Fidelity AI Market Strategy Report - Roth IRAs

Answer Capsule

Fidelity leads the Roth IRA category in AI-generated recommendations with 85.78% valid recommendation coverage in September 2026, down from 86.5% in July 2026. Its rank-one rate of 47.03% means Fidelity earns the primary recommendation in nearly half of all qualified AI answers, a level no competitor approaches. The clearest win is Fidelity's 65.00% top-three rate and 99.53% raw mention presence rate. The clearest weakness is a directional decline in rank-one rate from July 2026, even as top-three placement strengthened. The clearest opportunity is defending first-choice preference across the AI surfaces where Fidelity already appears but does not always lead.

Who This Report Is For

This report is for Fidelity's brand, growth, and digital strategy teams, and for category analysts tracking how AI systems recommend Roth IRA providers at the decision moment.

Report Card

Executive Summary

Fidelity holds dominant recommendation power in the Roth IRA category. The LLM Authority Index benchmark shows Fidelity at 85.78% valid recommendation coverage in September 2026, ahead of Charles Schwab at 83.8%, a modest gap between the two leaders. Fidelity's raw mention presence rate of 99.53% means the brand appears in nearly every qualified AI answer, and its 65.00% top-three rate confirms that presence converts into shortlist placement far more often than any competitor.

The recommendation gap between presence and placement is where Fidelity's story lives. Fidelity is mentioned in 99.53% of qualified observations but earns a valid recommendation in 85.78% and a top-three placement in 65.00%. That means roughly one in three qualified answers mentions Fidelity without placing it in the top three, and about one in seven mentions Fidelity without a valid recommendation at all. Those are the answers where competitors take the shortlist slot.

Fidelity's rank-one rate of 47.03% in September 2026 is the strongest first-choice signal in the category. No other brand approaches it: Charles Schwab sits at 14.84% and Vanguard at 1.25%. Fidelity earns the primary recommendation in nearly half of all qualified answers, which means the brand is not just present in AI answers, it is frequently the answer.

The clearest weakness is directional. Fidelity's rank-one rate fell from 49.5% in July 2026 to 47.03% in September 2026, while Charles Schwab's rank-one rate rose to 14.84% over the same period. Fidelity's top-three rate rose to 65.00%, so the brand is holding shortlist position while losing some first-choice preference. The coverage leader position remained stable, but a stable leader position masks the rank-one decline.

The strongest platform signal is Google AI Mode, where Fidelity holds an 88.96% valid recommendation coverage rate and a 55.83% rank-one rate across 163 observations. Google AI Overviews follows at 90.91% coverage and 56.25% rank-one. Perplexity shows 83.33% coverage but a lower 11.11% rank-one rate, suggesting Fidelity is shortlisted there more often than it is chosen first.

The clearest platform gap is Gemini, where Fidelity's valid recommendation coverage drops to 66.67% and its rank-one rate to 20.29%. Gemini also shows the highest neutral mention count for Fidelity at 14, meaning the brand appears as context more often than as a recommendation on that surface. ChatGPT shows 86.54% coverage and a 59.62% rank-one rate, making it Fidelity's strongest first-choice surface.

All 640 qualified observations in September 2026 fell into the Brand Recommendation cluster. The benchmark cannot yet answer pricing, value, or head-to-head comparison questions, so Fidelity's position on cost and comparison prompts has no public signal in this dataset.

What Fidelity Is Winning

Questions This Section Answers

• Which recommendation metrics does Fidelity lead across the Roth IRA category?
• Why is Fidelity's rank-one position considered structurally stronger than its coverage lead?
• Which AI surfaces carry most of Fidelity's first-choice recommendation strength?

Fidelity holds the strongest recommendation position in the Roth IRA category across every major metric. The benchmark shows 85.78% valid recommendation coverage, 65.00% top-three rate, and 47.03% rank-one rate, all category-leading figures. The brand's 99.53% raw mention presence rate means it is effectively omnipresent in qualified AI answers.

