The 100 Most-Cited Websites in ChatGPT for High-Stakes Credit, Debt, Banking and Lending Consumer Decisions

LLM Authority Index Research | ChatGPT | Credit, Debt, Banking and Lending | High-Stakes Consumer Decisions | July-September 2026

LLM Authority Index analyzed 2,053 deduplicated ChatGPT responses across 16 credit, debt, banking and lending source verticals from July through September 2026.

Forbes ranked #1, appearing as a cited domain in 36.1% of eligible ChatGPT responses. The Wall Street Journal ranked #2 at 32.0%, NerdWallet #3 at 29.1%, Bankrate #4 at 24.9%, and Reddit #5 at 19.6%.

This financial subset is much more concentrated than the broader ChatGPT high-stakes panel. The Top 100 domains account for 81.1% of all response-level domain appearances in this category, compared with 58.8% in the broader ChatGPT study.

The source hierarchy also differs sharply from broad all-topic ChatGPT research. Ahrefs' September 2026 U.S. study ranks Reddit #1, Wikipedia #2, Consumer Reports #3, Forbes #4, and EngineerFix #5 across broad topics. By contrast, this high-stakes financial decision panel is led by Forbes, The Wall Street Journal, NerdWallet and Bankrate. Ahrefs ChatGPT study

This article is the ChatGPT platform-by-category companion to the Credit, Debt, Banking and Lending Citation Authority Study and the overall ChatGPT citation study.

Answer Capsule

Which websites does ChatGPT cite most often for high-stakes credit, debt, banking and lending decisions? In the LLM Authority Index July-September 2026 panel, Forbes ranked #1 at 36.1% response coverage, followed by The Wall Street Journal at 32.0%, NerdWallet at 29.1%, Bankrate at 24.9%, and Reddit at 19.6%. The analysis covers 2,053 deduplicated responses, 9,415 visible citation events, and 748 registrable cited domains across 16 financial verticals. The category is highly concentrated, with the Top 100 accounting for 81.1% of domain-response appearances. Only 47 domains remained in the monthly ChatGPT financial Top 100 in July, August and September, showing that a concentrated source market can still have substantial month-to-month movement outside the very top tier.

Key Findings

• The July-September archive contains 2,327 raw ChatGPT observations in the Credit, Debt, Banking and Lending family.
• 1 observation was explicitly marked as an extraction failure and excluded from valid-response analysis.
• The raw files contain 10,658 citation-array entries before analytical exact-repeat handling and infrastructure filtering.
• The primary dataset contains 2,053 deduplicated ChatGPT responses and 9,415 visible citation events after the public infrastructure exclusions described in the methodology.
• The category contains 748 registrable cited domains and 8,158 response-level domain appearances.
• Forbes ranked #1 at 36.1% response coverage, The Wall Street Journal #2 at 32.0%, NerdWallet #3 at 29.1%, Bankrate #4 at 24.9%, and Reddit #5 at 19.6%.
• The Top 10 domains account for 46.1% of response-level domain appearances, the Top 25 account for 60.6%, and the Top 100 account for 81.1%.
• Only 47 domains appeared in the ChatGPT financial Top 100 in all three months.
• July and September shared 53 Top 100 domains, a Jaccard similarity of 36.1%.
• The ChatGPT financial Top 100 shares only 50 domains with ChatGPT's broader all-family Top 100. Category selection changes the source universe materially.
• The financial ChatGPT Top 100 shares 63 domains with Google AI Overviews and 62 with Google AI Mode within the same broad financial family.
• Forbes and Reddit are the only Top 100 domains cited across all 16 source vertical labels in this ChatGPT financial panel.
• The Wall Street Journal, NerdWallet, Money.com, Investopedia and Wikipedia each appear across 14 of the 16 source verticals, showing broad category reach without full-category ubiquity.
• Specialist leaders remain important. TechRadar leads Credit Monitoring, Bankrate reaches 67.9% response coverage in Home Equity Loans, and NerdWallet leads Student Loan Refinance at 48.4%.

