Life Insurance
Consensus Index

AI Consensus Fit Review

Lincoln Financial Group Life Insurance Fit Review for High Blood Pressure

Lincoln Financial Group is a mixed-to-good fit for a consumer being treated for high blood pressure, depending on how well the condition is controlled and which Lincoln product applies.

Research: 2026-09-227 usable platform responsesRead the methodology ↗

Share

Answer Capsule

Lincoln Financial Group is a mixed-to-good fit for a consumer being treated for high blood pressure, depending on how well the condition is controlled and which Lincoln product applies. Six of the seven platforms in this study named Lincoln during the ranking stage, and it finished second overall with an average listed rank of 4.0 and a best rank of 1. The strongest reason to consider Lincoln is its TermAccel accelerated-underwriting term product, which can issue coverage quickly and may waive lab work for qualifying applicants. The main limitation is that Lincoln does not publish a complete, consumer-facing hypertension underwriting table, and TermAccel is explicitly designed for less complex medical histories.

Research Snapshot

FieldDetail
Platform mentions in ranking stage6 of 7 platforms
Share of included platform responses85.7%
Average listed rank4.0
Best listed rank1
Relevant product/model/planLincoln TermAccel Level Term, with Lincoln LifeElements Level Term as the traditional-underwriting alternative
Overall use-case fitGood (5 platforms); Mixed (2 platforms) — 7 platforms analyzed
Research date2026-09-22

Why Lincoln Financial Group Qualified for This Study

Questions This Section Answers

  • Why did Lincoln Financial Group qualify as a finalist for life insurance for high blood pressure?
  • How many AI platforms named Lincoln Financial Group for high blood pressure life insurance?

Lincoln qualified because six of the seven platforms in this study named it during the ranking stage, giving it an 85.7% platform share and a second-place final rank. Its average listed rank was 4.0, and one platform ranked it first (deepseek). The platforms that named Lincoln were anthropic, deepseek, google, kimi, openai, and perplexity.

The qualification rests on product relevance rather than a published hypertension underwriting table. Lincoln's TermAccel Level Term is a fully electronic, accelerated-underwriting term product that can waive lab work for qualifying applicants [1]. Lincoln LifeElements Level Term is the traditional-underwriting alternative for applicants who need more individualized review [3].

Independent sources also support the qualification. U.S. News reports Lincoln holds an A (Excellent) rating from AM Best and was the fifth-largest U.S. life insurer as of 2025 with $9.17 billion in direct premiums [4]. Forbes Advisor rates Lincoln 4.2 stars for competitive term life prices [6]. Policygenius describes Lincoln as top-rated for affordable rates and favorable underwriting for health conditions [7].

This is a niche fit review. It evaluates Lincoln only for a consumer being treated for high blood pressure, not as a general company assessment. For the broader carrier comparison, see the Life Insurance for High Blood Pressure consensus index.

The Product, Model, Plan, or Service Most Relevant to Life Insurance for High Blood Pressure

Questions This Section Answers

  • Which Lincoln Financial Group product should a buyer with high blood pressure choose?
  • Is Lincoln TermAccel a good choice for a buyer taking blood pressure medication?

The most relevant Lincoln product for this use case is Lincoln TermAccel Level Term, with Lincoln LifeElements Level Term as the traditional-underwriting alternative. Every platform that named Lincoln pointed to TermAccel, LifeElements, or both [8].

TermAccel is a level term product with 10-, 15-, 20-, and 30-year level-premium periods, a fully electronic application, and possible waiver of lab work for qualified applicants [8]. Lincoln's public term-life page positions TermAccel for applicants in good health and describes automated applications and possible absence of a medical exam [16]. Lincoln's own underwriting guide states TermAccel is designed for clients with less complex medical histories [9].

That design intent matters for a high blood pressure buyer. Lincoln's TermAccel agent FAQ states that clients with complex medical histories who are likely to receive high table ratings are not ideal candidates for TermAccel [18]. Anthropic concluded from this that treated high blood pressure qualifies as a medical condition requiring traditional underwriting, making LifeElements the appropriate Lincoln product for hypertension cases [9].

