How AI Search Is Recommending Roth IRAs: Monthly Trends

Executive Summary

Fidelity remains the category leader in Roth IRA recommendations, with valid recommendation coverage of 90.3% in October 2026, up 3.8 points from 86.5% in July 2026. The gap to the next brand, Charles Schwab at 89.4%, stands at 0.9 points, a tight leadership cluster that has narrowed as both leaders advanced. Charles Schwab is the largest riser with meaningful coverage: up 5.9 points from 83.5% (July 2026) to 89.4% (October 2026), with its top-three rate up 27.4 points to 80.5% and its rank-one rate up 13.4 points to 23.4% over the same span. E*TRADE posted the sharpest single-month acceleration, up 23.7 points from September 2026 to October 2026, the largest single-month move in the series.

The sharpest decliners were Wealthfront and Betterment, though both movements reflect an entity-labeling change rather than a market shift. Wealthfront's series shows coverage at 52.5% in July 2026 falling to 0.0% in October 2026, a 52.5-point decline and a three-month downward streak. Betterment's series shows 61.8% in July 2026 falling to 0.0% in October 2026, a 61.8-point decline and a three-month downward streak. In both cases, a separately labeled entity (Betterment LLC and Wealthfront Corporation) begins appearing in October 2026 at 23.8% and 11.2% respectively, which accounts for the zero readings on the original labels. The third significant decliner, M1 Finance, is unrelated to this labeling change; its coverage fell 5.9 points on its own smaller base.

Against the prior month, the category was widely positive. Eight of twelve tracked entities posted significant gains from July 2026 to October 2026, one (Vanguard) was stable, and three posted significant declines, two of which trace to the labeling shift described above. The September 2026 soft patch, when no brand posted a significant rise, gave way to a broad October 2026 advance across the middle and upper tiers.

Each monthly run begins with 800 prompt-surface observations (619 unique questions in October 2026, against 532 in July 2026, 581 in August 2026, and 577 in September 2026) across the benchmark's defined AI/search surface universe. Of those, 800 mentioned a tracked brand or competitor; 751 were relevant and 49 irrelevant in July 2026, while 579 were relevant and 221 irrelevant in October 2026. The public metrics use the 697 qualified observations in July 2026 and the 518 qualified observations in October 2026 that survive both qualification stages.

Key Findings

AI Response Inconsistency Alerts

Seven critical or high-severity factual inconsistencies were detected across five AI platforms (Copilot, Gemini, Google AI Mode, Google AI Overviews, and Perplexity).

Robinhood

AI platforms provided conflicting information about Robinhood's Roth IRA contribution match rate. When asked "What is the best Roth IRA account right now?," Google AI Mode stated that Robinhood offers a unique 1% match on direct contributions and transfers, citing Forbes, CNBC, and NerdWallet. Gemini stated that Robinhood offers a match on contributions such as a 3% match for Robinhood Gold subscribers, citing Money, Carry, and The Motley Fool. The two match rates are incompatible for the same program.

A second high-severity conflict concerned the IRA contribution match rate for Robinhood Gold members. 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 Investments, CNBC, and a YouTube explainer. Copilot stated up to a 3% IRA match for Gold members, citing NerdWallet, Get Finance Pulse, and CNBC. Two flagged sources were associated with this conflict: a Motley Fool page supporting the 3% figure at 0.95 confidence and a Wealthvieu page supporting the 1% figure at 0.9 confidence.

A third high-severity conflict concerned options contract fees. 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 Robinhood charges a per-contract fee, citing Fidelity, Investing.com, and Interactive Brokers. Copilot stated that Robinhood offers $0 per-contract options fees, citing Westmount Research, Stock Broker Review, and CalcMoney. Two flagged sources supported the $0 figure at 0.95 confidence each.

Charles Schwab

AI platforms provided conflicting information about the minimum investment for fractional shares. When asked "Which broker is best for fractional shares?," Google AI Overviews stated a $5 minimum, citing Interactive Brokers, NerdWallet, and StockBrokers.com. Perplexity stated no minimums on fractional trades, citing Yahoo Finance and NerdWallet. A flagged Yahoo Finance source cited a range of $1 to $5, and a Finder source listed several brokers with varying minimums, including Schwab at $5.