Fidelity's first-choice strength is the clearest win. At 47.03% rank-one rate, Fidelity earns the primary recommendation in nearly half of all qualified answers. Charles Schwab, the second-place brand, sits at 14.84%. The gap between Fidelity and the next brand on first-choice preference is larger than the gap between Charles Schwab and Vanguard, which means Fidelity's rank-one position is structurally stronger than its coverage lead alone would suggest.

Fidelity's top-three rate rose from 63.3% in July 2026 to 65.00% in September 2026, even as rank-one rate declined. That combination suggests Fidelity is holding shortlist position while some first-choice placements shift. The brand remains the most frequently recommended Roth IRA provider in the benchmark.

On Google AI Mode and Google AI Overviews, Fidelity's rank-one rates exceed 55%, making those surfaces the strongest first-choice environments for the brand. ChatGPT follows at a 59.62% rank-one rate. These three surfaces carry the bulk of Fidelity's primary recommendation strength.

Fidelity's net sentiment score of 0.9246 reflects overwhelmingly positive framing across 637 mentions, with 592 positive, 42 neutral, and only 3 negative. The brand carries almost no negative framing in the public AI answer layer.

Where Fidelity Has the Clearest AI Visibility Gaps

Questions This Section Answers

• Why does Fidelity convert presence to recommendations less often on Gemini?
• What does Fidelity's presence-to-top-three gap mean for where competitors take the shortlist slot?
• Which platforms show Fidelity shortlisted more often than chosen first?

Fidelity's clearest gap is recommendation conversion on Gemini. The benchmark shows Fidelity at 66.67% valid recommendation coverage on Gemini, well below its 85.78% category-wide rate. Gemini also records 14 neutral mentions for Fidelity, the highest neutral count across all platforms, meaning the brand appears as context more often than as a recommendation on that surface. The rank-one rate on Gemini is 20.29%, compared to 59.62% on ChatGPT and 55.83% on Google AI Mode.

The second gap is first-choice preference erosion. Fidelity's rank-one rate fell from July 2026 to September 2026, while Charles Schwab's rose to 14.84%. The coverage gap between the two leaders narrowed. Fidelity still holds a dominant first-choice position, but the direction of movement on rank-one rate is the metric to watch.

The third gap is the presence-to-recommendation conversion rate. Fidelity appears in 99.53% of qualified answers but earns a valid recommendation in 85.78% and a top-three placement in 65.00%. That means about 34% of qualified answers mention Fidelity without placing it in the top three. Those are the answers where Charles Schwab, Vanguard, or Robinhood take the shortlist slot. The benchmark does not expose which prompts drive those placements, but the gap between presence and top-three rate is the clearest structural opportunity.

Perplexity shows a fourth gap. Fidelity's valid recommendation coverage on Perplexity is 83.33%, close to its category-wide rate, but its rank-one rate is only 11.11%. The brand is shortlisted on Perplexity far more often than it is chosen first, which suggests Perplexity answers position Fidelity as one option among several rather than as the primary recommendation.

Biggest Opportunity

Questions This Section Answers

• What is Fidelity's largest presence-to-shortlist opportunity in the Roth IRA category?
• Which AI surfaces concentrate Fidelity's under-recommendation risk?
• How does the citation and source layer connect Fidelity's visibility to recommendation conversion?

Fidelity's biggest opportunity is closing the gap between raw mention presence and top-three recommendation placement. The benchmark shows Fidelity mentioned in 99.53% of qualified answers but placed in the top three in only 65.00%. That 34.5-point gap represents the answers where Fidelity is visible but not shortlisted. The highest-priority diagnostic is identifying which prompt categories and AI surfaces drive those placements, and which competitor takes the recommendation when Fidelity does not.

