I scanned 20 Indian wealth management firms for AI visibility
I scanned 20 Indian wealth management and financial advisory homepages, and this is one of the strongest verticals I have measured yet.
On 3 August 2026 I ran 20 Indian wealth management and financial advisory homepages through my public AI readability scoring engine, the same one behind the free Report Card tool on this site. I scan homepages only, and I report the results in aggregate: no firm is named. I have scanned clinics, hotels, and law firms before, and most of those verticals cluster low with a handful of failing grades. This one is different. Fourteen of the 20 firms scored an A, three scored a B, three scored a C, and not one scored a D or an F. The median came out to 88, with a mean of 84.3 and a range from 57 to 100.
One of the strongest verticals I have scanned
Median score across the 20 firms was 88, mean 84.3, with scores ranging from 57 to 100. One firm hit a perfect 100. Fourteen of the 20 graded an A (85 or above), three graded a B, three graded a C, and zero graded a D or an F. In every other vertical I have run through this engine, at least a handful of sites fail outright. Not here.
Break it down by firm type and the pattern gets more interesting. Family offices and multi-family offices (6 firms) had a median score of 85. Fee-only, flat-fee independent planners (10 firms) had a median of 88. Digital RIA platforms (4 firms) had the highest median at 89.5. But the real surprise is that size does not predict readability: the single highest score, a perfect 100, belongs to a solo fee-only planner, while one of the lowest scores, a 57, belongs to a large multi-family office. The smallest independent planners in this sample, as a group, matched or beat the big family offices.
Structured data is still the dividing line
Seventeen of the 20 firms publish structured data (JSON-LD) on their homepage, and those 17 have a median score of 89. The three that do not publish any structured data scored 57, 57 and 61, a median of 57. That is a 32 point gap tied to one signal.
Structured data is the markup that tells an AI engine what a page is actually saying: this is a financial advisory firm, this is its name, this is its service, this is its location. Without it, an AI system has to guess at meaning from unstructured prose the same way a human skimming a page would, and guessing produces thinner or simply wrong answers. With it, the engine can lift a fact directly and state it with confidence. In a trust heavy business like wealth management, that confidence is the whole point.
Even here, the FAQ lever sits untouched
Only 4 of the 20 firms have FAQ schema on their homepage. Only 13 of the 20 have a single, clear H1 heading, the basic on-page signal that tells any reader, human or machine, what the page is actually about.
FAQ schema is the one format built for exactly the questions an investor asks an AI assistant before hiring an advisor: is this firm fee-only, are they SEBI registered, what is the minimum portfolio size. Marked up as FAQ schema, those answers become liftable and quotable. Left as a paragraph buried in an 'about us' page, they are much harder for an AI engine to extract with confidence.
The takeaway: even one of the strongest verticals I have measured leaves its highest-intent lever almost completely on the table. Sixteen of the 20 firms in this scan have no structured way to answer the exact questions their prospective clients are now asking an AI before they ever pick up the phone.
The smaller gaps in the sample:
- FAQ schema: 4 of 20 firms have it.
- Single clear H1 heading: 13 of 20 firms have one.
- Open Graph tags for link previews: missing on 3 of 20 firms.
- The 3 firms without structured data scored 57, 57 and 61.
What to fix, for the sites still behind
- Add JSON-LD structured data naming your firm, service and location if you do not have it yet.
- Add FAQ schema answering fee model, SEBI registration and minimum portfolio size directly.
- Give every page a single, clear H1 that states what the page is and who it is for.
- Add Open Graph tags so links to your site preview correctly when shared.
- Rerun the free Report Card tool after each fix to confirm your score moved.
Method and limits
This scan covered 20 real wealth management and financial advisory homepages, scanned live on 3 August 2026 with the same engine that powers the free Report Card tool on this site. I looked at homepages only, and I report results anonymously and in aggregate: no firm is named. The sample skews toward firms visible enough to find and shortlist in a single afternoon of research, so the long tail of smaller, less discoverable advisors likely scores lower than what is shown here, not higher.
Frequently asked questions
Why do financial advisors score higher on AI readability than other businesses you have scanned?
Wealth management is a trust and compliance heavy business, and firms in this space tend to build sites with clear, factual, well-structured pages rather than vague marketing copy. That habit also happens to be what AI answer engines read well. In this scan, 14 of the 20 firms graded an A and none failed.
What is structured data and why does it create a 32 point score gap?
Structured data, specifically JSON-LD, is markup that states facts about a page in a format machines can parse directly rather than infer from prose. In this scan, the 17 firms that use it had a median score of 89, while the 3 that skip it scored 57, 57 and 61, a median of 57. That 32 point gap is the single biggest pattern in the whole dataset.
Can a small solo advisor really out-score a big wealth management firm on AI readability?
Yes, and this scan proves it. The single highest score, a perfect 100, belongs to a solo fee-only planner. One of the lowest scores, a 57, belongs to a large multi-family office. Firm size does not predict AI readability: how the site is built does.
What is the single fastest fix for a wealth management site's AI readability?
Add JSON-LD structured data if your site does not already have it. That one signal separates the firms scoring a median of 89 from the three scoring a median of 57, a bigger gap than any other factor in this scan.