IRAs in AI Search: The Biggest AI Visibility Problems and How We'd Fix Them

Companies covered: SoFi, E*TRADE, Fidelity, Vanguard, Robinhood, M1 Finance, Merrill Edge, Betterment LLC, Charles Schwab, Wealthfront Corporation

Answer Capsule

The November 2026 IRAs benchmark compares 10 companies across 501 AI answers that met its inclusion rules. Fidelity recorded 500 mentions and 453 recommendations (90.42% of the answers). Being mentioned means appearing in an answer; being recommended means receiving an affirmative endorsement.

We examine each company, compare the available monthly results, and set out a five-step plan for improving the information AI systems can draw on. The work starts with measuring visibility and checking conflicting claims, then moves to company pages, relevant publishers and buyer questions. The cited pages need review before any correction request, and the research does not establish what caused recommendation differences or promise future gains.

Executive industry diagnosis

Questions This Section Answers

• What does the IRAs benchmark show about mentions, recommendations and placement?

The peer set splits into two tiers. Fidelity, Charles Schwab and Robinhood are named in nearly every answer and recommended in most of them, so their presence is close to assumed. Vanguard and SoFi sit below them but still reach a majority of answers, which makes them credible alternatives rather than defaults.

The gap that matters is placement, not reach. Robinhood and Vanguard are recommended often but rarely lead an answer, while Fidelity and Charles Schwab lead frequently. Being named is table stakes; being the first name a buyer sees is where the competitive distance sits.

Below the top five, reach thins quickly. Betterment LLC, Merrill Edge, E*TRADE, Wealthfront Corporation and M1 Finance appear in a minority of answers and almost never lead one. For these firms the practical goal is earning a place in shortlists, not displacing the leaders outright.

For the agency, this argues for tiered work. Leaders need fact accuracy and placement protection; challengers need evidence that earns inclusion in comparison answers. Treating every company the same would waste effort on firms whose main constraint is simply being considered.

What changed since last month

Questions This Section Answers

• What changed across the usable monthly IRAs snapshots?

Only months with verified results are shown. Monthly sample coverage is listed in Methodology.

The monthly figures come from separate answer samples, so they show movement rather than like-for-like performance. Most leaders drifted modestly, with recommendation rates edging up while mention counts eased. That pattern is worth noting but not explaining from the sample alone.

The clear exception is E*TRADE, whose recorded mentions and recommendations dropped sharply between October and November. SoFi moved the other way, gaining mentions and recommendations. Both shifts are large enough to justify a closer look at the underlying answers before drawing conclusions.

Because the samples differ, the agency should document how each month was assembled and keep the scorecard traceable. Any interpretation of a single month's swing should wait until the answers behind it have been read directly.

Company-by-company findings

SoFi

Questions This Section Answers

• What measured visibility pattern and review priority does SoFi have in IRAs?

SoFi recorded 284 mentions (56.69%) and 258 recommendations (51.50%) across 501 answers included in the benchmark. Top 3 placements numbered 32; first-place recommendations numbered 4. Framing among its mentions was 264 positive, 19 neutral and 1 negative.

From October 2026 to November 2026, SoFi's mention count rose from 265 to 284, while its recommendation count rose from 234 to 258. The recommendation rate was 43.82% and 51.50% respectively.

AI answers contained 2 conflicting claims about SoFi: 0 critical, 0 high, 1 medium, 1 low. Of these, 0 were rated critical or high priority; the critical claims are included in that total. These ratings help prioritize fact-checking. They do not establish that a company or publisher made an error.

Both columns quote AI answers, not verified company facts. Resolve the entity, date and source before deciding whether a correction is warranted; different dates can explain an apparent conflict.

These are recorded answer observations, not search volume, verified demand, or proof of missing website content.

Selected owned-page review candidate: https://sofi.com/invest/.

Selected third-party review candidate: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SOFI/.

SoFi is recommended in roughly half of the answers and named in more, but it leads very few. That means buyers hear about SoFi as a serious option without often seeing it named first. The practical opportunity is converting that broad acceptance into stronger placement in comparison answers.

