Life Insurance
Consensus Index

AI Consensus Fit Review

Lincoln Financial Term Life Insurance Fit Review for $2 Million or More in Coverage

Lincoln Financial is a good fit for a healthy, high-income, nonsmoking 40-year-old seeking $2 million or more of 20-year term coverage, provided the buyer does not live in New York and does not need the absolute lowest verified premium.

Research: 2026-09-207 usable platform responsesRead the methodology ↗

Share

Answer Capsule

Lincoln Financial is a good fit for a healthy, high-income, nonsmoking 40-year-old seeking $2 million or more of 20-year term coverage, provided the buyer does not live in New York and does not need the absolute lowest verified premium. All 7 platforms named Lincoln Financial during the ranking stage, a 100% share of included platform responses, with an average listed rank of 6.29 and a best listed rank of 4. The strongest reason to consider it is the combination of large-face-amount positioning (LifeElements Level Term) and streamlined, potentially lab-free underwriting up to $2.5 million (TermAccel). The main limitation is that no platform verified a buyer-specific Lincoln premium, so price competitiveness remains unproven.

Research Snapshot

FieldFinding
Platform mentions in ranking stage7 of 7 included platforms (anthropic, deepseek, google, grok, kimi, openai, perplexity)
Share of included platform responses100%
Average listed rank6.29
Best listed rank4
Relevant product/model/planLincoln LifeElements Level Term (20-year); Lincoln TermAccel Level Term (20-year, up to $2.5M streamlined)
Overall use-case fitStrong (1 platform); Good (6 platforms) — 7 platforms analyzed
Research date2026-09-20

Why Lincoln Financial Qualified for This Study

Questions This Section Answers

  • Why did Lincoln Financial qualify for a $2 million, 20-year term life insurance comparison?
  • Is Lincoln Financial a legitimate contender for large face amounts of $2 million or more?

Lincoln Financial qualified because every included platform named it during ranking discovery, and each platform then produced a fit assessment for the same buyer profile. The ranking statistics show 7 platform mentions across 7 platforms, a 100% platform share, an average listed rank of 6.29, and a best listed rank of 4.

Qualification was driven by product structure rather than by a verified price advantage. Lincoln markets LifeElements Level Term for larger coverage amounts with dedicated large-case underwriting teams [1], and it markets TermAccel as an automated, fast-coverage option [3]. Lincoln's own materials also describe LincXpress automated underwriting for term insurance up to $2.5 million for ages 18–60 [5], and a distributor PDF described lab-free consideration extended to $2.5 million [6].

The fit ratings were consistent but not unanimous in strength: six platforms rated the fit "good" and grok rated it "strong." That distribution reflects a carrier that is broadly credible for this use case without being the clear leader on any single dimension.

The Product, Model, Plan, or Service Most Relevant to Term Life Insurance for $2 Million or More in Coverage

Questions This Section Answers

  • Which Lincoln Financial product should a buyer choose for $2 million of 20-year term coverage?
  • Is Lincoln TermAccel or Lincoln LifeElements the better fit for a $2 million face amount?
  • What coverage limits apply to Lincoln TermAccel and LifeElements for a $2 million policy?

The most relevant products are Lincoln LifeElements Level Term and Lincoln TermAccel Level Term, both available in 20-year versions. Platforms split on which should be treated as primary.

LifeElements Level Term is the product most platforms treat as the large-case option. It has a $250,000 minimum face amount with a maximum subject to individual consideration and underwriting limits [7], and Lincoln describes it as intended for larger coverage amounts with dedicated large-case underwriting [8]. One independent review described LifeElements as starting at $250K with no stated maximum for financially justified amounts [10], while another source stated medical exams are not required up to age 60 for up to $2.5 million in coverage [12] — an apparent tension with the "no stated maximum" framing that buyers should treat as unresolved.

TermAccel Level Term is the streamlined option. It is described as covering $100,000 to $2.5 million across 10-, 15-, 20-, and 30-year terms [14]. For a $2 million need, TermAccel is structurally eligible, but it is designed for simpler profiles and its automated rules may not accept every applicant [7].

Platforms disagreed on which product applies at exactly $2 million. OpenAI treated LifeElements as the more clearly aligned primary product and TermAccel as a streamlined alternative [7]. Anthropic stated that for exactly $2M both products work, with TermAccel offering faster approval and LifeElements offering more flexible underwriting [14]. Deepseek described TermAccel as a streamlined product with higher amounts potentially requiring full underwriting [19]. Buyers should confirm product assignment with a licensed professional rather than assume either path.