Other platforms read the same product differently. Grok reported that TermAccel guidelines allow treated or untreated hypertension with an average reading of 140/90 or lower, and that no diagnosis of hypertension with 135/85 or lower is required for preferred [19]. Google reported that Lincoln's guidelines allow treated hypertension patients to reach Preferred Plus with a 12-month average of 130/80 or lower for applicants under age 70, and up to 140/90 for ages 70 and older [21]. Perplexity cited a Lincoln underwriting guideline referencing hypertension control, including a 12-month average of 135/85 or lower in one underwriting context [23].

These reported thresholds come from platform-supplied sources, including broker and third-party PDFs, and were not independently validated. They conflict with each other and with Lincoln's own "less complex medical histories" positioning. Buyers should treat any specific reading threshold as unverified until Lincoln confirms it for their case.

What the AI Platforms Agreed About

Questions This Section Answers

  • What do AI platforms agree on about Lincoln Financial Group for high blood pressure life insurance?
  • Does Lincoln Financial Group publish hypertension-specific underwriting rules?

The platforms agreed on four points. First, Lincoln's TermAccel is the product most relevant to this use case, and LifeElements is the traditional alternative [24]. Second, TermAccel uses automated, electronic underwriting and may waive lab work for qualifying applicants [31]. Third, Lincoln does not publish a complete, consumer-facing hypertension underwriting table, so eligibility and pricing remain case-specific [24]. Fourth, TermAccel and LifeElements are not generally available in New York [24].

Independent reviews broadly support Lincoln's underwriting reputation for health conditions. RiskQuoter describes Lincoln as a strong option with excellent underwriting for high-risk applicants and notes strength with cancer histories and heart conditions [40]. RiskQuoter also lists Lincoln among carriers offering best rates with blood pressure medication if the condition is well controlled [36]. RatesChaser states Lincoln's underwriting flexibility is where a buyer with health conditions might save money [42].

Agreement among platforms does not prove product quality or approval odds. It shows that the same public materials led multiple systems to similar conclusions.

Where the AI Platforms Disagreed or Were Uncertain

The platforms disagreed on whether TermAccel is usable for a treated hypertension applicant. Anthropic concluded TermAccel is unsuitable because it is designed for less complex medical histories [43]. Grok, Google, and Perplexity reported guideline thresholds suggesting controlled hypertension can qualify for TermAccel or preferred rate classes [45]. OpenAI and DeepSeek treated eligibility as case-specific and unresolved [48].

The platforms also disagreed on fit ratings. Anthropic, Google, Grok, Kimi, and Perplexity rated Lincoln a "good" fit. OpenAI and DeepSeek rated it a "mixed" fit. The split tracks the TermAccel question: platforms that read TermAccel as open to controlled hypertension rated Lincoln higher.

Reported blood pressure thresholds conflict across sources. Grok cited 140/90 for treated hypertension and 135/85 for preferred [45]. Google cited 130/80 for Preferred Plus under age 70 and 140/90 for ages 70 and older [46]. Perplexity cited a 135/85 12-month average in one underwriting context [47]. Grok's own output flagged that exact preferred thresholds vary slightly across underwriting guides [45].

Face-amount limits also conflict. OpenAI treated the current public product page maximum of $2.5 million as controlling while noting older professional materials describe lower limits [48]. Perplexity reported one Lincoln source showing up to $2.5 million and another showing up to $1,000,000, and flagged the conflict directly [50]. Google reported LincXpress Tele-App supports lab-free underwriting for LifeElements term policies up to $1 million [52].

One platform-level conflict is unresolved: Anthropic reported that TermAccel rates are lost if an applicant switches to LifeElements within 12 months, and described it as a possible adverse incentive, while stating it is unclear whether this creates barriers [43]. No other platform addressed this. Buyers should ask Lincoln directly.

Use-Case-Specific Features and Capabilities

Questions This Section Answers

  • What features does Lincoln TermAccel offer a buyer with controlled high blood pressure?
  • Can a Lincoln term policy be converted to permanent coverage if blood pressure worsens?