Fidelity

AI platforms provided conflicting information about Fidelity's total client assets. When asked "What are the top stock brokerage firms?," Google AI Overviews stated that Fidelity manages over $7 trillion in assets, citing Investopedia, NYIF, and The Motley Fool. Copilot stated total client assets of $18.0 trillion, citing The Motley Fool, The College Investor, and BrokerChooser. Two flagged sources were associated with this conflict: a Motley Fool page supporting the $18.0 trillion figure at 0.95 confidence and an Investopedia page supporting the $7.1 trillion figure at 0.95 confidence.

SoFi

AI platforms provided conflicting information about the minimum investment for fractional shares. When asked "Which broker is best for fractional shares?," Google AI Overviews stated a $5 minimum, citing Interactive Brokers, NerdWallet, and StockBrokers.com. Copilot stated a $1 minimum, citing Phroogal, Investing Simple, and Side by Side Brokers. Three flagged sources were associated with this conflict, including a Finder comparison listing SoFi at $5 and a source citing SoFi's "Stocks by the Slice" program at $1.

Vanguard

AI platforms provided conflicting information about Vanguard's account minimum. When asked "What is the best place to open a Roth IRA?," Perplexity stated no minimums, citing NerdWallet, SmartAsset, and Investopedia. Copilot stated a $1,000 minimum, citing Business Insider, Young and the Invested, and Grok Trade. Three flagged sources were associated with this conflict, including a Business Insider page showing both a $1,000 minimum and a "no minimums" reference, and an Investopedia page stating no account fees or minimums.

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.

These stage counts set the denominator for every brand metric that follows; the qualified base is what the benchmark-level figures below describe in aggregate.

Benchmark-Level Metrics

The qualified base contracted across the series, from 697 in July 2026 to 654 in August 2026, 640 in September 2026, and 518 in October 2026. The irrelevant count rose from 49 to 221 over the same span, accounting for most of the shrinkage. Despite the smaller base, the share of answers shaped as recommendations and the share of valid recommendation shortlists both rose, meaning the qualified set was increasingly composed of recommendation-bearing observations.

AI Recommendation Trend

Questions This Section Answers

• Which brands form the leadership cluster, and how narrow is the gap between them?
• Which brands posted the largest coverage gains from July to October 2026?

Fidelity and Charles Schwab form a narrow leadership cluster as the category broadly advances

Fidelity holds first place at 90.3% valid recommendation coverage in October 2026, with Charles Schwab close behind at 89.4%. Both advanced from July 2026, and the rest of the category's upper and middle tiers posted significant gains as well.

Eight of the twelve tracked entities exceeded normal month-to-month variation in October 2026. The category-level advance came from a combination of several significant movements rather than one dominant shift, with Charles Schwab, Robinhood, E*TRADE, and SoFi all posting meaningful gains alongside Fidelity.

What Changed This Month

Questions This Section Answers

• What drove Fidelity's coverage gain, and how does its rank-one rate compare with the rest of the category?
• Which prompts moved Charles Schwab into top-three placements as the leadership gap narrowed?
• Why did E*TRADE's coverage surge without a matching rise in rank-one placement?

Fidelity

Fidelity's valid recommendation coverage rose 3.8 points from 86.5% in July 2026 to 90.3% in October 2026, a significant increase. The move continued a rebound after a September 2026 soft patch, when coverage sat at 85.8%. The month-over-month gain from September 2026 was 4.5 points.

Raw mention presence held at 99.6% in October 2026, essentially unchanged from 99.7% in July 2026. Top-three rate rose 22.8 points to 86.1%, and rank-one rate rose 8.4 points to 57.9%, both significant.

The distinction to notice: Fidelity's coverage lead is now narrow in percentage terms, just 0.9 points over Charles Schwab, but its rank-one rate of 57.9% gives it the primary recommendation in more than half of qualified answers, a level no other brand approaches.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which evidence sources underpin Fidelity's 57.9% rank-one rate, and which of them AI platforms cite most often?

Charles Schwab

Charles Schwab's valid recommendation coverage rose 5.9 points from 83.5% in July 2026 to 89.4% in October 2026, a significant increase. The gain was among the largest in the category this period, and the month-over-month move from September 2026 was 5.6 points.

