The platforms often returned entirely different shortlists
OpenAI, Gemini and Perplexity had no recommended firm in common 60% of the time.
How AI chooses UK financial advisers
93 of the UK’s top 150 financial advice firms were invisible in AI search
Across 450 answers, AI repeatedly relied on a small group of directories, public bodies and commercial pages to explain financial decisions and build adviser shortlists.
Adviser websites often supplied the evidence without the firm ever being named.
Four headline findings
AI assembled recommendations from a narrow source ecosystem.
Advice firms supplied much of the expertise. Directories, publishers and commercial rankings often carried the visibility and shaped the shortlist.
- 62%93 of 150 firms were invisible. They were neither named nor cited.
- 97%74 of 76 citations gave no visible credit. The firm supplied expertise but was not named.
- 70%Most selections depended on other sources. Only 29.7% cited the selected firm’s own website.
- 60%When AI was asked to choose a firm, the platforms produced no shared recommendation 60% of the time.
The credit gap
Financial advice firms are helping AI answer the question, but almost never receiving the credit.
In 97% of guidance answers that cited a panel firm’s website, AI used the firm’s expertise without naming the firm to the buyer.
Panel-firm websites were cited 76 times across 117 guidance answers. The firm was named in only two of those 76 citations. When AI selected a firm directly, only 29.7% of selections cited that firm’s own website. The remaining selections relied on other sources, including directories, rankings and reviews.
What happened when AI was asked to choose
There was no dependable AI shortlist
The firms changed with the platform, the buyer’s question and the repeated run. Some answers did not name a firm at all.
AI named no firm at all
When AI was asked to choose a firm nationally, 46 of 180 answers returned guidance, directories or authorities instead of a financial advice firm.
Only four appeared across every buyer need
Only four of 303 candidates appeared across all four national buyer-need categories. Most visibility was narrow or one-off.
Who shaped the answer
Five source brands appeared again and again.
Directories, public bodies and commercial pages repeatedly supplied the information AI used to explain decisions and build firm shortlists.
For example, Nephos Group’s “10 best financial advisers in the UK” page was cited 21 times and tied as the most-cited individual direct page in the firm-selection questions. The commercial ranking placed Nephos first and showed no visible selection methodology.
- 01UnbiasedDirectory
168 of 450 answers
- 02MoneyHelperPublic guidance
127 of 450 answers
- 03VouchedForDirectory
118 of 450 answers
- 04FCARegulator
66 of 450 answers
- 05Nephos GroupCommercial content
47 of 450 answers
This finding concerns source influence, not adviser quality. Commercial pages from one financial-services group sat alongside Unbiased, MoneyHelper, VouchedFor and the FCA while most of the established 150-firm panel remained invisible.
Different needs, different leaders
AI recommended different firms for different buyer needs
The firm recommended most often changed with the buyer’s financial need.
Choosing an adviser
The Private OfficeMost often recommended · 14 of 45 AI answersWealth and investing
Evelyn PartnersMost often recommended · 21 of 45 AI answersPensions and retirement
Hargreaves Lansdown Financial AdviceMost often recommended · 6 of 45 AI answersLife events
Evelyn PartnersMost often recommended · 11 of 45 AI answersWhy this matters now
AI is becoming part of how clients choose
Buyers increasingly use AI to research options, compare firms and decide who to contact. The route to the shortlist is becoming commercially important.
More than 75% of Google searches are expected to include AI summaries by 2028.
McKinsey, 2025of consumers say generative AI has changed how they research.
Gartner, 2026AI searchers are 42% more likely to convert than non-AI traffic.
Adobe Analytics, 2026The full question set
The 50 questions we asked
The study followed the buyer journey from understanding a financial need to finding and choosing a firm. Open any group to see the exact wording.
0113 questions · Understanding the decisionWhat should I do?Questions about costs, pensions, inheritance, divorce and other financial decisions.