TermAccel's core feature for this use case is speed. Lincoln states some TermAccel policies can be issued in as few as two days, and laboratory work may be waived for qualifying applicants [53]. RiskQuoter reports many applicants are approved in one to two business days with no medical exam required, while larger policies or higher-risk applicants typically take two to six weeks through traditional underwriting [55]. Perplexity describes the process as fully electronic and paperless with no APS requirement for all submissions and a real-time offer for some approved lab-free cases [57].

TermAccel uses automated underwriting with a tele-interview. Lincoln materials describe queries involving prescription, diagnosis, motor-vehicle, and Medical Information Bureau data [54]. The NAIC notes that accelerated underwriting can eliminate a physical exam for some applicants and that insurers may use prescription history and other external data [58]. Lab work or additional information may still be required, and an application may be declined [54].

Coverage ranges differ by product. TermAccel provides $100,000 to $2.5 million of coverage with 10-, 15-, 20-, and 30-year terms, subject to underwriting and eligibility [59]. LifeElements starts at $250,000 and has no publicly stated fixed maximum, subject to individual consideration and underwriting limits [60]. Anthropic reported LifeElements targets higher coverage needs of $2.5 million and above [61].

Both cited term products offer conversion to qualifying Lincoln permanent life insurance without new underwriting before the end of the level-premium period or attained age 70, whichever comes first [59]. Riders include an accelerated death benefit rider, waiver of premium rider, and child term rider [63]. RatesChaser reports the Accelerated Death Benefits rider is included at no extra charge [64].

One operational restriction: Google reported that TermAccel does not accept clinical results or exams ordered outside its integration with approved exam vendors [65]. A buyer who recently completed a paramedical exam for another carrier may still need a new exam if Lincoln's system triggers a requirement.

Pricing, Fees, Contracts, and Ongoing Costs

Questions This Section Answers

  • How much does Lincoln Financial Group term life insurance cost per month for a buyer with high blood pressure?
  • What policy fees and post-term premium changes apply to Lincoln TermAccel and LifeElements?

Lincoln does not publish individualized premiums for high blood pressure on its public product pages. Premiums depend on age, coverage amount, term, tobacco status, underwriting class, state, and health information, and a personalized quote and underwriting decision are required [66]. DeepSeek and Perplexity both reported low pricing confidence for this buyer segment [67].

Known policy fees are published. TermAccel's policy fee is $80 for face amounts of $100,000 to $249,999.99, $90 for $250,000 to $999,999.99, and $70 for $1,000,000 to $2,500,000 [66]. LifeElements charges $90 annually for face amounts under $1,000,000 and $70 annually for face amounts of $1,000,000 or more [69]. RatesChaser reported annual policy fees between $80 and $90 for the TermAccel option [70].

Level premiums are guaranteed only during the selected 10-, 15-, 20-, or 30-year period. Afterward, premiums increase according to the policy terms, and the policy may continue with a face-amount decrease [66]. Coverage may expire if premiums are not paid or are insufficient to continue coverage [66].

Optional riders cost extra where offered, including Children's Level Term and Waiver of Premium. The Accelerated Benefits Rider has a one-time charge if exercised [66]. Anthropic noted that financial advisor or broker fees may apply depending on distribution channel, and that Lincoln does not offer online quotes, so all applicants must contact a financial professional [71]. U.S. News reported the same limitation [71].

Independent pricing commentary is favorable but not hypertension-specific. Forbes Advisor reported term life prices for 30- and 40-year-old buyers are below average and that Lincoln is among the most competitively priced life insurance companies [73]. Kimi cited industry benchmarks showing controlled hypertension on one medication at age 50 running roughly $72 to $98 per month for $500,000 of 20-year term, and two medications running $90 to $125 per month, while noting Lincoln's position within those ranges is not independently verified [75].

Best Suited For

Questions This Section Answers

  • Who is Lincoln Financial Group best suited for among buyers with high blood pressure?
  • Is Lincoln a good choice for a younger buyer with well-controlled hypertension?

