Fidelity AI Market Strategy Report - Roth IRAs

Answer Capsule

Fidelity holds the strongest first-choice recommendation position in the Roth IRA category, with an average recommended rank of 1.38, the best in the study. However, Fidelity appears in only 44.7% of AI responses, significantly below Charles Schwab at 72.6% and Vanguard at 58.4%. The clearest win is Fidelity's rank-one rate of 23.5%, more than double that of most competitors. The clearest weakness is raw mention presence, where Fidelity trails the category leaders despite superior recommendation quality. The clearest opportunity is closing the presence gap in the Discovery and Comparison clusters, where Fidelity's recommendation quality already converts strongly when it appears.

Who This Report Is For

This report is for Fidelity's marketing, product, and strategy teams evaluating AI recommendation performance in the Roth IRA category, as well as competitive intelligence teams tracking how AI systems position Fidelity versus Charles Schwab, Vanguard, and other brokerage platforms at the buyer shortlist stage.

Report Card

• Report type: AI Company Market Strategy Report
• Target company: Fidelity
• Category / market studied: Roth IRAs
• Reporting month: June 2026
• AI platforms tracked: ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Google AI Mode, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity
• Public high-intent clusters: 3 (Discovery, Comparison, Pricing and Fees)
• AI observations analyzed: 1,384
• Competitors tracked: Charles Schwab, Vanguard, Robinhood, Betterment, Wealthfront, SoFi, E*TRADE, M1 Finance, Merrill Edge

Executive Summary

Fidelity occupies a distinctive position in the Roth IRA AI recommendation landscape. It is not the most frequently mentioned brand, but when AI systems select Fidelity as a recommendation, they place it first more consistently than any other competitor in the study. This creates a high-value but narrower recommendation footprint than the category's presence leaders.

Across 1,384 observations, Fidelity appears in 44.7% of AI responses and earns a valid recommendation in 31.9% of observations. Its top-three rate of 29.8% and rank-one rate of 23.5% demonstrate strong recommendation conversion whenever Fidelity is surfaced. The company captures an estimated $1.07M in monthly AI Authority Value, placing it second in the category behind Charles Schwab.

Fidelity's strongest cluster is Pricing and Fees, where it achieves a 32.7% top-three rate and a 24.2% rank-one rate. This decision-stage cluster carries the highest commercial weight in the category, and Fidelity's performance there is commercially significant because it reaches buyers making final provider comparisons based on cost.

The most important gap is raw mention presence. Charles Schwab appears in 72.6% of AI responses, Vanguard in 58.4%, and Robinhood in 54.1%. Fidelity's 44.7% presence rate means it is not being surfaced as often as its recommendation quality would warrant. This is a visibility gap, not a recommendation quality gap. The distinction matters because the evidence suggests Fidelity converts well when it appears but loses ground at the awareness stage where the shortlist is first constructed.

On specific platforms, the benchmark shows Fidelity performing exceptionally well on Copilot and Perplexity, with top-three rates of 52.2% and 56.5% respectively. On ChatGPT, every recommendation Fidelity receives is a rank-one placement, a narrow but meaningful signal. On Google AI Mode, Fidelity's presence drops to 10%, representing the clearest platform-level gap in the dataset.

Fidelity's net sentiment score of 0.89 is the highest in the category, with zero negative mentions across all observations. The framing around Fidelity is consistently positive or neutral, which means the recommendation quality problem is not a content or reputation problem. It is a presence and coverage problem that points to the public evidence layer rather than to how Fidelity is described when it does appear.

What Fidelity Is Winning

Strongest first-choice recommendation position in the category. Fidelity's average recommended rank of 1.38 is the best in the Roth IRA study. When AI systems recommend Fidelity, they place it first more often than any competitor. Rank-one placement carries the highest commercial weight in AI-generated shortlists, and Fidelity's consistency at that position is a meaningful structural advantage.

Dominant performance on Copilot and Perplexity. On Copilot, Fidelity achieves a 52.2% top-three rate and a 44.9% rank-one rate across 245 observations. On Perplexity, Fidelity achieves a 56.5% top-three rate and a 37.8% rank-one rate across 246 observations. These results outperform even Charles Schwab on both platforms and represent the strongest recommendation pockets in Fidelity's current AI footprint.

Perfect rank-one conversion on ChatGPT. Fidelity appears in 26% of ChatGPT responses, and every recommendation is a rank-one placement. The benchmark shows Fidelity is not always present on ChatGPT, but when it is surfaced, the platform consistently places it first. This is a narrow but high-quality recommendation signal.

Strong Pricing and Fees cluster performance. In the highest-value decision-stage cluster, Fidelity achieves a 32.7% top-three rate and a 24.2% rank-one rate. This cluster reaches buyers at the point of final provider selection based on cost structures and fee transparency, and Fidelity's performance there aligns directly with its commercial positioning.

Highest net sentiment score in the category. Fidelity's net sentiment score of 0.89 reflects zero negative mentions across 618 total mentions and 553 positive classifications. No other competitor in the study matches this framing quality. The observed data suggests Fidelity's public evidence layer is producing positive and recommendation-ready framing at a higher rate than any other brand in the category.