Questions This Study Answers

• Which websites are most frequently cited by ChatGPT for credit, debt, banking and lending decisions?
• Which publishers should financial brands evaluate for ChatGPT-focused earned-media and citation strategies?
• Does ChatGPT use the same financial sources as Google AI Overviews and Google AI Mode?
• Which domains become more important when the analysis is restricted to financial consumer decisions?
• Which publishers have broad financial citation authority across multiple verticals?
• Which specialist sites dominate individual financial subcategories such as Credit Monitoring, Credit Repair or Home Equity Loans?
• How stable is the ChatGPT financial Top 100 from month to month?
• Why does this high-stakes financial ranking differ from broad all-topic ChatGPT source rankings?
• Can publishers use multi-month ChatGPT citation visibility as independent evidence in advertiser or partner conversations?
• How should CMOs separate broad publisher authority from prompt-specific financial source opportunities?

Why This Research Belongs in Daily AI Search Marketing Decisions

This study is research-based, but its purpose is commercial decision support.

This Article sits at the intersection of two commercially useful views of the same source market:

• the ChatGPT platform view, which asks which sources recur across high-stakes decisions on one AI platform; and
• the Credit, Debt, Banking and Lending category view, which asks which sources recur across six AI platforms for one financial decision family.

For publishers, that intersection creates a more precise commercial claim than simply saying a site is "visible in ChatGPT." A publisher can document whether its visibility is strong specifically inside ChatGPT for financial decisions, whether that visibility persists over time, and whether its authority is broad across several verticals or concentrated in one specialist category.

For banks, lenders, fintechs, credit-repair companies, debt-relief companies and CMOs, the operating question is:

Which sources are already present around the exact financial decisions our customers ask ChatGPT to help them make?

Three findings matter for daily planning:

• the Top 100 account for 81.1% of domain-response appearances in this financial ChatGPT slice;
• only 47 domains remained in the Top 100 in July, August and September; and
• the median of the three monthly Top 100 Jaccard comparisons was 43.9%.

That combination matters. The market is highly concentrated, but the lower portion of the source set still changes substantially over time.

The final Credit platform studies also show that the ChatGPT financial Top 100 shared 63 domains with Google AI Overviews, 62 with Google AI Mode, 59 with Perplexity, 55 with Gemini and 48 with Microsoft Copilot.

This is where the Persistence-Portability Gap framework becomes useful. The parent Credit category study reports 77.0% temporal persistence and 44.9% cross-platform portability, producing an approximate 32.1 percentage-point category gap under the published summary-based methodology.

The defensible commercial conclusion is:

ChatGPT financial citation authority is concentrated, but it is less temporally durable than the Google financial source portfolios and still does not transfer cleanly to other AI engines.

Current outside research reinforces why the exact prompt population matters. Ahrefs' broad September 2026 U.S. ChatGPT study ranks Reddit #1 at 16.8% mention share, while this high-stakes financial panel is led by Forbes, The Wall Street Journal, NerdWallet and Bankrate. Ahrefs ChatGPT study

BrightEdge's week-of-August-23 finance panel found a comparatively flat ChatGPT top five at 19%, 15%, 14%, 14% and 11% citation presence, including specialist site simplywall.st. BrightEdge finance citation study

Those studies use different prompts, denominators and time windows. The commercial lesson is not to average them together. It is to measure the source market that corresponds to the buyer questions the brand actually cares about.

Commercial Action Matrix: What Publishers and CMOs Can Do With the Findings

The daily operating model is therefore four-layered:

1. Current financial ChatGPT core: maintain the sources that matter now, with the collection date attached.
2. Vertical-specific layer: identify which sources dominate the exact lending, banking, credit or debt decision.
3. Longitudinal check: monitor whether the priority source set persists, declines or rotates.
4. Cross-platform check: determine whether the same sources also matter in Google AI Search, Gemini, Perplexity and Copilot.

Citation visibility is evidence of source presence. It is not proof that obtaining coverage, advertising, a partnership or a placement on a cited domain will cause ChatGPT to recommend a brand.

How This Study Fits the High-Stakes Consumer Decisions Research Corpus

This Article is the intersection of two parent studies:

• The ChatGPT platform study
• The Credit, Debt, Banking and Lending category study

It should also be read with:

• the 2026 AI Citation Authority Study, which establishes the full high-stakes source ecosystem;
• the Persistence-Portability Gap, which separates temporal durability from cross-platform transferability;
• Do AI Platforms Cite the Same Websites?, which provides the overall platform-overlap framework;
• How Stable Are AI Citations?, which separates portfolio persistence from same-prompt stability; and
• Reddit's Decline in AI Citations for Credit, Debt, Banking and Lending, plus the ChatGPT Credit Reddit trend study, for longitudinal source movement.