What the AI Platforms Agreed About

Questions This Section Answers

  • What do AI platforms agree on about Lincoln Financial for $2 million term coverage?
  • Does Lincoln Financial offer 20-year term coverage of $2 million or more?

Agreement was strong on four points and mixed on a fifth.

Coverage capacity. All platforms agreed Lincoln's term products can accommodate a $2 million face amount. TermAccel is consistently described with a $2.5 million maximum [20], and LifeElements is described as starting at $250,000 with a maximum subject to underwriting [24].

20-year term availability. Platforms agreed both products offer 20-year level term. LifeElements lists 20-year issue ages for non-tobacco applicants up to 70 nationally [26], and TermAccel lists 20-year issue ages up to 60 for non-tobacco classes [21]. A 40-year-old fits both bands.

Streamlined underwriting. Platforms agreed Lincoln markets automated and potentially lab-free underwriting up to $2.5 million. Lincoln's LincXpress process supports term applications up to $2.5 million for ages 18–60 [27], and a Business Wire release described expanded automated underwriting and lab-free eligibility to $2.5 million [28].

Conversion availability. Platforms agreed term policies are convertible to qualifying Lincoln permanent policies without new underwriting, generally before the end of the level premium period or attained age 70, whichever comes first [24].

Price competitiveness. This is where agreement weakened. Lincoln's own materials use favorable language about competitive premiums for larger amounts [24], and one distributor pricing update described Lincoln competing to be a "top 3 carrier" for non-tobacco ages 30+ at $1M+ face amounts [31]. But no platform verified a buyer-specific Lincoln quote, and several platforms stated Lincoln is not the price leader [33].

Where the AI Platforms Disagreed or Were Uncertain

Questions This Section Answers

  • What is uncertain about Lincoln Financial's pricing for a $2 million, 20-year term policy?
  • Are Lincoln Financial's conversion options for term life insurance limited after a certain policy year?

Disagreement and uncertainty clustered in five areas.

Pricing. No platform produced a verified Lincoln quote for a healthy 40-year-old nonsmoker at $2 million for 20 years. Reported figures conflict: one review reported sample monthly premiums of $108.96 for men and $81.17 for women at $2 million [35]; another source listed Lincoln TermAccel at $97.54/month for a 45-year-old [37]; and aggregate multi-carrier averages of $161/month female and $209/month male blend ages and health classes [38]. Grok reported sample $2M 20-year TermAccel rates of roughly $81/month female and $109/month male preferred at age 40 [39]. These figures are not reconcilable into a single expected premium.

Underwriting path at $2 million. Platforms disagreed on whether a $2 million application uses streamlined or full underwriting. OpenAI said LifeElements full underwriting may be required [40]; deepseek stated $2 million typically requires full underwriting including a medical exam [37]; anthropic said no exams are required for qualified applicants up to $2.5 million [41]; perplexity said the exact qualifying criteria for a $2 million case were not fully visible in public materials [43].

Underwriting speed. Reported timelines conflict. One 2019 Lincoln agent FAQ cited an average of less than 20 days from eTicket submission to policy issuance [44], while more recent sources describe 1–2 business days for lab-free approval and 2–6 weeks total when labs are required [45]. Grok described decisions in 1–7 days [39]. The conflict appears to reflect process changes over time rather than a single current standard.

Conversion menu. Platforms agreed conversion exists but disagreed on its breadth. Google stated full portfolio access (UL, IUL, VUL) is restricted to the first 7 policy years, with a limited conversion portfolio afterward [47]. OpenAI described conversion portfolio restrictions and a distinction between full and limited permanent-product portfolios by policy year [49]. Kimi stated conversion is limited to VUL and IUL with no traditional whole life option [50]. Perplexity noted public evidence that conversion rules changed for older term blocks issued before September 12, 2016 [51].

TermAccel lifetime limit. One source described a one-time lifetime limit of $1 million total TermAccel coverage per person, with higher amounts requiring LifeElements [53]. This conflicts with the $2.5 million maximum described elsewhere and was not resolved in the supplied research.

Use-Case-Specific Features and Capabilities

Questions This Section Answers

  • What underwriting features does Lincoln Financial offer for a healthy 40-year-old seeking $2 million of term coverage?
  • How does Lincoln Financial's term conversion option work for a $2 million policy?

Large-case underwriting support. LifeElements Level Term features dedicated underwriting teams specializing in large cases [54], and Lincoln explicitly positions the product for larger coverage amounts [56].

