approach first: 6.7% on average (ChatGPT 13.3%, Claude 0%, Gemini 6.7%) — a 13-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: 0% on average (ChatGPT 0%, Claude 0%, Gemini 0%).
Trust signals
How well the models protect the crypto buyer.
Beyond whether to hire, the rubric codes how carefully each assistant protects the crypto 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 15.6%. Warning about red flags or scams appeared in 17.8%.
On structuring the decision, a selection-criteria checklist showed up in 55.6% of answers on average and a recommendation to gather multiple quotes in 11.1%. The single least-reproduced protective signal for crypto 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 Crypto providers?
For service providers the decisive question is whether these systems name anyone at all. Across 45 crypto answers, a specific provider was named in 35.6% of responses on average — roughly 1.7 distinct providers per answer. In practice the assistants behave far more as an explanatory layer than as a referral engine for crypto: visibility comes from being the reasoning a model reproduces, not from being the named recommendation.
The question set
What these 15 Crypto questions cover.
The 15 questions behind every percentage on this page form a frozen crypto (technology / SaaS; 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 crypto 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 crypto 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: Crypto (2026-07 edition).” AuthoritySpecialist.com. https://authorityspecialist.com/research/ai-seo-statistics/services/technology/crypto