Where Fidelity Has the Clearest AI Visibility Gaps

Raw mention presence trails category leaders by a significant margin. Fidelity appears in 44.7% of AI responses, compared to Charles Schwab at 72.6% and Vanguard at 58.4%. This gap means Fidelity is absent from a large portion of AI-generated responses where buyers first encounter provider recommendations. In the Discovery cluster specifically, Fidelity appears in 41.2% of responses versus Charles Schwab at 75.2%. Because the Discovery cluster is where buyer shortlists are first formed, this is the gap with the highest strategic cost.

Google AI Mode presence is critically low. On Google AI Mode, Fidelity appears in only 10% of responses, compared to Charles Schwab at 82.1% and Vanguard at 67.1%. This platform-level gap is the starkest in the dataset. As Google AI Mode expands its role in AI-led discovery for financial products, the absence here represents material competitive displacement at a growing recommendation surface.

Comparison cluster presence leaves coverage on the table. In the Comparison cluster, Fidelity appears in 41.7% of responses and achieves a 30.4% top-three rate. The recommendation quality is strong, but the presence rate means Fidelity is missing from more than half of comparison-stage AI responses where buyers are actively evaluating providers side by side.

Discovery cluster recommendation conversion gap. In the Discovery cluster, Fidelity appears in 41.2% of responses but earns a valid recommendation in only 29.2% of observations. The gap between appearance rate and recommendation rate at this stage suggests that when Fidelity is surfaced in awareness-stage responses, it is sometimes included as context rather than as a shortlist-quality recommendation. This is a framing and citation architecture issue more than a brand quality issue.

Competitor displacement in the Discovery cluster. Betterment leads the Discovery cluster in captured value at $553K, driven by strong visibility assist value. Charles Schwab leads recommendation coverage at 48.3%. Fidelity's $323K in captured Discovery value places it third despite its superior recommendation quality, meaning the presence gap directly reduces the volume of high-quality recommendations Fidelity would otherwise earn.

Biggest Opportunity

Close the raw mention presence gap in the Discovery and Comparison clusters, particularly on Google AI Mode. Fidelity's recommendation quality is already best-in-class when it appears, and that strength is not being fully utilized because the public evidence layer is not surfacing Fidelity in AI responses as consistently as Charles Schwab and Vanguard. The gap between Fidelity's 44.7% presence rate and Charles Schwab's 72.6% rate is the single largest addressable opportunity in the dataset. Strengthening the citation architecture and evidence sources that AI systems draw on for awareness-stage and comparison-stage responses would increase the volume of rank-one recommendations Fidelity already earns when it is present.

Prompt Evidence

ChatGPT / Discovery Prompt: "What is the best brokerage for a Roth IRA?" Result: Fidelity recommended first with rank-one placement, consistent with its perfect 1.0 average rank on ChatGPT, though Fidelity was absent from the majority of Discovery responses on this platform.

Perplexity / Comparison Prompt: "Compare Fidelity, Vanguard, and Charles Schwab for Roth IRA accounts." Result: Fidelity recommended first with rank-one placement, consistent with its 37.8% rank-one rate on Perplexity across the Comparison cluster.

Copilot / Pricing and Fees Prompt: "What are the best Roth IRA providers with the lowest fees?" Result: Fidelity recommended first with rank-one placement, consistent with its 44.9% rank-one rate on Copilot in the Pricing and Fees cluster.

Google AI Mode / Discovery Prompt: "Which brokerage is best for opening a Roth IRA?" Result: Fidelity not present in the response. Charles Schwab and Vanguard were recommended. This reflects Fidelity's 10% presence rate on Google AI Mode and represents the clearest platform-level displacement in the dataset.

What CiteWorks Studio Would Do Next

Phase 1: AI Market Discovery Audit Map the specific prompts and platforms where Fidelity is absent or under-represented, with particular focus on Google AI Mode and awareness-stage Discovery queries where the shortlist is first formed.

Phase 2: Recommendation Readiness Plan Identify the citation sources, evidence types, and content structures that Charles Schwab and Vanguard hold that may explain their higher presence rates, and assess which gaps in Fidelity's public evidence layer are contributing to the Discovery cluster coverage shortfall.

Phase 3: Owned Answer Layer Buildout Develop structured, citable content that strengthens Fidelity's presence in Discovery and Comparison prompts, including comparison-ready pages, fee documentation, and expert-attributed content that AI systems can retrieve and synthesize at the awareness stage.

Phase 4: Citation and Authority Layer Development Build the backlink-supported evidence layer and third-party citation sources that AI systems use to surface and recommend Fidelity in awareness-stage responses, with priority on closing the Google AI Mode gap.

Phase 5: Monthly AI Visibility and Recommendation Tracking Track Fidelity's presence rate, recommendation coverage, and rank position across all six platforms monthly, with a specific focus on Discovery cluster mention growth and Google AI Mode recovery.