Lincoln is best suited for a buyer whose treated blood pressure is stable and well documented, who wants term coverage, and who may qualify for accelerated underwriting. OpenAI described the best fit as applicants generally in good health whose treated blood pressure is stable and whose case may qualify for accelerated underwriting, ages 18 to 60, seeking $100,000 to $2.5 million of term coverage for 10, 15, 20, or 30 years [76].

Anthropic's best-fit profile is different: applicants with well-controlled high blood pressure seeking higher coverage amounts of $250,000 or more through LifeElements, including buyers with multiple health conditions alongside hypertension who are willing to accept table ratings for comprehensive underwriting [77].

Grok's best-fit profile centers on treated hypertension with an average blood pressure of 140/90 or lower for TermAccel lab-free eligibility, well-managed cases on one to two medications with documented control and clean records, and ages 18 to 60 seeking $100,000 to $2.5 million with quick decisions [79].

Google's best-fit profile includes applicants with well-controlled high blood pressure seeking top-tier Preferred Plus rates, consumers age 70 and older who need more relaxed blood pressure thresholds, and buyers looking for accelerated, lab-free underwriting for lower face amounts [81].

Across these profiles, the common thread is documented control. Buyers who value electronic processing, possible waiver of lab testing, and a conversion path to permanent coverage fit Lincoln's stated strengths [76].

Probably Not Best Suited For

Lincoln is probably not the best fit for a buyer with uncontrolled, severe, or recently diagnosed high blood pressure who needs certainty of approval. DeepSeek stated this directly [85]. Kimi listed uncontrolled blood pressure or recent hospitalizations for hypertension as a poor fit, along with buyers needing guaranteed acceptance regardless of health status [86].

Buyers who want guaranteed-issue or simplified-issue coverage are also a poor fit. Anthropic reported Lincoln lacks guaranteed-issue and simplified-issue offerings [87]. Kimi reported no guaranteed issue or final expense products were identified in searched sources [88]. DeepSeek noted TermAccel is not a guaranteed-issue product and still involves health questions, prescription checks, and possible medical records [85].

New York residents should look elsewhere. Lincoln's public pages state TermAccel and LifeElements Level Term are not available in New York [89]. Anthropic noted Lincoln National Life Insurance Company does not solicit business in New York, and that a separate Lincoln entity serves that state [91].

Buyers who need permanent coverage, coverage below $100,000 through TermAccel, or coverage above $2.5 million through TermAccel are outside the product's stated bands [89]. Anthropic also noted Lincoln offers no whole life or traditional universal life options if permanent coverage later becomes necessary [87].

Budget-conscious buyers who want to avoid an advisor intermediary may also be a poor fit, since Lincoln does not offer online quotes and requires contact with a financial professional [92].

When Another Option May Be Better

Questions This Section Answers

  • What is a better alternative to Lincoln Financial Group for a buyer with uncontrolled high blood pressure?
  • When should a buyer with high blood pressure choose a different carrier than Lincoln Financial Group?

Another option may be better in several specific situations. OpenAI stated a carrier with publicly documented hypertension underwriting criteria or stronger independent broker experience with controlled hypertension may be better when predictability of approval or rate class matters most, and that a traditional fully underwritten product may be better when the applicant has multiple conditions, recent medication changes, abnormal readings, or cardiovascular history [94].

Anthropic named specific competitors. For guaranteed-issue or simplified-issue products due to uncontrolled hypertension or multiple comorbidities, Anthropic suggested Pacific Life, Protective, or Corebridge. For the lowest base rates for controlled hypertension, Anthropic cited Banner Life, noting PolicyGenius identifies Banner as best for hypertension [95]. For fastest approval with minimal medical evaluation on mild or newly diagnosed hypertension, Anthropic suggested Prudential, Banner Life, or Symetra [95].

Kimi recommended comparing firm quotes against Banner Life, Protective, and Prudential before committing [97]. Perplexity suggested a no-exam specialist or guaranteed-issue option may be better if the buyer cannot meet accelerated-underwriting health standards, and that a permanent life insurance product may be better if the buyer wants lifelong coverage [98].

