Modera Wealth Management appeared in 149 of the queries in AdvisorFinder’s August research. Wescott Financial Advisory Group appeared in 47.
A simple mention counter would put Modera ahead. The national leaderboard does the opposite: Wescott ranks 12th with an AI Visibility Score of 64.1, while Modera ranks 19th with a score of 59.9.
| Firm | National rank | AI Visibility Score | Queries with a mention |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wescott Financial Advisory Group | #12 | 64.1 | 47 |
| Modera Wealth Management | #19 | 59.9 | 149 |
The 3.2-to-1 difference makes the ranking look odd until you ask where those mentions came from. A raw total cannot tell you which assistant named the firm, how often that assistant did so, or where the firm appeared in the answer. Those details change the meaning of the count.
A mention is not a standard unit of exposure
The four assistants don’t behave alike. One may return a short list for a question while another supplies a dozen names. One may name the same large firms across many markets; another may lean toward smaller local specialists.
If every appearance is dropped into one bucket, the most verbose assistant can dominate the result. The total starts measuring the assistant’s output habits as much as the firm’s visibility.
Position matters too. A firm named first or second is more prominent than one placed near the bottom of a long list. Counting both as one mention is arithmetically tidy, but it discards something a reader plainly experiences.
AdvisorFinder therefore builds the national score in two stages. Each platform first receives its own 0–100 sub-score based on reach and average list position. The four sub-scores are then blended using a U.S. web-usage proxy. Individual mentions aren’t assigned a universal value; the firm’s complete profile on each platform is measured before platform usage enters the calculation.
The 47 and 149 live on very different platforms
The platform breakdown explains most of the apparent contradiction.
| Platform | Wescott mentions | Wescott avg. position | Modera mentions | Modera avg. position |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ChatGPT | 15 | 2.80 | 5 | 3.40 |
| Gemini | 16 | 3.00 | 27 | 4.52 |
| Claude | 2 | 9.00 | 40 | 5.83 |
| Perplexity | 14 | 3.57 | 77 | 5.86 |
| Total | 47 | — | 149 | — |
Modera’s largest numbers are on Perplexity and Claude: 117 of its 149 mentions come from those two platforms. Wescott’s profile tilts toward ChatGPT and Gemini, which account for 31 of its 47 mentions. Wescott also appears nearer the top, on average, on three of the four platforms.
That doesn’t diminish Modera’s visibility on Claude or Perplexity. Those are real strengths in its profile. It simply means that 149 packages a very different mix of exposure than 47.
The weighted contribution to the final score makes the difference easier to see:
| Platform | August usage weight | Wescott weighted points | Modera weighted points |
|---|---|---|---|
| ChatGPT | 63.0% | 45.9 | 36.3 |
| Gemini | 20.8% | 11.8 | 12.4 |
| Claude | 14.5% | 5.6 | 10.2 |
| Perplexity | 1.7% | 0.8 | 1.1 |
| AI Visibility Score | 100% | 64.1 | 59.9 |
Wescott gains 9.6 points on the ChatGPT contribution alone. Modera recovers about 5.4 points across the other three platforms, leaving Wescott with the 4.2-point overall lead.
So what happened? Forty-seven did not beat 149 in a mention-counting contest. Wescott’s smaller total produced the stronger score after reach and position were evaluated separately on each platform and the platform sub-scores were blended.
The same pattern appears elsewhere on the board
The Wescott–Modera comparison isn’t an isolated quirk. Albion Financial Group ranks 18th with a score of 60.1 from 43 mentions. Wealthspire Advisors ranks 23rd with a score of 57.7 from 110.
Their profiles differ in much the same way. Wealthspire is especially visible on Gemini, where it appears in 89 queries. Albion appears there 15 times. On ChatGPT, however, Albion’s six appearances average position 2.00 and produce a 62.3 platform sub-score. Wealthspire appears five times at an average position of 7.00, producing a 52.8 sub-score. Albion’s smaller overall total again yields the stronger blended score.
Neither comparison says which firm has the better business, advice, or marketing. Together they show that the scoring behavior is repeatable: totals with different platform and position profiles should not be expected to rank in count order.