The opportunity is concentrated on Gemini and Perplexity, where Fidelity's rank-one rates are lowest relative to its coverage. On Gemini, Fidelity's coverage drops to 66.67% and rank-one to 20.29%. On Perplexity, coverage holds at 83.33% but rank-one falls to 11.11%. Both surfaces show Fidelity present but under-recommended relative to its category-wide position.

The path from reference to recommendation runs through the citation and source layer. The benchmark retains citations where exposed, and the source pattern may indicate which public evidence AI systems retrieve when forming Roth IRA recommendations. Fidelity's owned answer layer, including product pages, comparison content, and third-party citations, is the layer that supports recommendation conversion on the surfaces where the brand is visible but not chosen.

Competitive Landscape

Questions This Section Answers

• How does Fidelity's top-three and rank-one performance compare with Charles Schwab and the rest of the Roth IRA category?
• What separates Fidelity from the middle-tier and lower-tier Roth IRA providers?

Fidelity and Charles Schwab hold recommendation-stage strength in the Roth IRA category, with both above 83% valid recommendation coverage. Fidelity leads on first-choice preference at a 47.03% rank-one rate, while Charles Schwab holds a stronger second-place position than the rest of the category. Vanguard and Robinhood form a middle tier above 66% coverage, and the remaining brands sit below 60%.

Average recommended rank covers rank-eligible recommendations only.

Fidelity's position at the top of the table reflects both the highest top-three rate and the highest rank-one rate in the category. The gap between Fidelity's top-three rate and Charles Schwab's is larger than the coverage gap between the two brands, which means Fidelity's shortlist strength is structurally stronger than its coverage lead alone would suggest. Fidelity's average recommended rank of 1.41 is the strongest in the category, and its rank-one rate is more than three times Charles Schwab's.

Prompt Evidence

Google AI Mode / Best IRA Accounts & Top IRA Providers Prompt: "What is the best Roth IRA right now?" Result: Fidelity holds a 55.83% rank-one rate on Google AI Mode across 163 observations, the strongest first-choice signal in the benchmark.

Gemini / Best IRA Accounts & Top IRA Providers Prompt: "best roth ira accounts" Result: Fidelity's valid recommendation coverage drops to 66.67% on Gemini, with 14 neutral mentions, the highest neutral count across all platforms.

Perplexity / Best IRA Accounts & Top IRA Providers Prompt: "best ira accounts" Result: Fidelity holds 83.33% coverage on Perplexity but only an 11.11% rank-one rate, suggesting the brand is shortlisted more often than chosen first.

ChatGPT / Best IRA Accounts & Top IRA Providers Prompt: "companies like fidelity" Result: Fidelity holds 86.54% coverage and a 59.62% rank-one rate on ChatGPT, making it the brand's strongest first-choice surface.

What CiteWorks Studio Would Do Next

Phase 1: AI Market Discovery Audit Map the specific prompts, surfaces, and competitor placements where Fidelity is mentioned but not shortlisted, with priority on Gemini and Perplexity.

Phase 2: Recommendation Readiness Plan Identify the answer types and prompt categories driving Fidelity's rank-one decline, and define the content and citation changes needed to defend first-choice preference.

Phase 3: Owned Answer Layer Buildout Strengthen Fidelity's owned pages for Roth IRA selection, comparison, and provider-choice prompts so AI systems retrieve Fidelity-specific evidence when forming recommendations.

Phase 4: Citation / Authority Layer Development Build the third-party and source-layer citations that support recommendation conversion on the surfaces where Fidelity is visible but under-recommended.

Phase 5: Monthly AI Visibility and Recommendation Tracking Track Fidelity's coverage, top-three rate, rank-one rate, and sentiment by platform and cluster to confirm whether recommendation conversion improves.