DeepSeek suggested a final-expense or simplified-issue insurer if the buyer wants a guaranteed-issue policy with no health questions, and a carrier that publishes build charts or underwriting guidelines for blood pressure if public transparency matters [99].

Google noted two narrower situations: a carrier with more lenient core blood pressure cutoffs may be better if readings sit consistently between 135/85 and 140/90 while treated, and a buyer who already completed a recent paramedical exam for another carrier may prefer to reuse those results, since TermAccel does not accept outside exams [100].

For a broader view of carriers evaluated for this condition, see the life insurance category directory.

Questions to Verify Before Buying

Ask Lincoln or an appointed agent these questions before applying. They are drawn from the verification lists the platforms supplied.

  • Will Lincoln consider the applicant for TermAccel with the current blood pressure readings, medications, treatment duration, and control history [101]?
  • What are Lincoln's specific blood pressure reading thresholds, medication approval criteria, and control benchmarks for each rating class [102]?
  • Could hypertension cause a lab requirement, attending-physician statement, medical-record review, postponement, decline, or a substandard rate class [101]?
  • Which face-amount limit applies to the submission channel: $1,000,000 or $2,500,000 [103]?
  • If initially evaluated for TermAccel and deemed ineligible, what is the underwriting timeline and rate impact for transitioning to LifeElements, and are TermAccel rates lost if the applicant switches within 12 months [102]?
  • What is the total cost of working with the required financial professional, including any advisory fees or commissions built into premiums [105]?
  • What conversion products are currently available, what is the conversion deadline, and what riders carry over [101]?
  • What happens to the face amount and premiums after the level term ends [101]?
  • How does Lincoln treat related conditions such as diabetes, cholesterol, sleep apnea, smoking, or prior cardiac events [103]?
  • Is the requested term and face amount available in the applicant's state, and is electronic policy delivery required [101]?

Final AI Consensus Verdict

Lincoln Financial Group is a mixed-to-good fit for a consumer being treated for high blood pressure. Six of seven platforms named it in the ranking stage, and it finished second overall. Five platforms rated the fit "good" and two rated it "mixed."

The case for Lincoln rests on TermAccel's accelerated, potentially lab-free underwriting, its $100,000 to $2.5 million coverage range, its conversion path to permanent coverage, and independent reviews describing favorable underwriting for health conditions and competitive term pricing [109].

The case against relying on Lincoln alone rests on the absence of a published, consumer-facing hypertension underwriting table, TermAccel's stated design for less complex medical histories, conflicting reported blood pressure thresholds, conflicting face-amount limits, no guaranteed-issue alternative, no online quoting, and no availability in New York [109].

The practical verdict: Lincoln is worth a quote, particularly for a younger applicant with stable, documented control who may qualify for TermAccel. It should not be the only quote. Buyers should compare firm offers from carriers with demonstrated hypertension underwriting experience before committing, and should confirm every threshold, fee, and product limit directly with Lincoln.

How This Review Was Produced

This review was produced from a structured multi-platform research run dated 2026-09-22. Seven AI platforms evaluated Lincoln Financial Group for the use case "Life Insurance for High Blood Pressure": anthropic, deepseek, google, grok, kimi, openai, and perplexity. Each platform returned a fit rating, use-case findings, strengths, limitations, pricing and terms, verification questions, and citations.

Six of the seven platforms named Lincoln during the ranking stage. Platform mentions in the ranking stage count only platforms that named the entity during ranking discovery; all seven platforms evaluated fit. The ranking statistics, fit ratings, and product identifications in this review come from those platform outputs.

Body citations use the platform and citation ID supplied in the research run. Company-owned sources are Lincoln publications. Independent sources include insurer reviews, broker guides, and one government source. No personal testing, customer experience, or independent verification was performed.

Methodology Limitations

Platform-reported research dates differ from the authoritative run date. DeepSeek reported a research date of 2026-04-25; the other six platforms reported 2026-09-22. Platform-reported dates are provenance metadata and do not independently prove freshness.

