Investment Platforms,
according to AI
Every week we ask ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini the questions real UK consumers ask about investment platforms — and record exactly which brands they put forward. Right now, Trading 212 owns the conversation.
0 AI answers this run · 0 brands named · measured, never estimated
Trading 212 is the default answer.
Named in 28% of investment platforms answers, typically in position 2.8. Hargreaves Lansdown follows at 25%, AJ Bell at 25%.
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 | Trading 212 | 28% | 2.8 | 5% | 21% |
| 2 | Hargreaves Lansdown | 25% | 3.1 | 0% | — |
| 3 | AJ Bell | 25% | 4.0 | 11% | 24% |
| 4 | Aberdeen | 17% | 4.9 | 0% | — |
| 5 | Interactive Investor | 17% | 5.9 | 8% | 25% |
| 6 | IG | 15% | 2.7 | 6% | 17% |
| 7 | Vanguard | 15% | 2.7 | 6% | 40% |
| 8 | InvestEngine | 13% | 2.9 | 5% | 25% |
| 9 | Interactive Brokers | 10% | 3.0 | 2% | 33% |
| 10 | Freetrade | 8% | 3.6 | 5% | 21% |
| 11 | fidelity | 8% | 6.2 | 2% | 20% |
| 12 | Wealthify | 5% | 1.3 | 5% | 100% |
| 13 | CMC Markets | 5% | 2.3 | 2% | 13% |
| 14 | Plum | 5% | 2.3 | 0% | — |
| 15 | Moneybox | 5% | 3.7 | 5% | 50% |
The referees of investment platforms.
The independent sources AI models cite when answering investment platforms questions — the places a brand needs to be seen, reviewed and ranked.
Vanguard converts reads into citations. CMC Markets doesn't.
When Claude or ChatGPT opens a brand's own pages while answering, does the page make the cited-sources list? Vanguard converts 40% of reads; CMC Markets just 13%. That gap is a content problem, not a visibility problem.
Full data table
| # | Brand | Visibility | Avg. position | Citation share | Read→cited |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Trading 212 | 28% | 2.8 | 5% | 21% |
| 2 | Hargreaves Lansdown | 25% | 3.1 | 0% | — |
| 3 | AJ Bell | 25% | 4.0 | 11% | 24% |
| 4 | Aberdeen | 17% | 4.9 | 0% | — |
| 5 | Interactive Investor | 17% | 5.9 | 8% | 25% |
| 6 | IG | 15% | 2.7 | 6% | 17% |
| 7 | Vanguard | 15% | 2.7 | 6% | 40% |
| 8 | InvestEngine | 13% | 2.9 | 5% | 25% |
| 9 | Interactive Brokers | 10% | 3.0 | 2% | 33% |
| 10 | Freetrade | 8% | 3.6 | 5% | 21% |
| 11 | fidelity | 8% | 6.2 | 2% | 20% |
| 12 | Wealthify | 5% | 1.3 | 5% | 100% |
| 13 | CMC Markets | 5% | 2.3 | 2% | 13% |
| 14 | Plum | 5% | 2.3 | 0% | — |
| 15 | Moneybox | 5% | 3.7 | 5% | 50% |
The models do not agree on who leads.
Ask about investment platforms and the brand you are shown depends on the assistant: Claude → Hargreaves Lansdown, Gemini → Hargreaves Lansdown, ChatGPT → Trading 212. Their top-five lists share just 25% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aberdeen | 5% | 30% | 15% | 25pp |
| Interactive Investor | 5% | 30% | 15% | 25pp |
| Hargreaves Lansdown | 25% | 35% | 15% | 20pp |
| AJ Bell | 20% | 35% | 20% | 15pp |
| Vanguard | 10% | 25% | 10% | 15pp |
| fidelity | 0% | 10% | 15% | 15pp |
| IG | 20% | 15% | 10% | 10pp |
| eToro | 10% | 5% | 0% | 10pp |
| Interactive Brokers | 10% | 15% | 5% | 10pp |
| Bestinvest | 5% | 10% | 0% | 10pp |
Editorial carry investment platforms.
Every page AI opened while answering, classified by what kind of page it is. Editorial supply the most citations; Product pages convert best — 100% of the ones models opened were actually cited.
The data behind this chart
| Page type | Cited | Read but not cited | Conversion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Editorial | 64 | 2 | 97% |
| How-to guides | 60 | 5 | 92% |
| Comparisons | 50 | 1 | 98% |
| Product pages | 25 | 0 | 100% |
| Documentation | 17 | 1 | 94% |
| pricing | 15 | 0 | 100% |
| News | 8 | 0 | 100% |
| Other | 6 | 2 | 75% |
Answer up front is what separates cited from ignored.
Of the investment platforms pages models actually opened, how much more often each feature's pages ended up in the cited sources. Answer up front is worth 5 percentage points; hard statistics pages fare 5pp worse. Measured within the read population, so selection can't flatter it.
The data behind this chart
| Feature | Pages with | Cited % | Pages without | Cited % | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Answer up front | 142 | 99% | 151 | 93% | +5pp |
| Named author | 142 | 95% | 151 | 97% | -2pp |
| Comparison table | 99 | 94% | 194 | 97% | -3pp |
| Updated this year | 122 | 93% | 171 | 98% | -4pp |
| Hard statistics | 130 | 93% | 163 | 98% | -5pp |
AJ Bell builds pages AI can quote.
Readiness scores each brand's own pages on the structure models reward — a direct answer up front, tables, hard numbers, named authors, structured data, recency, specifications. Set against how often those pages are actually cited.
| Brand | Readiness | Pages cited | Pages profiled |
|---|---|---|---|
| AJ Bell | 42 | 100% | 3 |
| Freetrade | 34 | 100% | 4 |
| InvestEngine | 34 | 100% | 4 |
| Wealthify | 29 | 100% | 3 |
| Vanguard | 23 | 100% | 5 |
| IG | 19 | 100% | 9 |
| Hargreaves Lansdown | 16 | 100% | 15 |
| Interactive Investor | 16 | 100% | 8 |
Readiness is the share of eight measurable structural signals present on a brand's profiled pages. It is a build-quality measure, not a ranking of the brand.
The questions investment platforms pages have to settle.
Read straight off the pages AI cited: the consumer questions cited content answers most often. Content that fails to settle these is content models have no reason to quote.
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 Tue, 01 Sep 2026 02:54:09 GMT.