We would propose a conditional review of the supplied owned page and the third-party quote page, checking current facts before any edit. The two recorded conflicts, on minimum investment and share price, should be resolved against primary sources first, since one may simply reflect different dates.

E*TRADE

Questions This Section Answers

• What measured visibility pattern and review priority does E*TRADE have in IRAs?

E*TRADE recorded 68 mentions (13.57%) and 54 recommendations (10.78%) across 501 answers included in the benchmark. Top 3 placements numbered 9; first-place recommendations numbered 0. Framing among its mentions was 58 positive, 7 neutral and 3 negative.

From October 2026 to November 2026, E*TRADE's mention count fell from 314 to 68, while its recommendation count fell from 246 to 54. The recommendation rate was 46.07% and 10.78% respectively.

AI answers contained 0 conflicting claims about E*TRADE: 0 critical, 0 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Of these, 0 were rated critical or high priority; the critical claims are included in that total. These ratings help prioritize fact-checking. They do not establish that a company or publisher made an error.

No results are available for this part of the analysis.

Both columns quote AI answers, not verified company facts. Resolve the entity, date and source before deciding whether a correction is warranted; different dates can explain an apparent conflict.

These are recorded answer observations, not search volume, verified demand, or proof of missing website content.

Selected owned-page review candidate: https://us.etrade.com/home.

Selected third-party review candidate: https://firstrade.com/.

E*TRADE is named and recommended far less often than the leaders, and it never leads an answer in this sample. Its positive framing is strong, so the constraint looks like visibility rather than reputation. The sharp month-to-month drop deserves direct reading of the answers before any interpretation.

We would propose a conditional review of the supplied owned page and the third-party comparison page, confirming current facts before any change. Because no conflicting claims were recorded, the first task is understanding where E*TRADE appears and where it does not.

Fidelity

Questions This Section Answers

• What measured visibility pattern and review priority does Fidelity have in IRAs?

Fidelity recorded 500 mentions (99.80%) and 453 recommendations (90.42%) across 501 answers included in the benchmark. Top 3 placements numbered 419; first-place recommendations numbered 307. Framing among its mentions was 459 positive, 37 neutral and 4 negative.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Fidelity's mention count fell from 532 to 500, while its recommendation count fell from 467 to 453. The recommendation rate was 87.45% and 90.42% respectively.

AI answers contained 0 conflicting claims about Fidelity: 0 critical, 0 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Of these, 0 were rated critical or high priority; the critical claims are included in that total. These ratings help prioritize fact-checking. They do not establish that a company or publisher made an error.

No results are available for this part of the analysis.

Both columns quote AI answers, not verified company facts. Resolve the entity, date and source before deciding whether a correction is warranted; different dates can explain an apparent conflict.

These are recorded answer observations, not search volume, verified demand, or proof of missing website content.

Selected owned-page review candidate: https://fidelity.com/investing/trading.

Selected third-party review candidate: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/fidelity-investments/id348177453?l=fr-FR.

Fidelity is close to universal in this peer set, named in almost every answer and leading most of them. Its advantage is placement as much as presence, which makes accuracy and consistency the priority rather than chasing more mentions. No conflicting claims were recorded, so the risk is quiet drift rather than visible error.

We would propose a conditional review of the supplied owned trading page and the app listing, checking that current product facts match what answers describe. The scorecard should track placement alongside reach so small shifts are visible early.

Vanguard

Questions This Section Answers

• What measured visibility pattern and review priority does Vanguard have in IRAs?

Vanguard recorded 400 mentions (79.84%) and 339 recommendations (67.66%) across 501 answers included in the benchmark. Top 3 placements numbered 180; first-place recommendations numbered 6. Framing among its mentions was 346 positive, 48 neutral and 6 negative.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Vanguard's mention count fell from 405 to 400, while its recommendation count rose from 336 to 339. The recommendation rate was 62.92% and 67.66% respectively.

AI answers contained 6 conflicting claims about Vanguard: 0 critical, 3 high, 2 medium, 1 low. Of these, 3 were rated critical or high priority; the critical claims are included in that total. These ratings help prioritize fact-checking. They do not establish that a company or publisher made an error.