What We Studied

Study size

Monthly response composition

The monthly response totals are not identical because the source files and eligible prompt populations differ by month. Missing source data is not imputed as zero.

The 25 Most-Cited Websites in ChatGPT for Financial Consumer Decisions

This is a source-visibility ranking. It is not a quality grade, a recommendation score, an endorsement, or evidence that appearing on one of these domains causes ChatGPT to cite or recommend a company.

The Full Top 100 ChatGPT Financial Citation Sources

The Financial ChatGPT Source Market Is Highly Concentrated

The financial subset is much more concentrated than ChatGPT's broader high-stakes source market.

In the broader high-stakes ChatGPT study, the Top 100 account for 58.8% of domain-response appearances. In this financial category they account for 81.1%.

The safe interpretation is not that ChatGPT has one universal financial whitelist. The result shows that within this prompt population, a relatively small group of domains captures a large share of visible source relationships.

This section answers

• Is ChatGPT's financial source market more concentrated than its broader high-stakes source market? Yes, substantially in this panel.
• Does category concentration mean the same sources appear for every prompt? No. Individual verticals and repeated prompts still show substantial variation.

Which Sources Gain the Most When the Analysis Is Restricted to Financial Decisions?

One useful way to read a platform-by-category study is to compare a domain's ChatGPT financial coverage with its coverage across all six platforms in the same financial family.

Several patterns stand out.

The Wall Street Journal is particularly strong in this ChatGPT financial slice. It appears in 32.0% of responses, roughly 3.4 times its all-platform financial coverage.

Finder also over-indexes sharply, at roughly 3.5 times its all-platform financial coverage.

ConsumerFinance.gov over-indexes by roughly 3.2 times, while TechRadar becomes unusually important because of its strength in Credit Monitoring.

These are descriptive lifts, not causal measures. They show where a domain is disproportionately visible in this ChatGPT financial sample relative to the broader six-platform financial sample.

The Most-Cited Sources by Individual Financial Vertical

The 16 source vertical labels are not equally sized, and some narrow slices have very small ChatGPT sample counts. The table therefore reports both the response count and the leading sources so readers can judge the evidence base directly.

This section answers

• Which source leads ChatGPT citations for Auto Refinance Loans? The Wall Street Journal, at 55.8% response coverage in this panel.
• Which source leads Credit Monitoring? TechRadar, at 49.4%.
• Which source leads Credit Repair? Forbes, at 37.9%, followed by ConsumerFinance.gov at 34.5%.
• Which source leads Home Equity Loans? Bankrate, at 67.9%.
• Which source leads Student Loan Refinance? NerdWallet, at 48.4%.

The small Debt Relief & Consolidation and Tax Relief ChatGPT slices should be treated as descriptive only. Their response counts are too small to support the same confidence as the larger verticals.

Broad Publisher Authority and Specialist Authority Are Different Assets

The broadest financial citation leaders are not always the strongest sites in every vertical.

Forbes and Reddit appear across all 16 source vertical labels.

The Wall Street Journal, NerdWallet, Money.com, Investopedia and Wikipedia each appear across 14 verticals.

But specialist authority can overwhelm broad reach inside a narrower decision set:

• TechRadar is the leading cited domain in Credit Monitoring at 49.4% response coverage.
• ConsumerFinance.gov reaches 34.5% in Credit Repair and appears in 18.7% of Student Loan Refinance responses.
• Bankrate reaches 67.9% in Home Equity Loans.
• The Wall Street Journal exceeds 50% response coverage in Auto Refinance Loans, Money Market Accounts, Personal Loans and Online Lenders, and Savings Account.
• NerdWallet reaches 48.4% in Student Loan Refinance and 49.5% in Student Loans.

For publishers, the commercial implication is that category authority can be sold in more than one way: broad recurring presence across a category, or intense authority inside a commercially important subcategory.

For brands, the implication is the reverse: do not assume the highest-ranked category-wide publisher is automatically the best citation opportunity for every prompt cluster.

ChatGPT Financial Rankings Were Less Stable Than the Google Financial Rankings

The very top of the ChatGPT financial ranking was persistent, but the full Top 100 moved substantially across the three months.

Only 47 domains remained in the ChatGPT financial Top 100 in all three months.

Forbes ranked #1 in July and August and #2 in September. The Wall Street Journal moved from #3 to #2 to #1. NerdWallet remained between #3 and #4. Bankrate stayed between #3 and #5. Reddit moved from #2 in July to #5 in August and September.

