Skip to content
Work
About
Blog
Talk to me

For fintech

AEO for fintech

Financial claims come with rules about disclosure, and a summarising model does not carry your small print. That has to change how the page is written.

The short answer

For financial products, answer engine optimisation means putting eligibility, fees, rates and their conditions into sentences that stay accurate when quoted without the surrounding page. The risk unique to this category is a model repeating a headline rate without the terms that qualified it.

What ranked on 23 September 2026: Financial comparison sites dominate these answers, as they do the classic search results. They are structured, comparative and updated, which is the profile a model prefers, and the reason a product page rarely displaces them.

What is different about money

The facts change frequently, the disclosures are mandatory, and the sources models trust are comparison sites rather than providers.

  • Rates and fees are dated facts. A page quoting a figure without an effective date invites a model to repeat a stale number indefinitely
  • Eligibility is the buyer question: who qualifies, what documents, which markets, what happens on rejection
  • Required disclosures are usually separated from the claim by layout, which is exactly the separation a summariser discards
  • Comparison sites hold the structured version of your product and will be quoted ahead of you; their copy of your terms is the one being read
  • Regulatory language is jurisdictional, so a global page answering a local question tends to be wrong somewhere

Things that sound right and are not

  • ClaimRates from 4.9%.

    Quoted alone, that becomes your rate. If a representative example and its conditions are what make the claim compliant, they belong in the same sentence, not in a footer.

  • ClaimOur comparison page will outrank the comparison sites.

    Occasionally, on your own brand terms. For category questions they have breadth, freshness and neutrality; the winnable move is making sure their entry on you is correct.

  • ClaimWe cannot publish specifics for compliance reasons.

    Usually the constraint is on unqualified specifics, not on all of them. Vagueness is a choice, and it reliably keeps you out of answers that hinge on numbers.

Where to start

  1. 01Date every rate and fee on the page, in text, next to the number.
  2. 02Write eligibility as a short list a machine can lift: who qualifies, what is needed, which markets.
  3. 03Move the qualifying condition into the same sentence as any headline figure.
  4. 04Check how the main comparison sites currently describe your product and get the errors corrected.
  5. 05Sample the questions a buyer asks an assistant about your product category, and note whether the answer it gives about you is even current.

Questions

Is it safe to publish specific numbers for AI to quote?
It is safer than publishing vague ones, provided each number carries its date and conditions in the same sentence. The failure mode in this category is not a missing number, it is an unqualified one travelling without its terms.
Do assistants recommend financial products?
They routinely summarise and compare them, and they hedge more than in other categories. Being accurately described in the sources they lean on matters more than optimising your own pages.
What about regulated advice boundaries?
Nothing here suggests crossing them. Making factual, dated, qualified information easy to quote is compatible with staying on the correct side of an advice boundary.

Related

Doing this yourself and want a second opinion on what the assistants say about you? Tell me what you are seeing, or read the AEO Playbook for the whole framework.