How AI Search Is Recommending Online Stock Brokers: Monthly Trends

Executive Summary

Fidelity takes the coverage lead in October 2026 at 84.5% valid recommendation coverage, moving ahead of Charles Schwab at 83.3%, a 1.2-point edge. Charles Schwab had led the category in September 2026 at 81.6%, so the top spot changed hands between the two months. Robinhood holds third at 78.3%, with Interactive Brokers close behind at 77.4%, leaving the top four brands clustered well ahead of the rest of the field.

Charles Schwab recorded the largest top-three placement gain of any tracked brand, rising 6.9 points from 64.8% in July 2026 to 71.7% in October 2026. Fidelity posted the largest single-month gain versus the prior month, up 3.4 points to 84.5% coverage and up 1.9 points on rank-one rate to 48.2%, though its rank-one share remains 7.3 points below the July 2026 baseline of 55.5%.

Tastytrade is the sharpest decliner measured from baseline, down 6.6 points from 29.5% in July 2026 to 22.9% in October 2026, a decline the benchmark classifies as significant and the third consecutive monthly fall. Merrill Edge is the second significant decliner, down 5.2 points from 13.2% to 8.0% across the same period.

Against the prior month, the category was quiet at the individual brand level. No brand posted a significant month-over-month move in October 2026. Charles Schwab, E*TRADE, Fidelity, Merrill Edge, Robinhood, and Vanguard each rose versus September 2026, while Interactive Brokers, Public, Tastytrade, and Webull fell. The gap between Fidelity and Tastytrade widened to 61.6 points, from 56.2 points in July 2026, though not in every month of the series. The Tastytrade-to-Vanguard and Merrill-Edge-to-Vanguard gaps each widened every month of the series.

Each monthly run begins with 800 prompt-surface observations. In October 2026 those comprised 582 unique questions, and all 800 mentioned a tracked brand or competitor. Of those, 720 were relevant and 80 were irrelevant. The public metrics use the 672 qualified observations that survive both qualification stages. The July 2026 baseline run also began with 800 prompt-surface observations (521 unique questions; all 800 brand or competitor mentions; 752 relevant and 48 irrelevant), resolving to 715 qualified observations. August 2026 resolved to 675 qualified observations and September 2026 to 652.

Key Findings

AI Response Inconsistency Alerts

Questions This Section Answers

• Which brokers had high-severity pricing or factual conflicts across AI platforms?
• What specific claims did Copilot, Gemini, and AI Overviews disagree on for online stock brokers?

The benchmark's conflict detection flagged 4 high-severity factual and pricing inconsistencies across 3 AI platforms: Copilot, Gemini, and AI Overviews. Each involves a single conflicting claim about a tracked broker, and every conflict carries a high confidence score of 0.9 or above.

Charles Schwab

AI platforms provided conflicting information about Charles Schwab's margin rate. When asked "What are typical margin rates?", Gemini stated that standard base rates for smaller or average retail balances typically run between 10.5% and 12.2%, citing goatfundedtrader.com and public.com. Copilot stated that Charles Schwab offers roughly 8.08% APR at a $50k balance, citing yieldlens.app, realcostreport.com, and sidebysidebrokers.com. The flagged source excerpts show the divergence in the underlying evidence: one page records a 10.00% base rate with discounts at $250K or more, while another records a tiered base-rate schedule of approximately 8.08%. The high-severity classification reflects that a single broker's rate for a $50k balance cannot simultaneously sit near 8.08% and fall inside a 10.5% to 12.2% range.

Fidelity

AI platforms provided conflicting information about Fidelity's total client assets. When asked "What are the top stock brokerage firms?", AI Overviews stated that Fidelity manages over $7 trillion in assets, citing Investopedia and other sources. Copilot stated that Fidelity has total client assets of $18.0 trillion, citing The Motley Fool, The College Investor, and BrokerChooser. The flagged source excerpts show one page recording $7.1 trillion under management and another stating $18.0 trillion in administered client assets. The high-severity classification reflects that Fidelity cannot simultaneously manage over $7 trillion and $18 trillion in total client assets.

Robinhood

AI platforms provided conflicting information about 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, citing Fidelity, Investing.com, and Interactive Brokers. Copilot stated that Robinhood offers $0 per-contract options fees, citing westmountfundamentals.com, stockbrokerreview.com, and calcmoney.io. The flagged source excerpts point to the same underlying tension: one page records the traditional $0.65 per-contract floor as no longer current, while another lists Robinhood and Webull together at $0 per options contract. The high-severity classification reflects that if Robinhood charges $0 per options contract, it cannot simultaneously be among the platforms charging around $0.50 to $0.65 per contract.