Top-three rate rose 27.4 points to 80.5%, and rank-one rate rose 13.4 points to 23.4%, both significant. Raw mention presence rose 2.3 points to 99.4%.

The distinction to notice: Charles Schwab converted a near-universal presence into a much larger share of top-three and first-choice placements. Because this movement coincides with the narrowed 0.9-point leadership gap, it is one of the category's most consequential repositionings.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts moved Charles Schwab into top-three placements, and which competitor was displaced?

E*TRADE

E*TRADE's valid recommendation coverage rose 20.7 points from 27.4% in July 2026 to 48.1% in October 2026, a significant increase. The sharper story is the single-month jump of 23.7 points from September 2026, the largest single-month move in the series.

Raw mention presence rose 18.2 points to 57.5%, and top-three rate rose 5.7 points to 7.7%, both significant. Rank-one rate moved 0.2 points to 0.2%, a non-significant change.

The distinction to notice: E*TRADE's advance is a coverage and presence story, not a rank-one story. The brand appears in far more recommendation sets but rarely takes the primary position, with 40 top-three placements and 1 rank-one placement on a base of 249 valid recommendations.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which surface families drove the 23.7-point single-month gain, and why did rank-one placement not follow?

Robinhood

Robinhood's valid recommendation coverage rose 10.3 points from 69.4% in July 2026 to 79.7% in October 2026, a significant increase. The month-over-month move from September 2026 was 12.8 points.

Raw mention presence rose 7.8 points to 92.3%, top-three rate rose 11.5 points to 25.3%, and rank-one rate rose 2.2 points to 4.2%, all significant. The brand holds 413 valid recommendations in October 2026.

The distinction to notice: Robinhood's gains span presence, top-three placement, and primary recommendations together, a broad advance rather than a single-tier shift. It also carries three high-severity factual inconsistencies across AI platforms in this period, detailed above, which concern stated match rates and options fees.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which conflicting factual claims appear on the prompts where Robinhood gained placement, and which sources AI platforms cite for each?

SoFi

SoFi's valid recommendation coverage rose 10.4 points from 36.3% in July 2026 to 46.7% in October 2026, a significant increase. The month-over-month move from September 2026 was 9.2 points.

Raw mention presence rose 8.1 points to 52.3%, and top-three rate rose 4.0 points to 8.7%, both significant. Rank-one rate moved down 0.8 points to 0.6%, a non-significant change.

The distinction to notice: SoFi's coverage sits above its July 2026 baseline but its presence rate of 52.3% still trails the leaders by a wide margin. Its 242 valid recommendations form a mid-sized base, and the brand is recommended in fewer than half of qualified answers despite a broad upward move.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts account for SoFi's top-three gains, and where does its fractional-share minimum inconsistency appear?

Vanguard

Vanguard's valid recommendation coverage moved down 3.6 points from 68.7% in July 2026 to 65.1% in October 2026, a non-significant change that leaves the brand classified as stable. The month-over-month move from September 2026 was a decline of 4.6 points, also non-significant.

Top-three rate rose 6.5 points to 38.8%, a significant increase, while raw mention presence fell 5.8 points to 75.1%, a significant decline. Rank-one rate moved up 0.9 points to 2.3%, a non-significant change.

The distinction to notice: Vanguard is appearing in fewer answers overall while placing higher when it does appear. This divergence between falling presence and rising top-three placement is the pattern to watch, particularly because Vanguard carries a high-severity account-minimum inconsistency across Copilot and Perplexity.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which surfaces drove the 5.8-point presence decline, and which competitor absorbed those placements?

M1 Finance

M1 Finance's valid recommendation coverage fell 5.9 points from 14.2% in July 2026 to 8.3% in October 2026, a significant decline. The month-over-month move from September 2026 was down 2.3 points, below the significance threshold. This is M1 Finance's second consecutive month of decline.

Raw mention presence fell 5.4 points to 11.2%, a significant decline. Top-three rate moved down 0.1 points to 1.0%, and rank-one rate moved to 0.0% from 0.1%, both non-significant.

