Life Insurance
Consensus Index

AI Consensus Fit Review

Royal Neighbors of America Simplified-Issue Whole Life Insurance Fit Review

Royal Neighbors of America is a good fit for Simplified-Issue Whole Life Insurance, but not a unanimous best fit.

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

Share

Answer Capsule

Royal Neighbors of America is a good fit for Simplified-Issue Whole Life Insurance, but not a unanimous best fit. Two of seven platforms named it during the ranking stage (google and kimi), giving it a 28.6% share of included platform responses, an average listed rank of 4.0, and a best listed rank of 3. The strongest reason to consider it is direct product alignment: the Ensured Legacy suite includes a specifically identified Simplified Issue Whole Life form (Form Series 211311) with health-question underwriting and no traditional medical exam. The main limitation is that SIWL-specific pricing, exact face-amount caps, issue ages, questionnaire content, and cash-value guarantees were not fully verified from public official consumer materials.

Research Snapshot

FieldFinding
Platform mentions in ranking stage2 of 7 platforms (google, kimi)
Share of included platform responses28.6%
Average listed rank4.0
Best listed rank3 (google)
Relevant product/model/planEnsured Legacy Final Expense — Simplified Issue Whole Life (SIWL), Form Series 211311
Overall use-case fitStrong (2 platforms); Good (4 platforms); Uncertain (1 platform) — 7 platforms analyzed
Research date2026-09-20

Why Royal Neighbors of America Qualified for This Study

Questions This Section Answers

  • Is Royal Neighbors of America a good choice for Simplified-Issue Whole Life Insurance?
  • Why did only two AI platforms name Royal Neighbors of America in the ranking stage?

Royal Neighbors of America qualified because it directly offers the requested product category, not because it dominated the ranking stage. Only two of seven platforms named the carrier during ranking discovery — google at rank 3 and kimi at rank 5 — producing a 28.6% platform share and an average listed rank of 4.0 [1]. That is a limited mention footprint relative to a full field, and it should be read as partial visibility rather than broad consensus.

The qualification rests on product match. Royal Neighbors markets the Ensured Legacy Final Expense suite, which includes a specifically identified Simplified Issue Whole Life form, Form Series 211311, alongside graded and guaranteed-issue versions [3]. The company describes Ensured Legacy as permanent coverage with an advertised $5,000–$40,000 suite range and state availability disclosures [3].

Carrier credibility was a secondary factor. Royal Neighbors' own website reports an A (Excellent) A.M. Best financial-strength rating as of December 11, 2025 [5]. That is company-reported and should be confirmed directly through A.M. Best before purchase.

Independent complaint evidence is thin but available. A Michigan Department of Insurance complaint-statistics page lists 10 life complaints for Royal Neighbors in calendar year 2024, including six categorized as marketing and sales, three as customer service, and one as claim handling [7]. This is one state's data and is not a national complaint index or a product-specific outcome measure.

The Product, Model, Plan, or Service Most Relevant to Simplified-Issue Whole Life Insurance

Questions This Section Answers

  • Which Royal Neighbors of America plan should a buyer choose if they want simplified-issue whole life with no medical exam?
  • What coverage amounts and issue ages does the Ensured Legacy Simplified Issue Whole Life form offer?

The relevant product is Ensured Legacy Final Expense, specifically the Simplified Issue Whole Life (SIWL) tier, Form Series 211311 [8]. It sits inside a three-path suite: simplified issue, graded death benefit, and guaranteed issue [9].

Coverage and eligibility figures conflict across sources and should be treated as unconfirmed until quoted. The company advertises $5,000–$40,000 for the Ensured Legacy suite but does not separately state the current SIWL range [8]. Independent sources variously report SIWL at $5,000–$40,000 ages 50–85 [11], $5,000–$25,000 [13], and $7,000–$50,000 [14]. One older portfolio document reports a lower ceiling [15]. Google's platform output states the simplified-issue maximum is capped at $40,000 [16].

Underwriting is described as health-question based with no medical exam. Independent reviews state SIWL requires no medical exam and determines eligibility through health questions only [17], with level death benefit and immediate coverage with no waiting period for qualified applicants [18]. One platform notes the carrier reserves the right to request a Physician's Statement [20]. Royal Neighbors' reviewed consumer page does not expressly guarantee that no exam, records request, or additional underwriting requirement can ever occur [8].