All platform outputs carry a verification status of platform-reported, not independently verified. Citations are platform-reported evidence, not independently verified facts. The supplied URLs were collected from platform responses and were not independently validated at the writing stage. DeepSeek ran with search disabled, so its claims rest on model knowledge rather than retrieved sources.

Lincoln does not publish a complete hypertension underwriting table, so no platform could confirm approval odds or rate classes for a specific blood pressure profile. Reported thresholds conflict across sources and include broker and third-party PDFs that may reflect older or channel-specific documents. Face-amount limits conflict between $1,000,000 and $2,500,000 across Lincoln sources. Exact premiums, rider availability, conversion portfolios, and policy fees must be confirmed for the applicant's state and issue date.

Agreement among AI platforms does not prove product quality, approval likelihood, or pricing competitiveness. Missing research was not treated as disagreement.

Sources

Company-Owned Sources

  • Lincoln Financial Group - Individuals: https://www.lincolnfinancial.com/public/individuals
  • Lincoln TermAccel Level Term Process Overview and Client Prequalification Checklist: https://www.lincolnfinancial.com/public/microsite/pdf/GD-LI-Pre-Qual-TA.pdf
  • Underwriting Guidelines Lincoln TermAccel® Level Term Overview: https://www.lincolnfinancial.com/public/microsite/pdf/GD-UW-GUIDE-BRC002-FINAL.pdf
  • Additional AI research evidence117 records
    1. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    2. AI research evidence record openai:c4
    3. AI research evidence record openai:c2
    4. AI research evidence record anthropic:19-1
    5. AI research evidence record anthropic:19-6
    6. AI research evidence record anthropic:23-17
    7. AI research evidence record anthropic:22-1
    8. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    9. AI research evidence record anthropic:4-1
    10. AI research evidence record deepseek:c1
    11. AI research evidence record grok:7
    12. AI research evidence record perplexity:c2
    13. AI research evidence record kimi:lincoln-official
    14. AI research evidence record google:1.3.3
    15. AI research evidence record openai:c4
    16. AI research evidence record openai:c3
    17. AI research evidence record anthropic:4-4
    18. AI research evidence record anthropic:10-14
    19. AI research evidence record grok:0
    20. AI research evidence record grok:12
    21. AI research evidence record google:1.1.1
    22. AI research evidence record google:2.1.1
    23. AI research evidence record perplexity:c3
    24. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    25. AI research evidence record anthropic:4-1
    26. AI research evidence record deepseek:c1
    27. AI research evidence record grok:7
    28. AI research evidence record perplexity:c2
    29. AI research evidence record kimi:lincoln-official
    30. AI research evidence record google:1.3.3
    31. AI research evidence record openai:c4
    32. AI research evidence record anthropic:8-1
    33. AI research evidence record grok:3
    34. AI research evidence record perplexity:c5
    35. AI research evidence record perplexity:c1
    36. AI research evidence record kimi:riskquoter-hbp-companies
    37. AI research evidence record anthropic:5-1
    38. AI research evidence record anthropic:4-16
    39. AI research evidence record anthropic:3-13
    40. AI research evidence record anthropic:2-6
    41. AI research evidence record anthropic:2-15
    42. AI research evidence record anthropic:18-6
    43. AI research evidence record anthropic:4-1
    44. AI research evidence record anthropic:10-14