Automated and lab-free underwriting. Lincoln's LincXpress process supports term applications up to $2.5 million for ages 18–60 with automated underwriting and a possible lab-free process for qualifying applicants in excellent health [57]. A distributor PDF stated TermAccel had streamlined electronic underwriting with no APS requirement and lab-free consideration extended to $2.5 million [58]. A Business Wire release described expanded automated underwriting and lab-free eligibility to $2.5 million [59].

Conversion without new underwriting. LifeElements may be converted to qualifying Lincoln permanent policies without new underwriting before the end of the level-premium period or attained age 70, whichever comes first [56]. TermAccel also includes conversion rights [62].

Post-level-period mechanics. After the selected level term, premiums increase annually if coverage continues, and the product includes a one-time face-amount decrease after the level premium period [56]. Grok described renewability to age 95 with increasing premiums [64].

Underwriting flexibility for controlled conditions. One review described Lincoln as sensible on well-controlled health conditions including sleep apnea with CPAP compliance, managed blood pressure and cholesterol, and controlled anxiety or depression [65]. This is a single-platform characterization and should be treated as platform-reported.

Distribution. Policies are distributed exclusively through licensed financial professionals and independent brokers, with no direct online purchase [66].

Pricing, Fees, Contracts, and Ongoing Costs

Questions This Section Answers

  • How much does Lincoln Financial cost per month for a $2 million, 20-year term policy at age 40?
  • What policy fees does Lincoln Financial charge on LifeElements and TermAccel term policies?

No verified Lincoln premium exists for this buyer profile. What follows is what platforms reported, with conflicts preserved.

Reported premium samples. A third-party review reported sample 20-year $2 million premiums at age 40 of $108.96/month for men and $81.17/month for women [68]. Grok reported sample $2M 20-year TermAccel rates of approximately $81/month female and $109/month male preferred at age 40 [70]. Deepseek estimated $110–$160/month for TermAccel and $120–$180/month for LifeElements with a conversion extension rider, derived from benchmarks rather than a Lincoln quote [71]. Anthropic cited a market range of $110–$190/month for a healthy nonsmoking 40-year-old at $2 million [72]. Kimi cited a market range of roughly $126–$245/month for men and $99–$178/month for women [74].

Policy fees. Reported annual policy fees conflict. OpenAI cited a $70 annual policy fee for LifeElements at face amounts of $1 million or more [75]. Anthropic cited $80–$90 for TermAccel and $90 for LifeElements [76]. Grok cited $70–$90 depending on face amount band [78]. Google cited a $90 annual policy fee for face amounts of $250,000 and above on both products [79]. Perplexity stated no public policy fee was verified in the sources it checked [80].

Contract terms. Level premiums are guaranteed for the selected 20-year period [75]. Coverage can expire if required premiums are not paid or are insufficient to continue coverage [75]. Face-amount decreases are allowed beginning in year four, subject to the policy's minimum face-amount requirement [75]. Conversion is permitted only within the stated window and to qualifying Lincoln permanent policies available at conversion [75].

Riders. Optional riders include waiver of premium, children's level term coverage, and an accelerated death benefit rider [75]. OpenAI noted an accelerated-benefit rider may impose a one-time charge if exercised [75], while anthropic described the Accelerated Death Benefits Rider as included at no extra charge on term policies [76]. This conflict is unresolved.

Pricing confidence. Platforms reported moderate pricing confidence overall, with perplexity reporting low confidence [80]. No platform verified a Lincoln-specific quote for this profile.

Best Suited For

Questions This Section Answers

  • Who is Lincoln Financial best suited for when buying $2 million of 20-year term life insurance?
  • Is Lincoln Financial a good choice for a healthy nonsmoker who wants fast underwriting at $2 million?

Lincoln Financial is best suited for a healthy, high-income, nonsmoking 40-year-old who wants $2 million or more of 20-year term coverage, lives outside New York, and values streamlined underwriting plus conversion flexibility over the absolute lowest verified premium.

Platforms converged on these buyer profiles: applicants seeking $2 million or more with a carrier that explicitly markets large-case underwriting support [82]; healthy applicants who may qualify for streamlined or lab-free underwriting up to $2.5 million [83]; buyers who value converting term coverage to qualifying Lincoln permanent insurance without new underwriting [82]; and buyers who want a recognized carrier with strong financial strength ratings [86].