What the AI Platforms Agreed About

Questions This Section Answers

  • What do AI platforms agree on about Royal Neighbors of America for Simplified-Issue Whole Life Insurance?
  • Is Royal Neighbors of America's Ensured Legacy SIWL permanent coverage with level premiums?

Agreement was strong on product structure and mixed on everything else. Five of seven platforms rated the fit "good," two rated it "strong," and one rated it "uncertain."

Platforms agreed the product is permanent whole life with level premiums. Multiple independent reviews describe guaranteed level premiums for life and cash value accumulation [21]. Whole life is permanent coverage with level premiums and a guaranteed death benefit as a general product category [25].

Platforms agreed underwriting is simplified and exam-free. SIWL requires no medical exam, with eligibility determined through health questions [26]. One platform describes simplified underwriting using health questions, a build chart, and Rx/MIB review with no exam or phone interview required [28].

Platforms agreed on the carrier's financial-strength signal, though sourcing differs. Royal Neighbors' website reports an A (Excellent) rating as of December 11, 2025 [29]. A.M. Best's own news release describes an upgrade to A with a stable outlook [30]. One independent review describes the rating as third-highest of 13 [31].

Platforms agreed on state availability limits. Royal Neighbors states it is licensed in all states and the District of Columbia except Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York, and that products and contractual provisions vary by state [32].

Where the AI Platforms Disagreed or Were Uncertain

Questions This Section Answers

  • What is the maximum face amount for Royal Neighbors of America's Simplified Issue Whole Life, and why do sources disagree?
  • Does Royal Neighbors of America's SIWL require a phone interview or additional underwriting?

Face-amount limits are the largest unresolved conflict. Public sources report SIWL ceilings of $25,000, $40,000, and $50,000 depending on source and tier [34]. Google's output attributes the $40,000 cap to the current Ensured Legacy series and notes older marketing documents showed $25,000 [38]. Perplexity explicitly flags this as a conflict requiring a written quote [39].

Issue-age boundaries also vary. Most sources place final-expense SIWL at ages 50–85 [42], while one source references ages 50–75 for a "Simplified Senior Whole Life" product [36]. Google states ages 50–85 by age last birthday [43].

The phone-interview question is unresolved. Most materials state no phone interview for SIWL underwriting [44], but some sources reference a brief underwriter call or agent interview as part of the application process [45]. One platform notes the carrier reserves the right to request a Physician's Statement [43].

Pricing is not publicly standardized. No current public consumer rate table or individualized premium was verified [46]. One third-party review reports a monthly certificate fee of $4.35, unverified on the official product page [39]. Another reports a $50 annual certificate fee [47]. A third mentions a monthly certificate fee without a verified amount [46]. These figures conflict and none were confirmed in an official consumer policy document.

Cash-value and loan terms are inconsistently reported. One source cites cash-value loans at 7.4% annual compound interest [44]; another cites 8% in arrears, 6% in Montana [43]. No public information on cash-value accumulation rates or dividend options was found [44].

One platform could not verify the product at all. Kimi's official-site retrieval failed and it rated the fit "uncertain," stating that pricing, death-benefit timing, coverage limits, financial ratings, and membership obligations were not independently verifiable from retrieved sources [48].

Use-Case-Specific Features and Capabilities

Questions This Section Answers

  • What riders and living benefits does Royal Neighbors of America's Ensured Legacy SIWL include at no extra cost?
  • Does Royal Neighbors of America's SIWL pay full benefits from day one?

The core use-case match is underwriting design. SIWL uses a limited health questionnaire rather than a traditional medical examination, which is the defining requirement of this buyer profile [49].

Day-one benefit timing is a stated advantage for the SIWL tier. Independent sources describe immediate coverage with full death benefits from day one for qualified applicants and no waiting period [52]. Graded and guaranteed-issue tiers within the same suite carry waiting-period tradeoffs [55].

