How AI Search Is Recommending IRAs: Monthly Trends

Executive Summary

Fidelity remains the category leader in October 2026 with valid recommendation coverage of 87.5%, holding the top position for the full July through October 2026 series. Charles Schwab sits second at 86.5%, leaving the gap between the top two brands at 1.0 point, the tightest leadership pairing in the series and narrower than the 2.7-point separation recorded at the July 2026 baseline. This is a quiet leadership picture: no brand moved significantly this month, and the leader held its footing as it has through the entire run.

E*TRADE is the category's strongest cumulative upward mover among brands present across the series, with valid recommendation coverage up 17.7 points from its 28.4% July 2026 baseline to 46.1% in October 2026, a significant rise. Robinhood also rose significantly against baseline, up 5.1 points to 76.8%. Betterment LLC and Wealthfront Corporation continue their upward streaks under current entity-name tracking, at 23.0% and 10.9% respectively, both significant against the July 2026 series start.

The sharpest cumulative decliner against baseline is Vanguard, down 6.5 points from 69.4% in July 2026 to 62.9% in October 2026, a significant drop that leaves it fourth behind Robinhood. M1 Finance also declined significantly from baseline, down 6.4 points to 8.2%. Month over month, the category was stable: no brand moved significantly from September 2026 to October 2026, and the month summary is classified as mixed.

Each monthly run begins with 800 prompt-surface observations (532 unique questions in July 2026 and 619 in October 2026). All 800 mentioned a tracked brand or competitor in each month. In July 2026, 748 were relevant and 52 irrelevant; in October 2026, 592 were relevant and 208 irrelevant. The public metrics use 690 qualified observations in July 2026 and 534 in October 2026 that survive both qualification stages.

Key Findings

AI Response Inconsistency Alerts

Questions This Section Answers

• Which IRA provider claims did AI platforms contradict each other on?
• What specific Robinhood and Fidelity facts conflicted across platforms?

The benchmark's conflict review detected 3 critical and high-severity factual inconsistencies across 4 AI platforms. Each conflict reflects a case where two platforms gave materially different answers to the same question.

Robinhood

A high-severity pricing conflict concerned Robinhood's IRA contribution match rate. When asked "Where is it best to open a Roth IRA?", Google AI Mode stated that Robinhood offers a 1% matching contribution, or 5% with Gold, on deposits, citing Fidelity's Roth IRA page, CNBC Select, and a YouTube walkthrough. Copilot gave a different figure for the same program, stating an up-to-3% IRA match for Gold members, citing NerdWallet, a third-party guide, and CNBC Select. The two platforms cannot both be correct about the Gold-tier match rate. Flagged sources on both sides included a page describing a 1% contribution match and Motley Fool coverage noting an up-to-3% match for Gold members with 1% for standard accounts.

A second high-severity pricing conflict concerned Robinhood's options contract fee. When asked "What brokerage has the lowest commission?", Gemini stated that most platforms charge around $0.50 to $0.65 per contract for options trading, implying a per-contract fee, citing Fidelity's commissions page, Investing.com, and Interactive Brokers. Copilot stated that Robinhood offers $0 per-contract options fees, citing Westmount Research, Stock Broker Review, and CalcMoney. A brokerage cannot both charge a per-contract fee and offer zero per-contract fees. Flagged sources supporting the zero-fee claim included pages stating that Robinhood, Webull, and several peers charge $0 per options contract.

Fidelity

A high-severity factual conflict concerned Fidelity's assets under management. When asked "What are the top stock brokerage firms?", Google AI Overviews stated that Fidelity manages over $7 trillion in assets, citing Investopedia, the New York Institute of Finance, and Motley Fool. Copilot stated that Fidelity has $18.0 trillion in total client assets and $7.1 trillion AUM, citing Motley Fool, The College Investor, and BrokerChooser. The two figures are incompatible for the same company's asset size. Motley Fool research was flagged on both sides, and Investopedia was flagged for the $7.1 trillion figure.

Benchmark Context

The report separates the raw collection universe from the qualified analysis set. Brand-level recommendation percentages are calculated within the qualified benchmark set.

Benchmark-Level Metrics

The following category-level metrics summarize measurement conditions across both months.