Grok rated the fit "strong" specifically for healthy applicants ages 18–60 wanting fast no-exam underwriting up to $2.5 million and competitive pricing at $500K+ face amounts [88]. The remaining six platforms rated the fit "good."

Probably Not Best Suited For

Questions This Section Answers

  • Who should not choose Lincoln Financial for $2 million of 20-year term life insurance?
  • Is Lincoln Financial a poor fit for buyers who want the cheapest possible $2 million term policy?

Lincoln Financial is probably not the best fit for four buyer types, and platforms were consistent on these exclusions.

New York residents. The cited LifeElements and TermAccel term products are identified as unavailable in New York [89]. In New York, LifeElements is described as available only for contractual obligations in 1-year and 10-year term lengths [92].

Price-first buyers. Buyers selecting solely on lowest premium without obtaining competing quotes are not well served, because Lincoln does not publish individualized premiums and public materials do not establish that its rates are lowest [89]. Deepseek named Penn Mutual, Banner Life, and Protective Life as appearing at the top of cheapest-rate tables for $2 million coverage [93].

Buyers wanting a fully digital, instant-issue experience. Lincoln requires a financial professional or broker and offers no direct online purchase [95]. Competitors such as Ladder offer no-exam term coverage up to $3 million with online issuance [97].

Buyers needing coverage well above $2.5 million with streamlined underwriting. TermAccel caps at $2.5 million, and above that amount LifeElements with slower underwriting is required [99].

Buyers wanting traditional whole life as a conversion target. One platform stated Lincoln's permanent conversion options are VUL and IUL only, with no traditional participating whole life [96].

When Another Option May Be Better

Questions This Section Answers

  • What is a better alternative to Lincoln Financial for a buyer who needs no-exam coverage above $2.5 million?
  • When should a buyer choose a different carrier than Lincoln Financial for a $2 million term policy?

Another carrier may be better in five specific situations.

When a competing carrier offers a materially lower medically underwritten premium for the same $2 million, 20-year, nonsmoker risk class [101]. Deepseek named Penn Mutual, Banner Life, and Protective Life as lower-cost alternatives based on publicly reported averages [102], and kimi cited Banner Life and Protective Life as saving $2–4/month for pristine health buyers willing to take a medical exam [103].

When the applicant's circumstances are likely to fail automated TermAccel rules and another carrier offers more favorable manual underwriting [101]. TermAccel is designed for simpler profiles, and complex medical histories route to LifeElements with a longer timeline [104].

When the buyer needs coverage above $2.5 million with streamlined underwriting [106]. Competitor accelerated programs may have different limits, and traditional underwriting competitors may be faster for very high amounts [107].

When the buyer wants a fully digital, direct-to-consumer purchase [108]. Ladder offers no-exam term coverage up to $3 million with instant online issuance and adjustable coverage [109].

When the buyer wants traditional whole life as a conversion target [103]. MassMutual, Guardian, and MetLife were named as offering whole life conversion options [107].

When the buyer lives in New York [101]. Guardian, NY Life, and Mass Mutual were named as alternatives for New York residents [107].

Questions to Verify Before Buying

Questions This Section Answers

  • What should a buyer confirm with Lincoln Financial before signing a $2 million term life insurance contract?
  • Which Lincoln Financial underwriting path applies to a $2 million application?

The following verification items come directly from platform-reported questions and limitations. Buyers should treat each as unresolved until confirmed in writing.

Premium and fees. Confirm the fully underwritten annual premium, including the annual policy fee, for $2 million and for higher amounts such as $2.5 million [113]. Confirm the exact monthly premium for a 20-year, $2 million TermAccel or LifeElements policy for the buyer's age, health class, and state of residence [114]. Confirm whether the policy fee is $70, $80–$90, or $90, since platforms reported conflicting figures [113].

Underwriting path. Confirm whether the applicant will qualify for TermAccel, LincXpress, automated underwriting, or lab-free underwriting at the requested face amount [113]. Confirm whether a medical exam is required for $2 million coverage on TermAccel, or whether an accelerated underwriting option without a paramedical visit applies [115]. If TermAccel is declined, confirm whether the case can move to LifeElements full underwriting without restarting unnecessarily, and what medical records or APS requirements would apply [113].

Underwriting class. Confirm the underwriting class and final premium available for the applicant's health history, family history, build, occupation, travel, and avocations [113].

Conversion terms. Confirm which permanent products are currently available for conversion in the buyer's state during policy years 1–7 and years 8–20 [113]. Confirm whether the policy permits conversion of the full face amount, and whether there are deadlines, minimum amounts, rider restrictions, or product exclusions [113]. Confirm whether a conversion extension rider is available on TermAccel or only on LifeElements [115].