Both columns quote AI answers, not verified company facts. Resolve the entity, date and source before deciding whether a correction is warranted; different dates can explain an apparent conflict.

These are recorded answer observations, not search volume, verified demand, or proof of missing website content.

Selected owned-page review candidate: https://investor.vanguard.com/client-benefits/investment-fees/compare-fees.

Selected third-party review candidate: https://google.com/searchviewer/10?svid=CAwSHRIbCgNwdnESFENnMHZaeTh4TVdka01ETm1PVzVrGAo.

Vanguard is named in most answers and recommended in a clear majority, but it rarely leads one. Buyers therefore see Vanguard as a sound choice without it being the headline pick. Closing that placement gap is a different problem from earning recognition.

We would propose a conditional review of the supplied fee comparison page, verifying current figures before any edit. The recorded conflicts about spot crypto ETF access are rated high priority and should be resolved against primary sources first, since the two claims directly contradict each other.

Robinhood

Questions This Section Answers

• What measured visibility pattern and review priority does Robinhood have in IRAs?

Robinhood recorded 471 mentions (94.01%) and 399 recommendations (79.64%) across 501 answers included in the benchmark. Top 3 placements numbered 109; first-place recommendations numbered 11. Framing among its mentions was 406 positive, 61 neutral and 4 negative.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Robinhood's mention count fell from 494 to 471, while its recommendation count fell from 410 to 399. The recommendation rate was 76.78% and 79.64% respectively.

AI answers contained 2 conflicting claims about Robinhood: 0 critical, 0 high, 1 medium, 1 low. Of these, 0 were rated critical or high priority; the critical claims are included in that total. These ratings help prioritize fact-checking. They do not establish that a company or publisher made an error.

Both columns quote AI answers, not verified company facts. Resolve the entity, date and source before deciding whether a correction is warranted; different dates can explain an apparent conflict.

These are recorded answer observations, not search volume, verified demand, or proof of missing website content.

Selected owned-page review candidate: https://robinhood.com/.

Selected third-party review candidate: https://cnbc.com/select/best-roth-ira-accounts/.

Robinhood is named in nearly every answer and recommended in most, yet it leads very few. That combination suggests strong recognition with weaker pull as a first choice. The gap between being recommended and being named first is the main commercial question here.

We would propose a conditional review of the supplied owned page and the third-party IRA comparison page, confirming current facts before any change. The recorded conflicts on margin rate and IRA match should be checked against primary sources, since both affect how buyers compare costs.

M1 Finance

Questions This Section Answers

• What measured visibility pattern and review priority does M1 Finance have in IRAs?

M1 Finance recorded 47 mentions (9.38%) and 37 recommendations (7.39%) across 501 answers included in the benchmark. Top 3 placements numbered 1; first-place recommendations numbered 0. Framing among its mentions was 39 positive, 8 neutral and 0 negative.

From October 2026 to November 2026, M1 Finance's mention count fell from 57 to 47, while its recommendation count fell from 44 to 37. The recommendation rate was 8.24% and 7.39% respectively.

AI answers contained 0 conflicting claims about M1 Finance: 0 critical, 0 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Of these, 0 were rated critical or high priority; the critical claims are included in that total. These ratings help prioritize fact-checking. They do not establish that a company or publisher made an error.

No results are available for this part of the analysis.

Both columns quote AI answers, not verified company facts. Resolve the entity, date and source before deciding whether a correction is warranted; different dates can explain an apparent conflict.

These are recorded answer observations, not search volume, verified demand, or proof of missing website content.

Selected owned-page review candidate: https://help.m1.com/en/articles/9331909-frequently-asked-questions-about-m1.

Selected third-party review candidate: https://businessinsider.com/personal-finance/investing/best-investment-apps-for-beginners.

M1 Finance appears in a small share of answers and is recommended in most of those, but it almost never leads one. Its framing is entirely positive, so the constraint is reach rather than reputation. The firm is being considered by some buyers and missed by many others.

We would propose a conditional review of the supplied help page and the beginner-apps article, verifying current facts before any request. Because no conflicting claims were recorded, the first step is understanding which answer types include M1 Finance and which leave it out.

Merrill Edge

Questions This Section Answers

• What measured visibility pattern and review priority does Merrill Edge have in IRAs?

