Accountancy & Consulting,
according to AI
Every week we ask ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini the questions real UK consumers ask about accountancy & consulting — and record exactly which brands they put forward. Right now, Smith & Williamson owns the conversation.
0 AI answers this run · 0 brands named · measured, never estimated
Smith & Williamson is the default answer.
Named in 7% of accountancy & consulting answers, typically in position 3.3. Cazenove Capital follows at 5%, EY at 5%.
Every brand AI names, ranked.
Visibility is the share of answers naming the brand; citation share is its slice of all brand-owned pages cited; read→cited is how often its pages convert a read into a citation.
| # | Brand | Visibility | Avg. position | Citation share | Read→cited |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Smith & Williamson | 7% | 3.3 | 3% | 50% |
| 2 | Cazenove Capital | 5% | 2.7 | 0% | — |
| 3 | EY | 5% | 2.7 | 3% | — |
| 4 | Schroders | 5% | 3.0 | 3% | 50% |
| 5 | Rathbones | 5% | 3.7 | 13% | 0% |
| 6 | Saffery | 3% | 1.0 | 13% | 10% |
| 7 | Rothschild & Co | 3% | 2.0 | 7% | 33% |
| 8 | Grant Thornton | 3% | 2.5 | 7% | — |
| 9 | Deloitte | 2% | 1.0 | 10% | 75% |
| 10 | Moore Kingston Smith | 2% | 2.0 | 10% | — |
| 11 | UBS | 2% | 2.0 | 3% | 8% |
| 12 | BDO | 2% | 3.0 | 13% | 20% |
| 13 | Quilter | 2% | 7.0 | 0% | — |
| 14 | Hargreaves Lansdown | 0% | — | 3% | — |
| 15 | PKF Littlejohn | 0% | — | 0% | — |
The referees of accountancy & consulting.
The independent sources AI models cite when answering accountancy & consulting questions — the places a brand needs to be seen, reviewed and ranked.
Deloitte converts reads into citations. UBS doesn't.
When Claude or ChatGPT opens a brand's own pages while answering, does the page make the cited-sources list? Deloitte converts 75% of reads; UBS just 8%. That gap is a content problem, not a visibility problem.
Full data table
| # | Brand | Visibility | Avg. position | Citation share | Read→cited |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Smith & Williamson | 7% | 3.3 | 3% | 50% |
| 2 | Cazenove Capital | 5% | 2.7 | 0% | — |
| 3 | EY | 5% | 2.7 | 3% | — |
| 4 | Schroders | 5% | 3.0 | 3% | 50% |
| 5 | Rathbones | 5% | 3.7 | 13% | 0% |
| 6 | Saffery | 3% | 1.0 | 13% | 10% |
| 7 | Rothschild & Co | 3% | 2.0 | 7% | 33% |
| 8 | Grant Thornton | 3% | 2.5 | 7% | — |
| 9 | Deloitte | 2% | 1.0 | 10% | 75% |
| 10 | Moore Kingston Smith | 2% | 2.0 | 10% | — |
| 11 | UBS | 2% | 2.0 | 3% | 8% |
| 12 | BDO | 2% | 3.0 | 13% | 20% |
| 13 | Quilter | 2% | 7.0 | 0% | — |
| 14 | Hargreaves Lansdown | 0% | — | 3% | — |
| 15 | PKF Littlejohn | 0% | — | 0% | — |
Three models. Three different answers.
Ask about accountancy & consulting and the brand you are shown depends on the assistant: Claude → Schroders, Gemini → Grant Thornton, ChatGPT → Smith & Williamson. Their top-five lists share just 9% of names.
Brands whose visibility swings most between models — the bar per model, widest gap on the right.
The data behind this chart
| Brand | Claude | Gemini | ChatGPT | Spread |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grant Thornton | 0% | 10% | 0% | 10pp |
| EY | 0% | 10% | 5% | 10pp |
| Smith & Williamson | 5% | 5% | 10% | 5pp |
| Saffery | 0% | 5% | 5% | 5pp |
| Moore Kingston Smith | 0% | 5% | 0% | 5pp |
| Rothschild & Co | 0% | 5% | 5% | 5pp |
| UBS | 0% | 0% | 5% | 5pp |
| BDO | 0% | 0% | 5% | 5pp |
| Deloitte | 0% | 0% | 5% | 5pp |
| Quilter | 0% | 0% | 5% | 5pp |
Nineteen more categories.
Method: 20 unbranded consumer prompts per category, spread across the buying journey, run weekly against ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini. Read→cited uses Claude and ChatGPT only (Gemini does not separate the two). Correlational observations of model behaviour at the time of the run. Data from the run completed Wed, 02 Sep 2026 01:48:16 GMT.