Post-term mechanics. Confirm the exact post-year-20 premiums and the one-time face-amount decrease under the proposed policy illustration [113].

Financial strength. Confirm the insurer's current financial-strength profile and claims-paying assessment from independent rating agencies [113]. Platforms reported conflicting ratings: kimi cited an AM Best rating of A, one notch below A+ carriers [119], while google cited AM Best A and S&P A+ [123].

Distribution costs. Confirm total costs from the financial professional or broker, including advisor fees, commissions, and administrative charges, in addition to Lincoln's policy premiums and annual fees [114].

State availability. Confirm whether any state restrictions apply beyond New York, and whether all available riders are offered in the buyer's state for the requested coverage amount [114].

Final AI Consensus Verdict

Lincoln Financial is a good fit for a healthy, high-income, nonsmoking 40-year-old seeking $2 million or more of 20-year term coverage, with the fit strongest for buyers who prioritize streamlined underwriting and conversion flexibility over the lowest verified premium.

The consensus rests on structural strengths rather than verified pricing. All 7 platforms named Lincoln Financial, and all 7 produced a fit assessment. Six rated the fit "good" and one rated it "strong." Platforms agreed the products support $2 million, offer 20-year terms, provide automated or lab-free underwriting up to $2.5 million for qualifying applicants, and include conversion rights without new underwriting.

The consensus is limited by unresolved conflicts. No platform verified a buyer-specific Lincoln premium. Reported sample premiums range from roughly $81 to $209 per month depending on source, age, gender, and health class. Policy fees are reported as $70, $80–$90, or $90. Underwriting timelines are reported as 1–2 days, 1–7 days, under 20 days, or 2–6 weeks. Conversion breadth is disputed, with one platform stating full portfolio access ends after policy year 7 and another stating conversion is limited to VUL and IUL with no whole life option.

Platform agreement does not establish product quality or price competitiveness. Buyers should obtain competing quotes from at least two other carriers, confirm the applicable underwriting path and conversion menu in writing, and verify state availability before applying.

How This Review Was Produced

This review was produced from a structured multi-platform research run dated 2026-09-20. Seven AI platforms — anthropic, deepseek, google, grok, kimi, openai, and perplexity — were asked which life insurance carriers they would recommend for a healthy high-income nonsmoking 40-year-old seeking at least $2 million of 20-year term coverage to replace income and protect family, with stated priorities of competitive pricing, carriers comfortable with larger face amounts, efficient financial and medical underwriting, and strong conversion options.

Lincoln Financial was named by all 7 platforms during ranking discovery, meeting the minimum-mention threshold of 2. Each platform then produced a fit assessment covering product fit, underwriting, conversion, pricing, limitations, and verification questions. Those outputs were aggregated into this report.

Platform-reported research dates were 2026-09-21 for all seven platforms, one day after the authoritative run research date of 2026-09-20. Platform-reported dates are provenance metadata and do not independently prove freshness.

The consensus index for this category is available at Term Life Insurance for $2 Million or More in Coverage.

Buyers comparing carriers across the broader market can also review the life insurance category directory.

Methodology Limitations

Several limitations apply to this review.

Citations are platform-reported evidence, not independently verified facts. The supplied URLs were collected from platform responses and were not independently validated by the writer stage. No claim in this report should be treated as independently confirmed.

No buyer-specific quote was verified. Lincoln does not publish a universal premium grid for this profile on the product pages checked, so exact cost is unclear and quote-dependent [125].

Platform-reported research dates differ from the authoritative run date. All seven platforms reported 2026-09-21, while the run research date is 2026-09-20. This discrepancy is disclosed rather than resolved.

Conflicting product names, pricing, and capabilities were preserved rather than resolved. Where platforms disagreed on policy fees, underwriting timelines, conversion breadth, or TermAccel lifetime limits, this report describes the conflict and directs buyers to verify.

One platform ran without search enabled. Deepseek's research capability record shows search_enabled as false, so its claims are model-reported rather than retrieved. Deepseek's pricing estimates were explicitly described as interpolated from age-45 rates and aggregate averages [127].

Company-owned evidence is distinguished from independent evidence. Lincoln's own materials use favorable language about competitive premiums and fast processing, but no independent comparison or individualized quote was verified [126]. Company claims are labeled as such throughout.