Merrill Edge recorded 124 mentions (24.75%) and 79 recommendations (15.77%) across 501 answers included in the benchmark. Top 3 placements numbered 4; first-place recommendations numbered 0. Framing among its mentions was 79 positive, 34 neutral and 11 negative.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Merrill Edge's mention count rose from 103 to 124, while its recommendation count rose from 74 to 79. The recommendation rate was 13.86% and 15.77% respectively.

AI answers contained 0 conflicting claims about Merrill Edge: 0 critical, 0 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Of these, 0 were rated critical or high priority; the critical claims are included in that total. These ratings help prioritize fact-checking. They do not establish that a company or publisher made an error.

No results are available for this part of the analysis.

Both columns quote AI answers, not verified company facts. Resolve the entity, date and source before deciding whether a correction is warranted; different dates can explain an apparent conflict.

These are recorded answer observations, not search volume, verified demand, or proof of missing website content.

Selected owned-page review candidate: https://merrilledge.com/.

Selected third-party review candidate: https://brokerchooser.com/invest-long-term/diversification/fractional-shares-merrill-edge.

Merrill Edge is named in about a quarter of answers and recommended in fewer, with almost no leading placements. Its framing includes more neutral and negative mentions than most peers, which is worth reading directly rather than inferring from the counts.

We would propose a conditional review of the supplied owned page and the third-party fractional-shares page, confirming current facts before any edit. No conflicting claims were recorded, so the priority is understanding how Merrill Edge is described when it does appear.

Betterment LLC

Questions This Section Answers

• What measured visibility pattern and review priority does Betterment LLC have in IRAs?

Betterment LLC recorded 107 mentions (21.36%) and 100 recommendations (19.96%) across 501 answers included in the benchmark. Top 3 placements numbered 8; first-place recommendations numbered 0. Framing among its mentions was 101 positive, 6 neutral and 0 negative.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Betterment LLC's mention count fell from 129 to 107, while its recommendation count fell from 123 to 100. The recommendation rate was 23.03% and 19.96% respectively.

AI answers contained 0 conflicting claims about Betterment LLC: 0 critical, 0 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Of these, 0 were rated critical or high priority; the critical claims are included in that total. These ratings help prioritize fact-checking. They do not establish that a company or publisher made an error.

No results are available for this part of the analysis.

Both columns quote AI answers, not verified company facts. Resolve the entity, date and source before deciding whether a correction is warranted; different dates can explain an apparent conflict.

These are recorded answer observations, not search volume, verified demand, or proof of missing website content.

Selected owned-page review candidate: https://betterment.com/top-investing-apps-for-beginners.

Selected third-party review candidate: https://cnbc.com/select/best-roth-ira-accounts/.

Betterment LLC is named in a minority of answers but recommended in most of those, and it almost never leads one. Its framing is overwhelmingly positive, so the firm is well regarded where it appears and simply absent elsewhere. Broadening that presence is the practical goal.

We would propose a conditional review of the supplied owned beginner-apps page and the third-party IRA comparison page, verifying current facts before any change. No conflicting claims were recorded, so the work is about coverage and placement rather than correction.

Charles Schwab

Questions This Section Answers

• What measured visibility pattern and review priority does Charles Schwab have in IRAs?

Charles Schwab recorded 496 mentions (99.00%) and 450 recommendations (89.82%) across 501 answers included in the benchmark. Top 3 placements numbered 407; first-place recommendations numbered 96. Framing among its mentions was 456 positive, 36 neutral and 4 negative.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Charles Schwab's mention count fell from 531 to 496, while its recommendation count fell from 462 to 450. The recommendation rate was 86.52% and 89.82% respectively.

AI answers contained 2 conflicting claims about Charles Schwab: 0 critical, 0 high, 2 medium, 0 low. Of these, 0 were rated critical or high priority; the critical claims are included in that total. These ratings help prioritize fact-checking. They do not establish that a company or publisher made an error.

Both columns quote AI answers, not verified company facts. Resolve the entity, date and source before deciding whether a correction is warranted; different dates can explain an apparent conflict.

These are recorded answer observations, not search volume, verified demand, or proof of missing website content.