The distinction to notice: M1 Finance's decline rests on a small base. The brand holds 43 valid recommendations in October 2026, down from 99 in July 2026, a drop of 56 recommendations. Presence fell from 116 in July 2026 to 58 in October 2026, and those counts should be read alongside the percentage movements.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts dropped M1 Finance from recommendation shortlists, and which competitor took those placements?

Betterment and Wealthfront entity-labeling change

Betterment's series shows valid recommendation coverage at 61.8% in July 2026, 61.5% in August 2026, 59.1% in September 2026, and 0.0% in October 2026, a 61.8-point decline against baseline with a three-month downward streak. Wealthfront's series shows 52.5% in July 2026, 45.7% in August 2026, 42.0% in September 2026, and 0.0% in October 2026, a 52.5-point decline against baseline, also with a three-month downward streak.

In the same month, two entities appear for the first time: Betterment LLC at 23.8% and Wealthfront Corporation at 11.2%, both significant risers against their zero baselines. Betterment LLC shows raw mention presence of 25.3%, top-three rate of 2.3%, and rank-one rate of 0.2%, on 123 valid recommendations. Wealthfront Corporation shows raw mention presence of 12.9%, top-three rate of 0.6%, and rank-one rate of 0.2%, on 58 valid recommendations.

The distinction to notice: the simultaneous zero readings on the original labels and the first appearances of the separately labeled entities indicate that October 2026 recommendation credit for these two brands is recorded under the new entity names. The benchmark treats the four entity labels as distinct series, so the zero readings and the new entries should be read together rather than as a loss of category position by a single continuing brand. The relative scale between the two labeled pairs is uneven: Betterment LLC's 23.8% sits well below Betterment's 61.8% July 2026 baseline, while Wealthfront Corporation's 11.2% sits well below Wealthfront's 52.5% July 2026 baseline.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Under which entity name does each brand's October 2026 recommendation credit appear across prompts and surfaces, and how do the two labeled series combine?

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

Questions This Section Answers

• Which buyer-intent clusters does the benchmark capture in October 2026?
• What commercial questions about pricing, value, and head-to-head comparisons remain unanswered by this dataset?

All 518 qualified observations in October 2026 fell into the Brand Recommendation cluster, with no qualified observations in the Pricing & Value or Multi-Brand Comparison clusters. The public benchmark therefore captures which brands AI systems recommend for Roth IRA selection, but it cannot answer questions about price sensitivity, value trade-offs, or head-to-head positioning. Those commercial questions would require a deeper prompt set targeting cost and comparison language specifically.

Price, value, and head-to-head comparison have no public signal in this dataset; the benchmark captures only which brand gets recommended, not why.

Brand Opportunity Summary

Questions This Section Answers

• Which brands need attention in October 2026, and what diagnostic does each row point to?
• Why do Betterment and Wealthfront show 0.0% coverage while their new entity labels appear at 23.8% and 11.2%?

The benchmark identifies where attention is warranted across the category; a company-level analysis is needed to explain why those patterns hold.

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 counts apply in this category: M1 Finance's 43 valid recommendations, Wealthfront Corporation's 58, and Merrill Edge's 74 in October 2026 mean their percentage movements rest on small bases and should be read with caution.
• The qualified denominator is 518 observations in October 2026, down from 697 in July 2026; brand percentages are calculated within this qualified set, not against the 800 raw prompts collected.
• Entity labels changed within the series: Betterment, Betterment LLC, Wealthfront, and Wealthfront Corporation appear as distinct series. The zero readings on the original labels and the first appearances of the new labels occur in the same month, so the two pairs should be read together.
• Directional analysis identifies movement worth investigating; it does not establish cause. The October 2026 advances and declines are benchmark movements, not outcomes attributable to any single factor.

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 for strategy: which high-intent prompts a brand wins, which competitor takes the recommendation when a brand loses, what attributes AI systems associate with each option, and which external sources shape those answers. The public benchmark shows the outcome; it does not expose the mechanism.

The public percentages cannot identify the prompts, competitors, or sources causing each brand's result.

A company-specific AI visibility audit maps those prompt, surface, competitor, ranking, sentiment, and evidence-source patterns into a prioritized visibility strategy. That analysis turns a category-level observation into a brand-level action plan.

Request an AI visibility audit