Kuroma
AI Readiness benchmark for Banking / Neo-banking
Across 363 audited domains we have classified as Banking / Neo-banking, the median AI Readiness score is 38 out of 100. That is 1 points below the median for all 30,738 audited domains in the corpus (39).
How the scores are distributed
Half of the 363 audited Banking / Neo-banking domains score between 32 and 43. The corpus-wide interquartile range, across all 30,738 audited domains, is 32 to 45.
Which factors this industry fails most often
The rubric scores 19 factors. A factor counts as failed here when a site scores below 50 out of 100 on it. The last column is how many audits each rate was calculated from. Question Coverage & FAQ Presence and Media Accessibility are not scored on every kind of page: a rankings table or a paginated index has no question to answer and no image to caption. E-E-A-T Signals, Citation-Worthiness and Question Coverage & FAQ Presence lean on English-language patterns, so on a page written in another language they are scored out of a smaller total. Those rows therefore leave out every audit of a page the factor was not scored on the same scale, and every audit that did not record enough about the page for us to tell. Every other row counts every audit in this industry that scored the factor.
| Factor | Fails in Banking / Neo-banking | Fails corpus-wide | Difference | Audits counted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E-E-A-T Signals Authority Signals · 7% of the total score · counted only on pages in a language it measures in full |
98% | 89% | +9 | 49 |
| Unique Value Proposition AI Readiness · 5.1% of the total score |
92% | 94% | -2 | 363 |
| Citation-Worthiness AI Readiness · 7.5% of the total score · counted only on pages in a language it measures in full |
88% | 94% | -6 | 49 |
| Question Coverage & FAQ Presence On-Page Content · 6.5% of the total score · counted only on pages this factor applies to, in a language it measures in full |
87% | 85% | +2 | 47 |
| External Citations & References Authority Signals · 9% of the total score |
86% | 83% | +3 | 363 |
| Structured Data Quality On-Page Content · 4.5% of the total score |
86% | 96% | -10 | 363 |
| Trust & Brand Signals Authority Signals · 9% of the total score |
84% | 74% | +10 | 363 |
| Schema Markup Completeness Technical Optimization · 1% of the total score |
84% | 63% | +21 | 363 |
| Answer Box Potential AI Readiness · 7.2% of the total score |
83% | 68% | +15 | 363 |
| Media Accessibility On-Page Content · 1.8% of the total score · counted only on pages this factor applies to |
83% | 87% | -4 | 335 |
| Crawlability & Accessibility Technical Optimization · 13% of the total score |
59% | 46% | +13 | 363 |
| AI Discoverability AI Readiness · 3% of the total score |
42% | 34% | +8 | 363 |
| Content Freshness AI Readiness · 5.7% of the total score |
37% | 49% | -12 | 363 |
| Heading Hierarchy On-Page Content · 2.8% of the total score |
33% | 28% | +5 | 363 |
| Raw HTML Availability AI Readiness · 1.5% of the total score |
18% | 24% | -6 | 363 |
| Mobile Optimization Technical Optimization · 4% of the total score |
17% | 14% | +3 | 363 |
| AI Readability Score On-Page Content · 3% of the total score |
10% | 8% | +2 | 347 |
| Page Performance Indicators Technical Optimization · 2% of the total score |
9% | 20% | -11 | 363 |
| Content Depth & Comprehensiveness On-Page Content · 6.5% of the total score |
7% | 14% | -7 | 363 |
Where Banking / Neo-banking diverges from everyone else
Relative to the whole corpus, this industry is distinctively weak on Schema Markup Completeness (+21 points), Answer Box Potential (+15 points), Crawlability & Accessibility (+13 points).
It is distinctively strong on Content Freshness (-12 points), Page Performance Indicators (-11 points), Structured Data Quality (-10 points).
Schema Markup Completeness: fails on 84% of the 363 Banking / Neo-banking audits it was measured on
Controlled tests show no AI-citation lift from schema.org markup, and Google states no special structured data is needed for AI features. Near-zero weight is kept only for classic rich results and Bing grounding.
Answer Box Potential: fails on 83% of the 363 Banking / Neo-banking audits it was measured on
The real mechanism is passage self-containment: heading-scoped sections that stand alone match retrieval chunking, and fixing context-severed passages measurably cuts retrieval failures.
Crawlability & Accessibility: fails on 59% of the 363 Banking / Neo-banking audits it was measured on
The strongest technical factor: blocking a visibility crawler verifiably removes a site from that engine's answers, and OpenAI documents this directly. Scoring uses a bot-class matrix so only visibility-bot blocks count against the score; training-bot blocks are a policy choice reported neutrally.
Audited Banking / Neo-banking sites with a public report card
Each of these sites has a public AI Readiness report card from a real audit. Scores are point-in-time; the card shows what was measured and when.
| Site | Grade | Score | Audited |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lili (lili.co) | Grade A | 70/100 | 20 Aug 2026 |
| Love your bank (n26.com) | Grade A | 69/100 | 20 Aug 2026 |
| Online Business Banking Solutions & Services (bluevine.com) | Grade A | 63/100 | 20 Aug 2026 |
| 群馬銀行 (www.gunmabank.co.jp) | Grade A | 61/100 | 16 Sep 2026 |
| 水島信用金庫 (mizushin.co.jp) | Grade A | 58/100 | 15 Sep 2026 |
| 大和ネクスト銀行 (www.bank-daiwa.co.jp) | Grade B | 57/100 | 16 Sep 2026 |
| 富山第一銀行 (www.first-bank.co.jp) | Grade B | 55/100 | 16 Sep 2026 |
| 東海ろうきん（東海労働金庫） (tokai.rokin.or.jp) | Grade B | 54/100 | 15 Sep 2026 |
| 兆豐銀行 (megabank.com.tw) | Grade B | 53/100 | 20 Aug 2026 |
| ホーム (www.boj.or.jp) | Grade B | 53/100 | 16 Sep 2026 |
| 個人のお客さま (www.hokkaidobank.co.jp) | Grade B | 52/100 | 16 Sep 2026 |
| 大阪協栄信用組合 (osaka-kyoei.co.jp) | Grade B | 52/100 | 15 Sep 2026 |
Browse every audited site in the public audit archive.
See the full ranked list of 50 Banking / Neo-banking sites →
How to read this
- What the sample is. The 363 domains we have audited and classified as Banking / Neo-banking. That is a sample of the industry, not a census: it is the set of sites our crawler has reached and scored, and it carries whatever bias that selection has.
- Rubric version 2026-08-13. Every figure here comes from audits scored on this single rubric generation. Scores from different generations measure different things, so they are never mixed. Compatible generations: 2026-08-13.
- Why there are no company names. These are aggregates. We do not publish which domains sit at the bottom of a distribution, and the queries behind this page cannot return a domain name.
- Publishing floor. We publish an industry only once it reaches 100 audited domains, and a factor's failure rate only once 30 audits in the industry count toward that factor. Below either floor the number would move with a handful of sites, so we withhold it.
- What the audit can and cannot see. This audit measures citation readiness: how easily AI engines can crawl, extract, and quote these pages. It cannot see the off-site brand footprint (mentions, reviews, third-party coverage) that gates whether AI engines retrieve a brand at all; Kuroma's visibility scans and off-site signals track that side. Read the full methodology.