Platform agreement does not prove product quality. The fact that all seven platforms named Lincoln Financial reflects its market presence and product structure, not verified superiority on price or underwriting outcomes.

Maximum face amount is not a universal figure. Lincoln states the LifeElements maximum is subject to individual consideration and underwriting limits [126], and one source stated medical exams are not required up to $2.5 million, implying a possible underwriting threshold at that level [128].

Sources

Company-Owned Sources

Independent Sources

  • 2 Million Life Insurance: Cost, Coverage & Need | Gerald: https://joingerald.com/learn/financial-wellness/2-million-life-insurance-cost-coverage
  • 2 Million Life Insurance: Costs & Who Needs It | Gerald: https://joingerald.com/learn/financial-wellness/2-million-life-insurance-guide
  • Lincoln Financial Life Insurance Review (2026) | Mozdex: https://mozdex.com/lincoln-financial-life-insurance-review/
  • Lincoln Financial Life Insurance Review: 2026 Pros, Cons, and Coverage: https://rateschaser.com/life-insurance/reviews/lincoln-financial-life-insurance/
  • Lincoln Financial Life Insurance Review (2026): Pros & Cons: https://www.ethos.com/life-insurance/lincoln-financial-life-insurance-review/
  • How Much Does $2 Million Term Life Insurance Cost at Age 45? (Full 2025 Market Rates: https://www.lifestein.com/post/how-much-does-2-million-term-life-insurance-cost-at-age-45-full-2025-market-rates
  • How Much Does a $2 Million Life Insurance Policy Cost? (2026 Rates: https://www.moneygeek.com/insurance/life/rates/two-million/
  • Lincoln Financial Life Insurance Review 2026: https://www.moneygeek.com/insurance/life/reviews/lincoln-financial/
  • Ladder Life Insurance Review 2026: Pros & Cons - NerdWallet: https://www.nerdwallet.com/insurance/life/ladder-life-insurance-review
  • Lincoln Financial Life Insurance: How Their Products & Underwriting Compare: https://www.riskquoter.com/lincoln-financial-life-insurance/
  • Lincoln Financial Group Life Insurance Review for 2026 | U.S. News: https://www.usnews.com/insurance/life-insurance/lincoln-financial
  • Additional AI research evidence128 records
    1. AI research evidence record anthropic:c20
    2. AI research evidence record google:1.2.1
    3. AI research evidence record openai:c3
    4. AI research evidence record perplexity:c2
    5. AI research evidence record openai:c2
    6. AI research evidence record perplexity:c6
    7. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    8. AI research evidence record anthropic:c20
    9. AI research evidence record google:1.2.1
    10. AI research evidence record anthropic:c2
    11. AI research evidence record anthropic:c3
    12. AI research evidence record anthropic:c5
    13. AI research evidence record anthropic:c6
    14. AI research evidence record anthropic:c1
    15. AI research evidence record perplexity:c1
    16. AI research evidence record grok:web:25
    17. AI research evidence record anthropic:c7
    18. AI research evidence record openai:c3
    19. AI research evidence record deepseek:c1
    20. AI research evidence record anthropic:c1
    21. AI research evidence record perplexity:c1
    22. AI research evidence record grok:web:25
    23. AI research evidence record google:1.3.5
    24. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    25. AI research evidence record anthropic:c2
    26. AI research evidence record perplexity:c3
    27. AI research evidence record openai:c2
    28. AI research evidence record perplexity:c8
    29. AI research evidence record anthropic:c10
    30. AI research evidence record perplexity:c15
    31. AI research evidence record anthropic:c12
    32. AI research evidence record google:1.2.6
    33. AI research evidence record deepseek:c1
    34. AI research evidence record kimi:mozdex
    35. AI research evidence record perplexity:c4
    36. AI research evidence record grok:web:1
    37. AI research evidence record deepseek:c2
    38. AI research evidence record deepseek:c1
    39. AI research evidence record grok:web:0
    40. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    41. AI research evidence record anthropic:c5
    42. AI research evidence record anthropic:c6
    43. AI research evidence record perplexity:c10