    45. AI research evidence record grok:0
    46. AI research evidence record google:2.1.1
    47. AI research evidence record perplexity:c3
    48. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    49. AI research evidence record deepseek:c1
    50. AI research evidence record perplexity:c1
    51. AI research evidence record perplexity:c4
    52. AI research evidence record google:2.2.9
    53. AI research evidence record openai:c3
    54. AI research evidence record openai:c4
    55. AI research evidence record anthropic:2-1
    56. AI research evidence record anthropic:2-2
    57. AI research evidence record perplexity:c5
    58. AI research evidence record openai:c5
    59. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    60. AI research evidence record openai:c2
    61. AI research evidence record anthropic:3-14
    62. AI research evidence record anthropic:3-15
    63. AI research evidence record anthropic:3-16
    64. AI research evidence record anthropic:18-7
    65. AI research evidence record google:1.3.4
    66. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    67. AI research evidence record deepseek:c1
    68. AI research evidence record perplexity:c1
    69. AI research evidence record openai:c2
    70. AI research evidence record anthropic:18-2
    71. AI research evidence record anthropic:19-5
    72. AI research evidence record anthropic:19-9
    73. AI research evidence record anthropic:23-2
    74. AI research evidence record anthropic:23-9
    75. AI research evidence record kimi:planwithphil-rates
    76. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    77. AI research evidence record anthropic:2-4
    78. AI research evidence record anthropic:2-6
    79. AI research evidence record grok:0
    80. AI research evidence record grok:3
    81. AI research evidence record google:1.1.1
    82. AI research evidence record google:2.1.1
    83. AI research evidence record google:2.2.9
    84. AI research evidence record openai:c2
    85. AI research evidence record deepseek:c1
    86. AI research evidence record kimi:riskquoter-hbp-companies
    87. AI research evidence record anthropic:2-4
    88. AI research evidence record kimi:lincoln-official
    89. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    90. AI research evidence record anthropic:5-1
    91. AI research evidence record anthropic:4-16
    92. AI research evidence record anthropic:19-5
    93. AI research evidence record anthropic:19-9
    94. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    95. AI research evidence record anthropic:2-4
    96. AI research evidence record anthropic:22-1
    97. AI research evidence record kimi:riskquoter-hbp-companies
    98. AI research evidence record perplexity:c1
    99. AI research evidence record deepseek:c1
    100. AI research evidence record google:1.3.4
    101. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    102. AI research evidence record anthropic:4-1
    103. AI research evidence record perplexity:c1
    104. AI research evidence record perplexity:c4
    105. AI research evidence record anthropic:19-5
    106. AI research evidence record anthropic:19-9
    107. AI research evidence record anthropic:3-15
    108. AI research evidence record perplexity:c5
    109. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    110. AI research evidence record anthropic:2-6
    111. AI research evidence record anthropic:22-1
    112. AI research evidence record anthropic:23-9
    113. AI research evidence record anthropic:4-1
    114. AI research evidence record anthropic:10-14
    115. AI research evidence record perplexity:c1
    116. AI research evidence record anthropic:19-5
    117. AI research evidence record anthropic:5-1