Qualified observations trended down across the series, from 690 in July 2026 to 638 in August 2026, 520 in September 2026, and 534 in October 2026. The recommendation-shaped answer share, by contrast, moved up sharply this month, reaching its series high at 58.1%.

AI Recommendation Trend

Questions This Section Answers

• Which IRA providers rank first through third in AI recommendation coverage?
• Which brands posted significant cumulative rises or declines since July 2026?
• How tight is the gap between the top two providers?

The Top of the Category Is Tight and the Leader Is Unchanged

The baseline-to-current movements split into four significant risers and four significant decliners, but none of those moves broke out this month: the September 2026 to October 2026 changes all fell within normal month-to-month variation. The category-level change came from the combination of several smaller movements rather than one standalone swing, and the leader position was unchanged.

What Changed This Month

Questions This Section Answers

• Why is Fidelity's lead narrowing even though its coverage is unchanged?
• What drove E*TRADE's cumulative rise in IRA recommendations?
• What moved Robinhood ahead of Vanguard?

Fidelity Holds the Lead as the Gap Narrows

Fidelity's valid recommendation coverage was 87.5% in October 2026, unchanged from its 87.5% July 2026 baseline and up 1.1 points from September 2026. Charles Schwab, in second, closed to within 1.0 point at 86.5%. This is the narrowest top-two separation across the four-month series.

The lead is held on placement strength, not movement. Fidelity's top-three recommendation rate rose 19.4 points from 63.9% in July 2026 to 83.3% in October 2026, and its rank-one rate rose 6.4 points to 56.5%, both significant against baseline and the highest rank-one figure in the category. Raw mention presence stayed effectively flat at 99.6%.

The distinction to notice: Fidelity's coverage is stable, but its dominance is expressed through how often it is named first when it appears. A 0.0-point baseline movement can still sit alongside the strongest placement profile in the set.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which qualified observations still exclude Fidelity, and which prompt categories produce those gaps.

E*TRADE's Cumulative Rise Is a Breadth Story

E*TRADE's valid recommendation coverage reached 46.1% in October 2026, up 17.7 points from 28.4% in July 2026, a significant rise. From September 2026 the change was down 0.3 points, within normal variation.

The gain is driven by presence. Raw mention presence rose 20.0 points from 38.8% in July 2026 to 58.8% in October 2026. Top-three rate rose 3.8 points to 6.6%, significant against baseline, while rank-one rate moved up 0.4 points to 0.4%, within normal variation.

E*TRADE is being surfaced across far more queries than at baseline, but it is not converting that breadth into top placement at scale. Its 246 valid recommendation observations place it mid-pack on coverage without top-of-list strength.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompt types or AI surfaces account for the cumulative presence gain, and which brands' recommendation slots those mentions displaced.

Vanguard Slips and Robinhood Advances into Third

Vanguard's valid recommendation coverage was 62.9% in October 2026, down 6.5 points from 69.4% in July 2026, a significant decline. Robinhood rose 5.1 points over the same span to 76.8%, a significant increase, and now sits 13.9 points ahead of Vanguard in third place.

The two brands diverge on presence. Vanguard's raw mention presence fell 5.7 points from 81.5% in July 2026 to 75.8% in October 2026, a significant decline, even as its top-three rate rose 8.3 points to 37.6%. Robinhood's presence rose 8.1 points to 92.5% and its top-three rate rose 9.4 points to 24.5%, both significant.

The distinction to notice: Vanguard still earns top-three placement frequently when it appears, but it is appearing in fewer valid recommendation lists. Robinhood widened both dimensions at once, which is what moved it clear of Vanguard.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which question categories stopped producing Vanguard recommendations, and whether Robinhood captured those slots.

SoFi Extends a Three-Month Upward Streak

SoFi's valid recommendation coverage reached 43.8% in October 2026, up 5.5 points from 38.3% in July 2026, a movement classified as a watch item rather than significant. The brand now holds three consecutive monthly increases, though the cumulative move remains within normal variation.

Top-three rate rose 3.9 points from 3.8% in July 2026 to 7.7% in October 2026, significant against baseline. Rank-one rate fell 0.7 points to 0.6%. Raw mention presence rose 5.4 points to 49.6%.

SoFi is gaining coverage steadily and modestly across three months without a single breakout month, and its top-three placement has improved even as rank-one placement has not.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which IRA prompt categories sustain the three-month streak, and whether it continues into November 2026.