Selected owned-page review candidate: https://schwab.com/compare-us.

Selected third-party review candidate: https://shopback.com/blog/finance/us-vanguard-vs-fidelity-vs-schwab-vs-robinhood-us-2026-etf-brokerage-fee-4-way.

Charles Schwab is named in nearly every answer and leads most of them, putting it alongside Fidelity at the top of the peer set. Its position depends on consistent, accurate description rather than on gaining recognition. Two medium-priority conflicts were recorded, both about costs.

We would propose a conditional review of the supplied comparison page and the third-party fee comparison article, checking current figures against primary sources before any edit. The fractional-share minimum and mutual fund fee claims should be resolved first, since cost details shape how buyers compare firms.

Wealthfront Corporation

Questions This Section Answers

• What measured visibility pattern and review priority does Wealthfront Corporation have in IRAs?

Wealthfront Corporation recorded 48 mentions (9.58%) and 44 recommendations (8.78%) across 501 answers included in the benchmark. Top 3 placements numbered 0; first-place recommendations numbered 0. Framing among its mentions was 44 positive, 4 neutral and 0 negative.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Wealthfront Corporation's mention count fell from 64 to 48, while its recommendation count fell from 58 to 44. The recommendation rate was 10.86% and 8.78% respectively.

AI answers contained 0 conflicting claims about Wealthfront Corporation: 0 critical, 0 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Of these, 0 were rated critical or high priority; the critical claims are included in that total. These ratings help prioritize fact-checking. They do not establish that a company or publisher made an error.

No results are available for this part of the analysis.

Both columns quote AI answers, not verified company facts. Resolve the entity, date and source before deciding whether a correction is warranted; different dates can explain an apparent conflict.

These are recorded answer observations, not search volume, verified demand, or proof of missing website content.

Selected owned-page review candidate: https://wealthfront.com/blog/get-ready-for-next-years-taxes-today/.

Selected third-party review candidate: https://cnbc.com/select/best-roth-ira-accounts/.

Wealthfront Corporation appears in a small share of answers and is recommended in most of those, but it never leads one in this sample. Its framing is entirely positive, so the constraint is reach and placement rather than reputation. The firm is a considered option for some buyers and invisible to many.

We would propose a conditional review of the supplied owned blog page and the third-party IRA comparison page, verifying current facts before any request. No conflicting claims were recorded, so the first task is understanding which answer types include Wealthfront and which do not.

The CiteWorks five-step improvement plan

Step 1. Establish the baseline

Questions This Section Answers

• What should the agency deliver when it works to establish the baseline for IRAs?

Build a scorecard that records each company's mentions, recommendations and placements alongside the month and sample they came from. Every entry should carry an owner, the evidence behind it and a review status, so later changes can be traced rather than reconstructed.

Document how each monthly sample was assembled, including which services were covered and how answers were selected. That record is what allows future comparisons to be read honestly, and it prevents a routine month-to-month shift from being mistaken for a real change in standing.

Step 2. Verify disputed facts

Questions This Section Answers

• What should the agency deliver when it works to verify disputed facts for IRAs?

AI answers contained 12 conflicting claims across 4 companies. Another 0 possible conflicts were excluded because their company matches were uncertain. The conflicting claims need fact-checking before any corrections are proposed.

Work through the recorded conflicts company by company, starting with the high-priority Vanguard claims and then the medium-priority items for SoFi, Robinhood and Charles Schwab. For each, identify the entity, the date and the primary source before deciding whether anything needs correcting.

Where a conflict turns out to reflect different dates or different products, record that as a no-change decision with the reasoning. Ambiguous company matches stay out of the queue. Only verified discrepancies should move forward as proposed corrections.

Step 3. Review owned pages

Questions This Section Answers

• What should the agency deliver when it works to review owned pages for IRAs?

Prepare page briefs for the supplied owned URLs, stating what each page should establish and which facts need confirming against primary sources before any edit. Briefs should describe the buyer question the page answers, not just the claim it makes.

Each brief should note the current verification status and the owner responsible. No edit proceeds on the strength of an AI answer alone; the page's present contents and the company's current terms must be checked first.