Tastytrade

AI platforms provided conflicting information about Tastytrade's options contract fees. When asked "Which platform is best for option trading?", AI Overviews stated that Tastytrade offers commission-free and per-contract fee-free options trades, grouping it with Webull and Robinhood, citing Investopedia, StockBrokers.com, and a YouTube source. Copilot stated that Tastytrade charges $1 to open but $0 to close, capped at $10 per leg, citing gov.capital, WalletInvestor, and sidebysidebrokers.com. The flagged source excerpts show one page recording a $1 per contract open fee capped at $10 per leg, and another describing the open-and-close pricing model in the same terms. The high-severity classification reflects that Tastytrade cannot simultaneously charge $0 per contract and charge $1 per contract to open.

Benchmark Context

Questions This Section Answers

• What is the difference between the raw prompt-surface observations and the qualified benchmark set?
• How did the qualified observation count change between July 2026 and October 2026?

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

August 2026 (675 qualified observations) and September 2026 (652) sat between these two months on the qualified count, with the qualified denominator rising from its September low back toward the July level. Unique questions rose from 521 in July 2026 to 593 in September 2026 before easing slightly to 582 in October 2026.

Benchmark-Level Metrics

The recommendation-shaped answer share moved sharply across the series: 36.5% in July 2026, 41.0% in August 2026, 37.3% in September 2026, and 50.6% in October 2026. In October 2026, 340 of the 672 qualified observations produced a recommendation-shaped answer, the highest monthly count and share in the series.

AI Recommendation Trend

Questions This Section Answers

• Who leads online stock broker recommendations in October 2026, and by how much?
• Which broker improved its recommendation coverage from the July 2026 baseline?

Fidelity reclaimed a clear coverage lead from Charles Schwab in October 2026 as the top tier separated slightly after months of near-parity.

Vanguard was the only brand to gain coverage from the July 2026 baseline to October 2026, with its rise driven by small gains across presence, top-three placement, and rank-one placement rather than a single dominant metric. No other brand's movement from baseline matched the scale of the Merrill Edge and Tastytrade declines, and the gap between Fidelity and Charles Schwab at the top remained within a normal range across the series.

What Changed This Month

Questions This Section Answers

• Why did Fidelity regain the coverage lead while its rank-one share remains below baseline?
• How did Charles Schwab improve top-three placement even as it lost the coverage lead?
• What drove Tastytrade's and Merrill Edge's significant declines from baseline?

Fidelity

Fidelity is the coverage leader in October 2026, regaining the lead it shared in July 2026 and lost in September 2026. Its valid recommendation coverage was 84.5% in October 2026, up 3.4 points from 81.1% in September 2026 and 1.2 points below the July 2026 baseline of 85.7%.

Placement tells the more important story. Fidelity's top-three rate was 74.6% in October 2026, up 0.2 points from the 74.5% prior-month level but 2.9 points below the July 2026 baseline of 77.5%. Its rank-one rate was 48.2% in October 2026, up 1.9 points from September 2026 but down 7.3 points from the July 2026 baseline of 55.5%. Fidelity produced 568 qualifying recommendations in October 2026, down from 613 in July 2026.

The distinction to notice is between recovered coverage and dated rank-one strength. Fidelity is once again first by coverage and still first by rank-one, but the share of qualified observations where AI systems choose it first remains meaningfully below its baseline.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompt themes drive Fidelity's top-three placements but stop short of rank-one, and which brands occupy the rank-one slot when Fidelity does not.

Charles Schwab

Charles Schwab moved from first to second on coverage, but its placement quality improved in a way Fidelity's did not. Its valid recommendation coverage was 83.3% in October 2026, up 1.7 points from 81.6% in September 2026 and 2.4 points below the July 2026 baseline of 85.7%.

Placement strengthened across the series. Charles Schwab's top-three rate was 71.7% in October 2026, up 6.9 points from the July 2026 baseline of 64.8%, and its rank-one rate was 18.9%, up 1.1 points from the 17.8% baseline. This is a two-month upward streak on coverage. Charles Schwab produced 560 qualifying recommendations in October 2026, down from 613 in July 2026.

The distinction to notice is that the coverage lead changed hands even as the second-place brand improved its top-three credit. Charles Schwab's 98.5% presence rate keeps it close to the ceiling, so the movement is in recommendation credit rather than visibility.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompt themes lifted Charles Schwab's top-three rate by 6.9 points while its coverage remained below baseline.

Tastytrade

Tastytrade is the sharpest decliner in the series and the only brand with three consecutive monthly falls. Its valid recommendation coverage was 22.9% in October 2026, down 2.7 points from 25.6% in September 2026 and down 6.6 points from the July 2026 baseline of 29.5%, a decline the benchmark classifies as significant.