View questions
Questions about costs, pensions, inheritance, divorce and other financial decisions.
0212 questions · Finding possible advisersWho could help me?Questions asking AI to identify firms by need, specialism or location.
View questions
Questions asking AI to identify firms by need, specialism or location.
0325 questions · Choosing a firmWhich firm should I choose?Direct tests of which firms AI recommended for a specific buyer need.
View questions
Direct tests of which firms AI recommended for a specific buyer need.
Selection breadth
Only four firms appeared across all four buyer needs
The first 20 firms and advisers found in national answers are shown by default. Search covers every national or local candidate and every firm in the 150-firm panel, including firms not selected. Percentages show the firm’s share of all recommendation slots in that buyer-need category. Every question and platform counts equally.
Showing 20 of 303 firms and advisers found in national answers.
| Candidate | Visibility pattern | Buyer-need categories reached | Choosing | Wealth | Pensions | Life events | Local |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Selected repeatedly across topics | 4 of 4 | 1% | 7% | 0.2% | 3.2% | 2.1% | |
| Selected repeatedly across topics | 4 of 4 | 4.5% | 2.3% | 1.1% | 2.2% | 1.2% | |
| Selected repeatedly across topics | 3 of 4 | 2.5% | 4.3% | 0% | 2.1% | 0.9% | |
| Selected repeatedly across topics | 4 of 4 | 2.4% | 0.6% | 3.7% | 0.8% | 2.5% | |
| Selected across several topics | 2 of 4 | 0.8% | 5.9% | 0% | 0% | 0.2% | |
| Selected across several topics | 2 of 4 | 0% | 0% | 3% | 2.6% | 2% | |
| Selected repeatedly across topics | 3 of 4 | 0.9% | 3.1% | 0% | 1.3% | 3.8% | |
| Selected across several topics | 2 of 4 | 1.5% | 0% | 0% | 3.7% | — | |
| Selected repeatedly across topics | 3 of 4 | 2.6% | 2.3% | 0% | 0.2% | 0.5% | |
| Selected repeatedly across topics | 3 of 4 | 0.2% | 3.6% | 0% | 1.1% | 0.9% | |
| Selected repeatedly across topics | 3 of 4 | 1.2% | 1.9% | 0% | 1.4% | — | |
| Selected for one specialism | 1 of 4 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 4.4% | — | |
| Selected repeatedly across topics | 3 of 4 | 0.4% | 3.3% | 0% | 0.6% | — | |
| Selected repeatedly across topics | 4 of 4 | 1.1% | 1.4% | 0.7% | 0.7% | 2.8% | |
| Selected repeatedly across topics | 3 of 4 | 0.7% | 1.6% | 0% | 1.4% | — | |
| Selected across several topics | 2 of 4 | 0% | 0% | 3% | 0.2% | 0.6% | |
| Selected across several topics | 2 of 4 | 0% | 0% | 2.6% | 0.4% | — | |
| Selected across several topics | 2 of 4 | 2.4% | 0.4% | 0% | 0% | — | |
| Selected for one specialism | 1 of 4 | 2.6% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0.6% | |
| Selected for one specialism | 1 of 4 | 0% | 0% | 2.6% | 0% | — |
What firms should take from this
Credibility alone did not produce visibility.
The firms in this study already possess expertise, qualifications and market authority. AI can only use evidence it can retrieve, understand and connect to a buyer’s question.
- Answer the questions buyers actually ask.Structure the firm’s expertise so AI can retrieve and use it.
- Connect that expertise to the firm’s name.Build credible first-party and third-party evidence that carries the firm into the shortlist.
Without both, a firm may help produce the answer while remaining invisible to the buyer.
SEO and AI Search Opportunity Audit
Find out why your firm appears, disappears or gets cited without credit.
Studio Baggio audits the buyer questions that matter, identifies the sources shaping the answers and sets out the evidence your firm needs to enter those consideration sets.
Discuss your firm's visibility