M1 Finance and the Entity-Tracked Names Anchor the Low End

M1 Finance's valid recommendation coverage was 8.2% in October 2026, down 6.4 points from 14.6% in July 2026, a significant decline, and down 2.8 points from September 2026. Its raw mention presence fell 6.1 points to 10.7%, significant against baseline. These figures rest on 44 valid recommendation observations, so the movement carries more uncertainty than higher-coverage brands.

Betterment LLC reached 23.0% in October 2026, up 23.0 points from zero under the July 2026 baseline and on a two-month upward streak. Wealthfront Corporation reached 10.9%, up 10.9 points from baseline, also on a two-month upward streak. Their valid recommendation counts, 123 and 58 respectively, place them well below the leaders.

The distinction to notice: the current entity-name entries continue to build coverage, while the prior brand-name entries for Betterment and Wealthfront show no current coverage after 62.7% and 53.3% at the July 2026 baseline. The notables tracked this month include a widening gap between Betterment and Betterment LLC that grew in every month of the series, a category observation about how the benchmark tracks brand and corporate names rather than a demand signal.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Whether the entity-name distinction reflects how AI systems actually refer to these providers, or whether the prior brand-name tracking captured consumer queries more accurately.

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

Questions This Section Answers

• Which buyer-intent clusters do qualified IRA observations actually cover?
• Why can't the benchmark address pricing or head-to-head comparisons this month?

In October 2026, all 534 qualified observations fell into the Brand Recommendation cluster. The public benchmark cannot yet speak to how AI systems handle pricing and value questions or head-to-head provider comparisons, because no qualified observations this month fell into those categories. The recommendation dynamic being measured is about default guidance, not cost-driven or comparative decision-making. The inconsistency alerts above show that pricing and cost questions do surface inconsistencies in AI responses, but those observations sit outside the qualified benchmark denominator this month.

Brand Opportunity Summary

Questions This Section Answers

• Which IRA brands show an upward streak or stable position worth investigating?
• Which brands' declines warrant a closer look at lost recommendation slots?

The benchmark identifies where attention is warranted; a company-level analysis is needed to explain why.

Evidence Behind the Benchmark

The aggregate metrics are built from prompt-level observations (query, surface, recommendation outcome, rank, sentiment, and citations where exposed). Company-level analysis can go deeper into prompt, competitor, surface, and evidence patterns. Source presence is not automatically treated as proof of causation.

About This Benchmark

This report is part of the LLM Authority Index AI Visibility Market Discovery research program. Learn more about the methodology, metrics, and standards through these CiteWorks Studio research links:

• AI Visibility Industry Market Methodology
• AI Visibility Industry Market Metrics
• AI Visibility Industry Market Standards

Report-Specific Interpretation Notes

• Small counts for lower-coverage brands such as M1 Finance, Merrill Edge, and Wealthfront Corporation mean their movements carry higher uncertainty than the leaders. M1 Finance's figures rest on 44 valid recommendation observations; Wealthfront Corporation's on 58.
• The qualified denominator excludes irrelevant prompts and prompts reserved for other research purposes. It is smaller than the raw collection volume. This vertical's qualified count moved from 690 in July 2026 to 534 in October 2026, while the recommendation-shaped answer share rose to its series high.
• Movement observed in a given month identifies areas worth investigating. It does not by itself establish the cause of those changes, and the entity-name tracking distinction for Betterment and Wealthfront is a measurement structure rather than a demand signal.

Next Step

The Public Benchmark Shows Where a Brand Is Winning or Losing. A Company-Level Audit Shows Why.

Beneath the aggregate percentages sit the questions that determine IRA provider visibility: which high-intent prompts are won, which competitor takes the recommendation when a brand loses, what attributes AI associates with each option, and which external sources shape those answers. The October 2026 picture, including the narrow top-two gap, E*TRADE's cumulative rise, Vanguard's cumulative decline, and the response inconsistencies the benchmark flagged, each point to specific prompt and surface patterns worth investigating.

A company-specific AI visibility audit maps those prompt, surface, competitor, ranking, sentiment, and evidence-source patterns into a prioritized visibility strategy for your brand.

Request an AI visibility audit