    44. AI research evidence record anthropic:c8
    45. AI research evidence record anthropic:c7
    46. AI research evidence record anthropic:c9
    47. AI research evidence record google:1.2.4
    48. AI research evidence record google:1.3.8
    49. AI research evidence record openai:c4
    50. AI research evidence record kimi:mozdex
    51. AI research evidence record perplexity:c5
    52. AI research evidence record perplexity:c12
    53. AI research evidence record anthropic:c15
    54. AI research evidence record anthropic:c20
    55. AI research evidence record google:1.2.1
    56. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    57. AI research evidence record openai:c2
    58. AI research evidence record perplexity:c6
    59. AI research evidence record perplexity:c8
    60. AI research evidence record anthropic:c10
    61. AI research evidence record perplexity:c15
    62. AI research evidence record anthropic:c11
    63. AI research evidence record google:1.3.4
    64. AI research evidence record grok:web:25
    65. AI research evidence record kimi:mozdex
    66. AI research evidence record anthropic:c21
    67. AI research evidence record grok:web:0
    68. AI research evidence record perplexity:c4
    69. AI research evidence record grok:web:1
    70. AI research evidence record grok:web:0
    71. AI research evidence record deepseek:c1
    72. AI research evidence record anthropic:c13
    73. AI research evidence record anthropic:c14
    74. AI research evidence record kimi:moneygeek
    75. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    76. AI research evidence record anthropic:c15
    77. AI research evidence record anthropic:c16
    78. AI research evidence record grok:web:25
    79. AI research evidence record google:1.3.5
    80. AI research evidence record perplexity:c1
    81. AI research evidence record openai:c4
    82. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    83. AI research evidence record openai:c2
    84. AI research evidence record perplexity:c6
    85. AI research evidence record anthropic:c10
    86. AI research evidence record deepseek:c4
    87. AI research evidence record google:1.1.7
    88. AI research evidence record grok:web:0
    89. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    90. AI research evidence record anthropic:c17
    91. AI research evidence record google:1.1.1
    92. AI research evidence record anthropic:c19
    93. AI research evidence record deepseek:c1
    94. AI research evidence record kimi:moneygeek
    95. AI research evidence record anthropic:c21
    96. AI research evidence record kimi:mozdex
    97. AI research evidence record deepseek:c5
    98. AI research evidence record kimi:nerdwallet
    99. AI research evidence record anthropic:c1
    100. AI research evidence record perplexity:c1
    101. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    102. AI research evidence record deepseek:c1
    103. AI research evidence record kimi:mozdex
    104. AI research evidence record anthropic:c7
    105. AI research evidence record anthropic:c9
    106. AI research evidence record perplexity:c1
    107. AI research evidence record anthropic:c1
    108. AI research evidence record anthropic:c21
    109. AI research evidence record deepseek:c5
    110. AI research evidence record kimi:nerdwallet
    111. AI research evidence record anthropic:c17
    112. AI research evidence record google:1.1.1
    113. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    114. AI research evidence record anthropic:c1
    115. AI research evidence record deepseek:c1
    116. AI research evidence record anthropic:c15
    117. AI research evidence record google:1.3.5
    118. AI research evidence record perplexity:c1
    119. AI research evidence record kimi:mozdex
    120. AI research evidence record google:1.2.4
    121. AI research evidence record perplexity:c12
    122. AI research evidence record grok:web:25
    123. AI research evidence record google:1.1.7
    124. AI research evidence record anthropic:c19
    125. AI research evidence record perplexity:c1
    126. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    127. AI research evidence record deepseek:c1
    128. AI research evidence record anthropic:c5