Independent Sources

Other Sources

  • Additional AI research evidence117 records
    1. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    2. AI research evidence record openai:c4
    3. AI research evidence record openai:c2
    4. AI research evidence record anthropic:19-1
    5. AI research evidence record anthropic:19-6
    6. AI research evidence record anthropic:23-17
    7. AI research evidence record anthropic:22-1
    8. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    9. AI research evidence record anthropic:4-1
    10. AI research evidence record deepseek:c1
    11. AI research evidence record grok:7
    12. AI research evidence record perplexity:c2
    13. AI research evidence record kimi:lincoln-official
    14. AI research evidence record google:1.3.3
    15. AI research evidence record openai:c4
    16. AI research evidence record openai:c3
    17. AI research evidence record anthropic:4-4
    18. AI research evidence record anthropic:10-14
    19. AI research evidence record grok:0
    20. AI research evidence record grok:12
    21. AI research evidence record google:1.1.1
    22. AI research evidence record google:2.1.1
    23. AI research evidence record perplexity:c3
    24. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    25. AI research evidence record anthropic:4-1
    26. AI research evidence record deepseek:c1
    27. AI research evidence record grok:7
    28. AI research evidence record perplexity:c2
    29. AI research evidence record kimi:lincoln-official
    30. AI research evidence record google:1.3.3
    31. AI research evidence record openai:c4
    32. AI research evidence record anthropic:8-1
    33. AI research evidence record grok:3
    34. AI research evidence record perplexity:c5
    35. AI research evidence record perplexity:c1
    36. AI research evidence record kimi:riskquoter-hbp-companies
    37. AI research evidence record anthropic:5-1
    38. AI research evidence record anthropic:4-16
    39. AI research evidence record anthropic:3-13
    40. AI research evidence record anthropic:2-6
    41. AI research evidence record anthropic:2-15
    42. AI research evidence record anthropic:18-6
    43. AI research evidence record anthropic:4-1
    44. AI research evidence record anthropic:10-14
    45. AI research evidence record grok:0
    46. AI research evidence record google:2.1.1
    47. AI research evidence record perplexity:c3
    48. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    49. AI research evidence record deepseek:c1
    50. AI research evidence record perplexity:c1
    51. AI research evidence record perplexity:c4
    52. AI research evidence record google:2.2.9
    53. AI research evidence record openai:c3
    54. AI research evidence record openai:c4
    55. AI research evidence record anthropic:2-1
    56. AI research evidence record anthropic:2-2
    57. AI research evidence record perplexity:c5
    58. AI research evidence record openai:c5
    59. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    60. AI research evidence record openai:c2
    61. AI research evidence record anthropic:3-14
    62. AI research evidence record anthropic:3-15
    63. AI research evidence record anthropic:3-16
    64. AI research evidence record anthropic:18-7
    65. AI research evidence record google:1.3.4
    66. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    67. AI research evidence record deepseek:c1
    68. AI research evidence record perplexity:c1
    69. AI research evidence record openai:c2
    70. AI research evidence record anthropic:18-2
    71. AI research evidence record anthropic:19-5
    72. AI research evidence record anthropic:19-9
    73. AI research evidence record anthropic:23-2
    74. AI research evidence record anthropic:23-9
    75. AI research evidence record kimi:planwithphil-rates
    76. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    77. AI research evidence record anthropic:2-4
    78. AI research evidence record anthropic:2-6
    79. AI research evidence record grok:0
    80. AI research evidence record grok:3
    81. AI research evidence record google:1.1.1
    82. AI research evidence record google:2.1.1
    83. AI research evidence record google:2.2.9
    84. AI research evidence record openai:c2
    85. AI research evidence record deepseek:c1
    86. AI research evidence record kimi:riskquoter-hbp-companies
    87. AI research evidence record anthropic:2-4
    88. AI research evidence record kimi:lincoln-official
    89. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    90. AI research evidence record anthropic:5-1
    91. AI research evidence record anthropic:4-16
    92. AI research evidence record anthropic:19-5
    93. AI research evidence record anthropic:19-9
    94. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    95. AI research evidence record anthropic:2-4
    96. AI research evidence record anthropic:22-1
    97. AI research evidence record kimi:riskquoter-hbp-companies
    98. AI research evidence record perplexity:c1
    99. AI research evidence record deepseek:c1
    100. AI research evidence record google:1.3.4
    101. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    102. AI research evidence record anthropic:4-1
    103. AI research evidence record perplexity:c1
    104. AI research evidence record perplexity:c4
    105. AI research evidence record anthropic:19-5
    106. AI research evidence record anthropic:19-9
    107. AI research evidence record anthropic:3-15
    108. AI research evidence record perplexity:c5
    109. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    110. AI research evidence record anthropic:2-6
    111. AI research evidence record anthropic:22-1
    112. AI research evidence record anthropic:23-9
    113. AI research evidence record anthropic:4-1
    114. AI research evidence record anthropic:10-14
    115. AI research evidence record perplexity:c1
    116. AI research evidence record anthropic:19-5
    117. AI research evidence record anthropic:5-1

Verify this research

Check when the research was run, which platforms were included, and what supports the findings.

Study date
September 22, 2026
Platforms analyzed
7
Source records
35
Ranking mentions
6 of 7
Platform share
86%
Final consensus rank
#2

Behind the findings

Platforms in this study

  • ChatGPT
  • Claude
  • DeepSeek
  • Grok
  • Perplexity
  • Kimi
  • Gemini

Source records

22 independent · 12 company-owned · 1 unclear

Evidence support

28 direct · 7 partial

Keep in mind

Use the run research_date as the study date. Platform-reported dates are provenance metadata and do not independently prove freshness.

Technical verification details

Use this SHA-256 fingerprint to identify the source snapshot associated with this study.

9052cf4c077693a5a8cf99a9c5742c693f1fde1a42f3a965dee46362a4da46e0