Why This Matters

Fidelity has the strongest first-choice recommendation position in the Roth IRA category, but that strength is only reaching buyers in 44.7% of AI responses. In a market where AI systems are becoming the primary shortlist builder for financial products, being the best recommendation when selected is valuable. Being selected more often is the commercial opportunity. The benchmark evidence suggests Fidelity is leaving a significant portion of its potential recommendation-stage visibility on the table because the public evidence layer that drives Discovery-stage surfacing has not kept pace with Fidelity's recommendation quality.

The gap between Fidelity's recommendation quality and its raw presence rate means buyers who ask AI systems about Roth IRA providers are more likely to encounter Charles Schwab or Vanguard before they encounter Fidelity. Closing this presence gap does not require changing how Fidelity is positioned. The framing is already working. The issue is coverage: building the citation architecture and evidence sources that get Fidelity into the response before the shortlist is finalized.

Core Metrics

• Mentions: 618 out of 1,384 observations
• Valid recommendations: 442
• Top 3 recommendation count: 412
• Rank 1 recommendation count: 325
• Average recommended rank: 1.38
• Positive mentions: 553
• Neutral mentions: 65
• Negative mentions: 0
• Raw mention presence rate: 44.7%
• Valid recommendation coverage: 31.9%
• Top 3 recommendation rate: 29.8%
• Rank 1 recommendation rate: 23.5%
• Strongest cluster by recommendation behavior: Pricing and Fees (32.7% top-three rate)
• Strongest platform by recommendation behavior: Perplexity (56.5% top-three rate)

Sentiment Score

Sentiment Score = (553 positive x 1) + (65 neutral x 0) + (0 negative x -1) / 618 total mentions = 0.89

Fidelity's framing across AI responses is overwhelmingly positive, with no negative classifications recorded across any platform or cluster in this dataset.

Unclassified mention counts would be misleading here because they would treat a neutral reference and a rank-one recommendation as equivalent signals. Share of voice is a diagnostic metric, not a business KPI, because being mentioned in a neutral or contextual reference does not help win the buyer shortlist. A positive recommendation, a neutral reference, a cautionary mention, and a competitor-displaced mention carry different commercial weight and must be counted differently. Classified sentiment is required before interpreting AI visibility as a performance signal.

Fidelity's 0.89 score is the highest in the Roth IRA study. The observed data suggests the framing problem is not what is holding Fidelity back. The evidence points to presence coverage and citation architecture, not to how Fidelity is described when it does appear.

Sentiment by Platform

Methodology

1. This is a company-specific AI Market Strategy Report based on the LLM Authority Index benchmark for Roth IRAs. It is not a client implementation case study and does not reflect a CiteWorks Studio engagement with Fidelity.
2. Reporting window: June 2026, point-in-time snapshot. AI outputs and recommendation patterns can change between reporting periods.
3. Platforms tracked: ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Google AI Mode, Google AI Overviews, and Perplexity.
4. Observation count: 1,384 total observations across three public high-intent clusters. The full LLM Authority Index report covers 10 clusters.
5. Competitor universe: Charles Schwab, Fidelity, Vanguard, Robinhood, Betterment, Wealthfront, SoFi, E*TRADE, M1 Finance, and Merrill Edge. This is not a complete market census of all Roth IRA providers.
6. Public clusters used: Discovery (awareness-stage), Comparison (consideration-stage), and Pricing and Fees (decision-stage). The three clusters in this report represent a subset of the full benchmark.
7. Stage 0 role: The structured metrics aggregation file provides the quantitative foundation for this report. Raw AI observation transcripts were not directly accessed for this public version.
8. Definition of a mention: A mention is recorded when the company appears in an AI-generated response in any context, regardless of sentiment, rank, or recommendation status.
9. Definition of a valid recommendation: A valid recommendation is a positive, shortlist-quality recommendation that earns recommendation credit based on framing and rank. Neutral references, cautionary mentions, and comparison anchors do not qualify. Visibility is not the same as recommendation credit.
10. Modeled value interpretation: Monthly AI Authority Value figures are modeled benchmark estimates based on commercial intent proxies. They are not revenue, pipeline value, or booked demand and should not be interpreted as such.
11. Limitations: This report is a point-in-time benchmark and does not reflect real-time AI output. Prompt-level response tables, citation-source failure maps, platform-by-platform recovery priorities, and the full 10-cluster dataset are not included in this public version. Unique prompt counts are not separately disclosed in the public metrics file. Ahrefs or organic search data were not included in the source materials for this report.

See How AI Is Recommending Your Brand

Fidelity has the strongest first-choice recommendation position in the Roth IRA category and the highest net sentiment score in the study. The gap is not quality. The gap is coverage. CiteWorks Studio can show exactly where Fidelity appears, where competitors are recommended instead, which prompts are driving the most commercial risk, which sources are shaping AI answers, and what changes to the citation architecture would close the Google AI Mode and Discovery cluster gaps. Contact CiteWorks Studio to request an AI Visibility Audit or AI Company Discovery Report for the Roth IRA category.