Other Sources

  • Additional AI research evidence128 records
    1. AI research evidence record anthropic:c20
    2. AI research evidence record google:1.2.1
    3. AI research evidence record openai:c3
    4. AI research evidence record perplexity:c2
    5. AI research evidence record openai:c2
    6. AI research evidence record perplexity:c6
    7. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    8. AI research evidence record anthropic:c20
    9. AI research evidence record google:1.2.1
    10. AI research evidence record anthropic:c2
    11. AI research evidence record anthropic:c3
    12. AI research evidence record anthropic:c5
    13. AI research evidence record anthropic:c6
    14. AI research evidence record anthropic:c1
    15. AI research evidence record perplexity:c1
    16. AI research evidence record grok:web:25
    17. AI research evidence record anthropic:c7
    18. AI research evidence record openai:c3
    19. AI research evidence record deepseek:c1
    20. AI research evidence record anthropic:c1
    21. AI research evidence record perplexity:c1
    22. AI research evidence record grok:web:25
    23. AI research evidence record google:1.3.5
    24. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    25. AI research evidence record anthropic:c2
    26. AI research evidence record perplexity:c3
    27. AI research evidence record openai:c2
    28. AI research evidence record perplexity:c8
    29. AI research evidence record anthropic:c10
    30. AI research evidence record perplexity:c15
    31. AI research evidence record anthropic:c12
    32. AI research evidence record google:1.2.6
    33. AI research evidence record deepseek:c1
    34. AI research evidence record kimi:mozdex
    35. AI research evidence record perplexity:c4
    36. AI research evidence record grok:web:1
    37. AI research evidence record deepseek:c2
    38. AI research evidence record deepseek:c1
    39. AI research evidence record grok:web:0
    40. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    41. AI research evidence record anthropic:c5
    42. AI research evidence record anthropic:c6
    43. AI research evidence record perplexity:c10
    44. AI research evidence record anthropic:c8
    45. AI research evidence record anthropic:c7
    46. AI research evidence record anthropic:c9
    47. AI research evidence record google:1.2.4
    48. AI research evidence record google:1.3.8
    49. AI research evidence record openai:c4
    50. AI research evidence record kimi:mozdex
    51. AI research evidence record perplexity:c5
    52. AI research evidence record perplexity:c12
    53. AI research evidence record anthropic:c15
    54. AI research evidence record anthropic:c20
    55. AI research evidence record google:1.2.1
    56. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    57. AI research evidence record openai:c2
    58. AI research evidence record perplexity:c6
    59. AI research evidence record perplexity:c8
    60. AI research evidence record anthropic:c10
    61. AI research evidence record perplexity:c15
    62. AI research evidence record anthropic:c11
    63. AI research evidence record google:1.3.4
    64. AI research evidence record grok:web:25
    65. AI research evidence record kimi:mozdex
    66. AI research evidence record anthropic:c21
    67. AI research evidence record grok:web:0
    68. AI research evidence record perplexity:c4
    69. AI research evidence record grok:web:1
    70. AI research evidence record grok:web:0
    71. AI research evidence record deepseek:c1
    72. AI research evidence record anthropic:c13
    73. AI research evidence record anthropic:c14
    74. AI research evidence record kimi:moneygeek
    75. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    76. AI research evidence record anthropic:c15
    77. AI research evidence record anthropic:c16
    78. AI research evidence record grok:web:25
    79. AI research evidence record google:1.3.5
    80. AI research evidence record perplexity:c1
    81. AI research evidence record openai:c4
    82. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    83. AI research evidence record openai:c2
    84. AI research evidence record perplexity:c6
    85. AI research evidence record anthropic:c10
    86. AI research evidence record deepseek:c4
    87. AI research evidence record google:1.1.7
    88. AI research evidence record grok:web:0
    89. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    90. AI research evidence record anthropic:c17
    91. AI research evidence record google:1.1.1
    92. AI research evidence record anthropic:c19
    93. AI research evidence record deepseek:c1
    94. AI research evidence record kimi:moneygeek
    95. AI research evidence record anthropic:c21
    96. AI research evidence record kimi:mozdex
    97. AI research evidence record deepseek:c5
    98. AI research evidence record kimi:nerdwallet
    99. AI research evidence record anthropic:c1
    100. AI research evidence record perplexity:c1
    101. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    102. AI research evidence record deepseek:c1
    103. AI research evidence record kimi:mozdex
    104. AI research evidence record anthropic:c7
    105. AI research evidence record anthropic:c9
    106. AI research evidence record perplexity:c1
    107. AI research evidence record anthropic:c1
    108. AI research evidence record anthropic:c21
    109. AI research evidence record deepseek:c5
    110. AI research evidence record kimi:nerdwallet
    111. AI research evidence record anthropic:c17
    112. AI research evidence record google:1.1.1
    113. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    114. AI research evidence record anthropic:c1
    115. AI research evidence record deepseek:c1
    116. AI research evidence record anthropic:c15
    117. AI research evidence record google:1.3.5
    118. AI research evidence record perplexity:c1
    119. AI research evidence record kimi:mozdex
    120. AI research evidence record google:1.2.4
    121. AI research evidence record perplexity:c12
    122. AI research evidence record grok:web:25
    123. AI research evidence record google:1.1.7
    124. AI research evidence record anthropic:c19
    125. AI research evidence record perplexity:c1
    126. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    127. AI research evidence record deepseek:c1
    128. AI research evidence record anthropic:c5

Verify this research

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

Study date
September 20, 2026
Platforms analyzed
7
Source records
33
Ranking mentions
7 of 7
Platform share
100%
Final consensus rank
#3

Behind the findings

Platforms in this study

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

Source records

16 independent · 12 company-owned · 5 unclear

Evidence support

17 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.

e78d69be942e5a01a34917c84d39a649230db08c902d7693209daccce127b6d0