The important distinction is that high concentration and high stability are not the same thing. A category can be dominated by a relatively small group of domains while the lower portions of the Top 100 rotate materially from month to month.

This is consistent with the broader citation drift study, which found much greater source turnover at the repeated-prompt level than the aggregate publisher leaderboard alone would suggest.

ChatGPT Does Not Use the Same Financial Top 100 as Other AI Platforms

The same broad financial family produces materially different source lists depending on platform.

The comparison reinforces a recurring result throughout this research series: there is no single publisher list that represents AI search as a whole.

A financial brand that uses only a Google AI Overviews source map will miss many domains that matter more in ChatGPT. A publisher that performs strongly in ChatGPT should not assume that visibility transfers at the same rate to Google's AI surfaces.

How This Study Relates to Other ChatGPT and Finance Research

Ahrefs: Broad All-Topic ChatGPT

Ahrefs' September 2026 ChatGPT study ranks Reddit #1 at 16.8% mention share, followed by Wikipedia, Consumer Reports, Forbes and EngineerFix across broad U.S. topics. Ahrefs reports Forbes at #4 and places NerdWallet much lower in the all-topic list. Ahrefs ChatGPT study

LLM Authority Index finds a different hierarchy in high-stakes financial consumer decisions: Forbes #1, The Wall Street Journal #2, NerdWallet #3, Bankrate #4 and Reddit #5.

These results are not contradictory. Ahrefs measures a broad all-topic U.S. query population using mention share. LLMAI measures response-level domain presence in a high-stakes commercial financial panel. A domain can be modest in the general web-wide source mix and highly prominent in one commercial category.

BrightEdge: ChatGPT Finance Has a Flatter Source Curve Than Google AI Overviews

BrightEdge reported finance citation presence of approximately 19%, 15%, 14%, 14% and 11% across the top five ChatGPT sources in its week of August 23, 2026, while Google AI Overviews was much more concentrated at the first rank. BrightEdge also highlighted simplywall.st as an example of a specialist site reaching ChatGPT's finance top five. BrightEdge finance and health citation study

LLMAI's source identities and percentages differ because the financial prompt set is broader and the denominator is different, but the pattern is compatible with BrightEdge's core point: ChatGPT's financial citation hierarchy is not identical to Google's.

Machine Relations: Broad Multi-Engine Concentration Is Much Lower

Machine Relations' September 18, 2026 index reports 22,179 cited domains across six engines and finds that the top ten account for 7.41% of domain-run citations in its broader research basket. It explicitly notes that concentration depends on source class and question basket. Machine Relations concentration study

The much higher concentration in this LLMAI ChatGPT financial panel illustrates exactly why denominator and query population matter. A high-stakes category can have a much steeper source hierarchy than a broader cross-engine research basket.

Tinuiti and Profound: Commercial Prompt Sets Must Be Read by Platform and Category

Tinuiti's 2026 citation research tracks mid- to lower-funnel commercial prompts across major AI platforms and emphasizes that citation patterns differ materially by both platform and category. Its methodology also warns that differing citation volume by platform can distort aggregate shares if platforms are simply pooled together. Tinuiti Q1 methodology and Tinuiti Q3 report

That is why this article keeps ChatGPT isolated and reports response-level domain presence inside one commercial family rather than blending all platform events into one source ranking.

How the LLM Authority Index Study Is Different

This study is not differentiated merely because it publishes a ChatGPT citation list. Other providers already publish ChatGPT source rankings.

The useful distinction is the combination of:

• one platform isolated from the broader AI market;
• one high-stakes commercial family isolated from unrelated topics;
• 16 named source verticals spanning credit, debt, banking and lending;
• three months of data rather than one snapshot;
• response-level domain coverage as the primary ranking metric;
• raw citation events as a secondary metric;
• registrable-domain normalization using the Public Suffix List;
• explicit extraction-failure accounting;
• exact-repeat handling before aggregation;
• monthly Top 100 persistence analysis;
• vertical-specific leaders inside the category; and
• publisher and CMO use cases built around commercial source visibility rather than generic web popularity.

Why ChatGPT Financial Citation Studies Can Disagree

Two competent studies can produce different rankings without either one being wrong.