The decline is concentrated in visibility. Tastytrade's raw mention presence rate was 24.1% in October 2026, down 7.7 points from the July 2026 baseline of 31.8%. Its top-three rate held nearly steady at 7.0%, down 0.1 points from the 7.1% baseline, and its rank-one rate rose 1.5 points to 5.8%. Net sentiment was 1.0. Tastytrade produced 154 qualifying recommendations in October 2026, down from 211 in July 2026.

The distinction to notice is that Tastytrade is losing presence, not placement. Where AI systems do mention the brand, they often rank it at or near the top; the brand is simply appearing in fewer qualified observations.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts and surfaces stopped surfacing Tastytrade at all, and whether the loss clusters in specific topics.

Merrill Edge

Merrill Edge is the second significant decliner from baseline and the only brand with a rank-one rate of zero in every month of the series. Its valid recommendation coverage was 8.0% in October 2026, up 0.5 points from 7.5% in September 2026 but down 5.2 points from the July 2026 baseline of 13.2%, a decline the benchmark classifies as significant.

Both visibility and recommendation weakened. Merrill Edge's raw mention presence rate was 11.6% in October 2026, down 5.7 points from the July 2026 baseline of 17.3%. Its top-three rate was 0.1%, and it produced a single top-three placement in the month, against 5 in July 2026. The brand produced 54 qualifying recommendations in October 2026, down from 94 in July 2026, and its net sentiment slipped to 0.7 from 0.8.

The distinction to notice is the small absolute base beneath these percentages. At 78 present observations and 54 qualifying recommendations, a modest number of prompt-level changes produces a large percentage movement.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts stopped surfacing or recommending Merrill Edge, and which brands now appear where it once did.

Vanguard and the widening gaps

Vanguard is the only brand to gain coverage from baseline, and the category's lowest-coverage brands are now further from the middle of the field than at any point in the series. Vanguard's valid recommendation coverage was 36.2% in October 2026, up 1.9 points from the July 2026 baseline of 34.3% and up 2.8 points from September 2026.

The gap between Tastytrade and Vanguard widened to 13.3 points in October 2026, from 4.8 points in July 2026, and has widened in every month of the series. The gap between Merrill Edge and Vanguard widened to 28.2 points, from 21.1 points in July 2026, also widening every month. The gap between Fidelity and Tastytrade widened to 61.6 points, from 56.2 points in July 2026, though not in every month.

The distinction to notice is that this pattern spans multiple brands rather than one brand's isolated decline. Coverage at the top of the field has stayed within its established range while the lower cohort has drifted downward, concentrating recommendation credit among fewer brands.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompt themes and surfaces the lower-coverage cohort stopped winning, and whether those observations moved to the top cohort or out of the qualified set.

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

Questions This Section Answers

• What do the buyer-intent clusters capture for online stock broker recommendations?
• Why can't the benchmark measure pricing and head-to-head comparison questions as separate categories?

In October 2026, all 672 qualified observations fell into the Brand Recommendation cluster. The public benchmark therefore captures how often and where AI systems recommend each broker, but it cannot yet answer the commercial questions of pricing and value, or direct head-to-head comparison, as separate measurable categories. The 16 pricing analysis responses and 57 comparison analysis responses observed in October 2026 indicate that these themes are present in the data, but they are not yet tracked as distinct buyer-intent clusters.

Brand Opportunity Summary

Questions This Section Answers

• Which online stock brokers show the strongest or weakest recommendation signal in October 2026?
• What should brands investigate about their AI recommendation coverage?

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.

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

Report-Specific Interpretation Notes

• Small-count movement: brands with fewer qualified appearances, such as Merrill Edge with 54 qualifying recommendations in October 2026, can show large percentage swings from a small number of underlying changes. Counts are named beside percentages where relevant.
• Qualified denominator vs raw collection: percentages reflect the 672 qualified observations in October 2026, not the 800 raw prompt-surface observations collected.
• Directional analysis: month-over-month movement identifies changes worth investigating. It does not by itself establish the cause of those changes.

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 matter: 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 public benchmark shows, for example, that Tastytrade's presence fell 7.7 points from baseline while its placement held, and that Fidelity's rank-one share is 7.3 points below its baseline, but it does not show which prompts or surfaces produced those movements.

A company-specific AI visibility audit maps those prompt, surface, competitor, ranking, sentiment, and evidence-source patterns into a prioritized visibility strategy. It answers the questions the public benchmark raises, with the specificity needed to act.

Request an AI visibility audit