What the usage weights mean
For the August edition, the four platform sub-scores carry these weights:
- ChatGPT: 63.0%
- Gemini: 20.8%
- Claude: 14.5%
- Perplexity: 1.7%
They are based on U.S. web-visit share, normalized across the four assistants in the research and reviewed quarterly. They are a public usage proxy, not a claim about the platform preferences of financial-advisor prospects specifically.
The weights prevent an assistant that routinely produces longer lists from taking over the national score through volume alone. They also keep the total on a fixed 0–100 scale. A score is not curved against that month’s number-one firm.
A 63% ChatGPT weight might tempt a firm to focus there and ignore the rest. That would be a mistake. Usage patterns change, and a firm’s prospects will not match a population-wide average perfectly. The weights describe how this edition combines the measured platforms; they are not a marketing budget recommendation.
AdvisorFinder publishes the inputs, platform weights, methodology version, and change history. The exact query library and calibration curves remain research IP. That balance lets a reader understand why two firms rank in a particular order without making the measurement easy to game. The full explanation is available in the methodology and changelog.
Forty-seven is not a trivial count in this dataset
The August research includes 6,420 queries across 64 U.S. markets and four platforms. Those queries surfaced 9,482 independent RIA firms at least once.
The median firm appeared in one query. Only 41 firms—0.43% of the tracked universe, or about one in 231—appeared in 50 or more. Wescott’s 47 appearances sit just below that threshold and still place it 12th nationally.
Regional firms need that context. A firm serving one or two markets is relevant to only part of a national query set. Its useful benchmark may be the questions associated with its actual geography and services, not the raw totals of firms with offices across the country.
The ranking is also a dated measurement, not a permanent assessment of either named firm. AI outputs vary, providers update their systems, and platform usage changes. The example illustrates how the score works in the August 2026 edition. It does not predict where Wescott or Modera will rank next quarter.
Four numbers worth checking before you choose a tactic
A mention total is useful, but it should open the analysis rather than end it. Four numbers give an RIA a much better starting point.
1. Reach on each platform
How often does the firm appear on ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and Perplexity separately? One combined count can hide a complete absence from a widely used assistant. Reach shows whether the problem is broad invisibility or a gap on one platform.
2. Average position
When the firm is named, where does it land? Strong reach with weak position suggests a different problem from rare appearances near the top. The first calls for improving prominence; the second calls for expanding the set of questions on which the firm is considered relevant.
3. Platform mix
What share of the firm’s visibility comes from one assistant? Concentration can make a large total fragile. A model update or a change in answer style may move the number quickly. A presence spread across several assistants is generally easier to trust as a durable signal.
4. Market fit
Do the mentions come from the cities and client situations the firm actually serves? A national total can look impressive while missing the firm’s most valuable market. A regionally focused RIA may have modest national volume and excellent visibility where it competes.
None of these numbers prescribes a generic fix. They identify the gap that needs to be understood before a firm changes its site, content, profiles, or third-party presence.
The better question is no longer just “How many times were we mentioned?” It is “Where did we appear, how often, and how prominently?”
About the data
This article uses the AdvisorFinder August 2026 national export, generated August 8,
2026 from test run 14. The edition contains 6,420 completed queries—1,605 per platform
across 64 U.S. markets and national coverage—and 9,482 independent RIA firms surfaced
at least once after entity-type and name-quality filtering. The AI Visibility Score
uses methodology score-v2.0: per-platform reach and average-position sub-scores
blended by the published U.S. usage weights.
Source: AdvisorFinder AI Visibility research, August 2026 edition. This is independent research, not investment advice or an endorsement. Scores measure AI visibility, not firm quality, investment performance, advice quality, size, or suitability. Read the full methodology and limitations.
Editorial disclosure
This article is independent editorial analysis based on AdvisorFinder’s August 2026 AI Visibility research, generated August 8, 2026. It reflects how firms appeared in standardized, non-personalized AI queries at that time; assistant responses, usage weights, scores, and rankings can change. Inclusion, omission, rank, or discussion of any firm is not an endorsement or recommendation and does not assess its competence, credentials, performance, advice, or suitability for any client. Firms cannot pay for placement or improved rankings, and purchasing an AdvisorFinder report does not affect the data. Nothing here is investment, legal, or financial advice.