Step 4. Review third-party sources

Questions This Section Answers

• What should the agency deliver when it works to review third-party sources for IRAs?

Prepare source-review packages for the supplied third-party pages, setting out what the page currently says, which companies it covers and what evidence would support a request. Citation appearances indicate that a page is used in answers, not that it influenced them.

Requests should be justified by verified facts and framed around accuracy for the reader. Record each request, any response and the outcome separately, so the work is visible even when a publisher declines or does not reply.

Step 5. Address buyer questions and measure again

Questions This Section Answers

• What should the agency deliver when it works to address buyer questions and measure again for IRAs?

Turn the observed buyer questions into content briefs that answer them directly, using verified facts and clear comparisons. These briefs should serve readers weighing several firms, since that is the context in which answers are being generated.

Measure again after work is delivered, but keep completed work separate from answer outcomes. A fresh scorecard shows what changed; it does not by itself show that the work caused the change, and the report should say so plainly.

Third-party authority and citation opportunities

Questions This Section Answers

• Which cited publisher pages support targeted source review in IRAs?

These pages are candidates for review, not confirmed errors. Citation appearances are counted across the captured answers and are not added again for each company.

The two Roth IRA comparison pages stand out because they are cited across answers and cover several of the firms in this peer set. That makes them the natural first review targets, though citation frequency shows use, not influence on what an answer says.

The remaining pages are narrower, each tied to one or two companies. They are worth reviewing where a specific claim needs support, such as the fractional-share and fee comparisons. Before any request, confirm what each page currently says and whether the relevant facts still hold.

Prioritize pages that cover multiple companies and touch disputed claims. Treat every listed page as a candidate for review, not a confirmed error, and record requests and responses separately from measured answer outcomes.

What we'd prioritize first

Start with the fact dependencies, because several proposed page and source reviews cannot proceed until the disputed claims are resolved. The Vanguard crypto ETF conflict is the clearest case, followed by the cost claims for Charles Schwab, SoFi and Robinhood. Resolving these first prevents briefs from being built on unverified descriptions.

In parallel, build the baseline scorecard so placement and reach are tracked separately from the outset. The leaders need accuracy protection; the challengers need evidence that earns inclusion in comparison answers. Those are different workstreams and should be resourced accordingly.

Buyer-question content and publisher requests follow once facts are confirmed. Keep completed work, confirmed edits and no-change decisions in separate records, and measure again at the end without treating any movement as proof that the work caused it.

Methodology and conclusion

Questions This Section Answers

• What do the IRAs sample and source-review limits allow us to conclude?

This report covers 2026-11. The exact dates when the original AI answers were collected have not been verified. The visibility rates use 501 answers that met the benchmark's inclusion rules. A company is recommended only when the answer both endorses it and uses positive wording. Top 3 and first-place counts are part of those recommendations, not extra recommendations.

An answer can mention or recommend several companies, so company counts cannot be added to find the number of distinct answers. The net sentiment score is positive minus negative mentions, divided by all company mentions; it describes answer wording, not customer satisfaction.

The wider citation analysis covers 800 captured answers and 4890 appearances of cited URLs. Citation appearances across all captured answers differ from the number of benchmark answers citing a page and the number that also recommend a company. The current contents of cited pages and disputed company claims still need independent verification.

Monthly sample coverage:

July 2026 measured a different set of companies, so it is excluded from this comparison. August 2026 measured a different set of companies, so it is excluded from this comparison.

The answer samples differ between months. These comparisons show how the recorded results changed; they do not establish why they changed.

This report describes recorded AI answers for a single month, drawn from separate samples that differ from earlier months. The figures show what was observed, not why it happened, and the samples are not like-for-like. Company counts cannot be added to find distinct answers, since one answer can name several firms.

Recommendations require both endorsement and positive wording; placements sit inside recommendations rather than alongside them. Sentiment describes answer wording, not customer satisfaction. Citation appearances are counted across a wider set of answers and do not establish that a source shaped an answer.

The proposed work is a set of conditional next steps: verify facts against primary sources, prepare page and source briefs, and measure again. None of it guarantees a change in standing, and the current contents of cited pages still need independent checking.