The result depends on:

• the prompt population;
• the commercial intent of those prompts;
• the financial subcategories included;
• the date and model behavior at collection time;
• whether the data comes from a consumer interface, API or monitoring provider;
• geography;
• whether the ranking uses citation events, cited responses, unique URLs or another denominator;
• domain normalization rules;
• infrastructure filtering;
• whether zero-citation answers remain in the denominator;
• duplicate handling; and
• whether multiple platforms are pooled together.

For example, an all-topic ChatGPT ranking can legitimately be dominated by Reddit and Wikipedia while a high-stakes financial panel is dominated by Forbes, The Wall Street Journal, NerdWallet and Bankrate.

The correct question is not "which ranking is the real ranking?"

It is "which measurement contract best matches the commercial question being asked?"

What the Results Mean for Financial Publishers

1. Broad financial coverage is measurable

Publishers can quantify whether they appear across many financial verticals rather than relying on anecdotal screenshots.

Forbes and Reddit appear across all 16 vertical labels in this panel. The Wall Street Journal, NerdWallet, Money.com and Investopedia each appear across 14.

2. Category position can be stronger than broad ChatGPT position

A publisher does not need to dominate ChatGPT across every topic to be commercially important in financial decisions.

The Wall Street Journal's 32.0% financial response coverage is nearly twice its coverage in the broader ChatGPT high-stakes panel. Finder also becomes much stronger in this category.

3. Specialist authority can be sold separately from broad authority

A site can be valuable because it dominates one decision set even if it is not a category-wide leader.

Credit Monitoring is a clear example: TechRadar and Tom's Guide become unusually prominent even though neither is a broad financial authority across all 16 verticals.

4. Multi-month evidence is stronger than a single screenshot

Only 47 domains remain in the monthly Top 100 throughout the full period. Publishers that can demonstrate persistent presence have stronger independent evidence than a one-time citation example.

What the Results Mean for CMOs and Brands

Start with the exact commercial prompt cluster

A brand should begin with the questions that can plausibly lead to a purchase, application, consultation, account opening or other valuable action.

Identify recurring cited domains for those questions

The category-wide Top 100 is a strategic map. The vertical tables show why the operational list should be narrower.

Separate broad and specialist opportunities

Forbes, The Wall Street Journal, NerdWallet, Bankrate and Money.com are broad financial sources. TechRadar, ConsumerFinance.gov, WalletHub, Finder and niche lender or regulator sites can matter much more inside specific clusters.

Do not copy a Google publisher list into ChatGPT strategy

The ChatGPT financial Top 100 shares only 63 domains with the Google AI Overviews financial Top 100 and 62 with Google AI Mode.

Measure before and after outreach

Citation presence should be benchmarked before a campaign and measured again afterward. A citation increase can be observed; causal attribution requires a stronger design than a simple before-and-after screenshot.

Re-run the benchmark

The monthly Top 100 movement shows why a one-time financial source audit should not be treated as permanent.

Parent dataset

This analysis uses the same frozen source archive as the 2026 AI Citation Authority Study.

The parent structural dataset contains 60,881 deduplicated AI responses and 278,499 visible citation events across six public AI platform families and 53 high-stakes consumer source verticals.

Eligible platform and category

This article includes only observations classified to:

• Platform family: ChatGPT
• High-stakes family: Credit, Debt, Banking and Lending
• Months: July, August and September 2026

The included source vertical labels are:

Auto Refinance Loans; Bad Credit Loans; Best Banks; Certificates of Deposits; Credit Cards; Credit Cards for Building Credit; Credit Monitoring; Credit Repair; Debt Relief & Consolidation; Home Equity Loans; Money Market Accounts; Personal Loans and Online Lenders; Savings Account; Student Loan Refinance; Student Loans; Tax Relief.

These are source filename labels, not claims that the 16 verticals are statistically independent.

Global exact-repeat handling

Before platform-category aggregation, an observation is treated as an exact analytical repeat when all of the following match:

1. report month;
2. exact raw source surface;
3. normalized prompt text; and
4. exact set of original citation URLs.

Only one copy of an exact repeat is retained.

This is an analytical anti-double-counting rule. It is not proof that the upstream system ran a prompt only once.

Prompt normalization

Prompt matching uses Unicode NFKC normalization, case folding, whitespace collapse and trimming. The substantive wording is otherwise preserved.

Domain normalization

Citation URLs are parsed to hostnames, lowercased, stripped of leading www., and consolidated to the registrable domain using the Public Suffix List.