Why This Matters

AI presence alone is not enough. Fidelity appears in 99.53% of qualified Roth IRA answers, but it earns a top-three recommendation in only 65.00%. The 34.5-point gap between presence and shortlist placement is where buyer choice is decided. A buyer asking an AI system which Roth IRA provider to choose sees Fidelity mentioned in nearly every answer, but in roughly one in three answers, the recommendation goes to a competitor.

The next move is targeted correction of the prompt, page, and citation layers. Fidelity's rank-one rate declined while Charles Schwab's rose, narrowing the first-choice gap. The benchmark shows the outcome; the prompt, surface, and source patterns behind that outcome are what a company-level analysis would expose. Correcting those layers is how Fidelity defends its recommendation position at the decision moment.

Core Metrics

Sentiment Score

Questions This Section Answers

• Why is Fidelity's high sentiment score not a measure of whether it gets recommended?
• How do Fidelity's neutral and negative mentions affect the interpretation of its sentiment score?

Sentiment Score = (positive mentions × 1 + neutral mentions × 0 + negative mentions × -1) / total mentions

Fidelity's sentiment score is 0.9246, calculated from 592 positive mentions, 42 neutral mentions, and 3 negative mentions across 637 total mentions. The score reflects overwhelmingly positive framing in the public AI answer layer.

This matters because unclassified mention counts are misleading. A positive recommendation, a neutral reference, a cautionary mention, and a competitor-displaced mention are not equal. Counting all mentions as wins is bad measurement. Fidelity's 637 mentions include 42 neutral references where the brand appears as context rather than as a recommendation, and 3 negative mentions. Those are not equivalent to the 592 positive mentions that carry recommendation weight.

Share of voice is a diagnostic metric, not a business KPI. Classified sentiment is required before interpreting AI visibility. Fidelity's high sentiment score confirms that when the brand appears, it is framed positively. The score does not measure whether Fidelity is recommended, only how it is framed when mentioned. Recommendation coverage and rank-one rate are the metrics that measure shortlist placement.

Sentiment by Platform

Questions This Section Answers

• Which platforms frame Fidelity most positively in Roth IRA answers?
• What does Gemini's neutral mention count say about Fidelity's framing on that surface?

Methodology

1. This report is a benchmark-based analysis of Fidelity's position in the Roth IRA category, using the LLM Authority Index AI Market Discovery Index for September 2026.
2. The reporting window is September 2026, with comparison data from July 2026 and August 2026 where available.
3. Six AI platforms were tracked: ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, and Google AI Mode.
4. The benchmark analyzed 640 qualified observations in September 2026, down from 697 in July 2026.
5. The competitor universe includes 10 tracked brands: Fidelity, Charles Schwab, Vanguard, Robinhood, Betterment, Wealthfront, SoFi, E*TRADE, M1 Finance, and Merrill Edge.
6. Three public high-intent clusters were defined: Best IRA Accounts & Top IRA Providers, IRA Comparisons & Account Type Evaluations, and IRA Fees, Costs & Pricing Comparisons. All 640 qualified observations fell into the Best IRA Accounts & Top IRA Providers cluster, which the benchmark treats as the Brand Recommendation cluster.
7. Stage 0 extraction retained the query, AI/search surface, answer, brand outcome, recommendation placement, sentiment, and citations where exposed.
8. A mention is counted when a tracked brand appears in a qualified AI answer, regardless of recommendation status.
9. A valid recommendation is counted when a brand appears in a valid recommendation shortlist, as marked by the dataset.
10. Brand-level percentages use the 640 qualified observations as the public denominator, not the 800 raw prompts collected.
11. The September 2026 qualified set declined from 697 in July 2026, with the rising irrelevant count (49 to 107) accounting for most of the shrinking base.
12. Single-month movements should not be read as sustained trends without confirming data.

Get Your AI Visibility Audit

The public benchmark shows where Fidelity is winning and where it is losing. A company-level AI visibility audit maps the prompts, surfaces, competitors, and evidence sources behind Fidelity's recommendation position into a prioritized strategy.