Public infrastructure exclusions

The public domain table excludes obvious non-substantive technical artifacts such as OpenAI image infrastructure, Mapbox, OpenStreetMap, Yelp CDN assets, Bing map/image/ad wrappers and Google account-activity pages when present.

For this ChatGPT financial slice, 27 citation entries matched those infrastructure rules and were excluded from the public source ranking.

Substantive platform-owned content is not automatically removed solely because the platform owns the domain.

Primary ranking metric

The primary metric is Response Citation Coverage:

eligible deduplicated ChatGPT financial responses citing domain d / all eligible deduplicated ChatGPT financial responses

A domain counts at most once per response.

Secondary metric

Raw citation events are reported as a secondary measure. A response can contribute multiple citation events to one domain if multiple URLs from that domain are surfaced.

Vertical membership

A domain's vertical breadth is the number of source vertical labels in this ChatGPT financial subset in which it appears at least once.

Monthly persistence

Monthly Top 100 lists are calculated independently using the same response-level domain metric. Pairwise similarity uses Jaccard similarity:

shared domains / domains present in either monthly Top 100

Category lift

Category lift compares a domain's ChatGPT financial response coverage with its response coverage in the broader comparison set.

A lift greater than 1.0 means the domain appears proportionally more often in the ChatGPT financial slice. It is descriptive and does not identify a cause.

Limitations

1. The study measures visible citations, not hidden retrieval or model reasoning.
2. The 16 source verticals are not equally sized. Large slices should carry more evidentiary weight than very small ones.
3. Debt Relief & Consolidation and Tax Relief have especially small ChatGPT sample counts in this extracted panel. Their vertical-level leaderboards are descriptive only.
4. The panel is intentionally commercial and high stakes. It is not representative of every ChatGPT query.
5. A cited domain is not necessarily recommended. Citation presence and recommendation presence are distinct outcomes.
6. Domain-level aggregation can hide page-level differences. Two answers can cite different URLs on the same site.
7. The study does not establish causality. A publisher's citation visibility does not prove that advertising, PR, backlinks, schema or any other intervention caused that visibility.
8. Platform behavior can change. Results from July-September 2026 should be read as a measured historical window.
9. Commercial relationships can coexist with measured citation visibility. They are disclosed separately and are not ranking inputs.
10. Cross-study percentages should not be directly compared without aligning prompts, dates, interfaces and denominators.

Commercial Relationship Disclosure

LLM Authority Index is part of a business ecosystem that provides AI visibility, research and marketing services. Affiliated businesses may have current or historical commercial relationships with companies or publishers that appear in the dataset.

Commercial relationships are not inputs to the citation rankings. Domains are included based on observed citation data. No ranking should be interpreted as an endorsement, and no commercial relationship should be interpreted as evidence that it caused citation visibility.

References

1. LLM Authority Index. The 2026 AI Citation Authority Study.
2. LLM Authority Index. The Persistence-Portability Gap.
3. LLM Authority Index. The Credit, Debt, Banking and Lending Citation Authority Study.
4. LLM Authority Index. The 100 Most-Cited Websites in ChatGPT.
5. LLM Authority Index. Do AI Platforms Cite the Same Websites?.
6. LLM Authority Index. How Stable Are AI Citations?.
7. Ahrefs. The 50 Most-Cited Websites in ChatGPT, September 2026.
8. BrightEdge. Institution or Platform: What Health and Finance Citations Reveal About ChatGPT and Google AI Overviews.
9. Machine Relations. How Concentrated Are AI Citations? It Takes 1,357 Domains to Reach Half.
10. Tinuiti. Q1 2026 AI Citation Trends Report.
11. Tinuiti. Q3 2026 AI Citation Trends Report.

Related LLM Authority Index Research

Parent studies and measurement framework

• The 2026 AI Citation Authority Study
• The Credit, Debt, Banking and Lending Citation Authority Study
• The ChatGPT Platform Study
• The Persistence-Portability Gap
• Do AI Platforms Cite the Same Websites?
• How Stable Are AI Citations?

Sibling Credit platform studies

• Google AI Overviews
• Google AI Mode
• Perplexity
• Gemini
• Microsoft Copilot

Credit Reddit trend studies

• Credit, Debt, Banking and Lending Reddit parent study
• Google AI Overviews Reddit trend
• Google AI Mode Reddit trend
• ChatGPT Reddit trend
• Perplexity Reddit trend
• Gemini Reddit trend
• Microsoft Copilot Reddit trend