Riders described across sources include:

  • Accelerated Living Benefit rider, described as available at no additional premium on SIWL and graded death benefit, allowing access to a portion of the death benefit for terminal illness or permanent nursing-home confinement [57]. One source states up to 75% of eligible death benefit with a $5,000 minimum [58]; another states up to 75% for terminal illness with 12-month life expectancy and permanent confinement after 90 days [59]. The accelerated-benefit rider is not available on guaranteed-issue certificates and carries tax and public-benefit cautions [60].
  • Charitable Giving rider, described as donating 1% of face amount up to $1,000 to a 501(c)(3) charity at no extra premium [59]. It terminates if the base policy goes into extended term insurance [59].
  • Grandchild term rider and Accidental Death Benefit rider, both requiring additional premium [60]. The accidental-death rider is described as available for ages 50–70 [61].

Health-condition flexibility is claimed but not fully specified. Independent reviews state SIWL accepts diabetes, obesity, and hypertension without strict height-weight guidelines [50]. Exact disqualifying conditions and severity thresholds are not publicly specified [50].

Pricing, Fees, Contracts, and Ongoing Costs

Questions This Section Answers

  • How much does Royal Neighbors of America's Simplified Issue Whole Life cost per month, and what certificate fees apply?
  • What are the free-look, loan, and cancellation terms on Royal Neighbors of America's SIWL policy?

No verified public premium was found for the SIWL form. Premium depends on age, sex, tobacco status, health answers, face amount, payment mode, state, and underwriting outcome [62]. Pricing confidence was rated low by three platforms (openai, deepseek, perplexity) and moderate by two (anthropic, grok).

Reported sample figures are platform-reported and conflicting:

ItemReported figureSource
$15,000 Simplified Senior Whole Life, 65F nonsmoker~$48–62/month
$10,000 Guaranteed Issue, 65F~$52–68/month
$10,000 coverage, age 65 female~$47/month
$10,000 coverage, age 65 male~$63/month
Certificate fee$4.35/month
Certificate fee$50/year

Contract terms reported by platforms include a 30-day free-look period or longer if required by state law [63], an automatic premium loan option [63], policy maturity at age 121 [65], and a contestable period whose exact length was not confirmed in available materials [66]. Free-look, lapse, reinstatement, surrender, loan, and nonforfeiture terms were not verified from reviewed official sources and should be obtained from the policy form [62].

One structural cost consideration: as a fraternal benefit society, Royal Neighbors policies are not protected by state guarantee funds in the same manner as traditional insurers [67]. Membership is required to obtain coverage [63].

Best Suited For

Questions This Section Answers

  • Who is Royal Neighbors of America's Ensured Legacy SIWL best suited for?
  • Is Royal Neighbors of America a good fit for a senior with diabetes or obesity seeking final-expense coverage?

Royal Neighbors is best suited to applicants seeking modest permanent final-expense coverage who are willing to answer health questions in exchange for potentially better terms than guaranteed issue. Platforms describe the target as applicants seeking approximately $5,000–$40,000 of permanent final-expense coverage who accept health-question underwriting [70].

It fits applicants with common health conditions. Independent reviews state SIWL accepts diabetes, obesity, and hypertension without strict height-weight guidelines [72], and one platform describes flexible underwriting that accepts diabetes and obesity without a disqualifier [73].

It fits buyers who value immediate level benefits. SIWL provides full death benefits from day one for qualified applicants with no waiting period [74].

It fits buyers who want a fraternal, member-focused carrier. Royal Neighbors operates as a fraternal benefit society (nonprofit) with member benefits such as scholarships, health screening discounts, and community volunteer chapters [76].

Probably Not Best Suited For

Questions This Section Answers

  • Who should not choose Royal Neighbors of America for Simplified-Issue Whole Life Insurance?
  • Is Royal Neighbors of America available in New York, Massachusetts, or Alaska?

Buyers in seven states cannot purchase the product. Royal Neighbors is not licensed in Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, or New York [78].

Buyers needing large face amounts should look elsewhere. Coverage is oriented toward final expense and may be too small for income replacement, mortgage protection, or estate-liquidity needs [78]. One platform states the maximum simplified-issue limit is capped at $40,000 [81].

Buyers who need guaranteed acceptance regardless of health are a poor match. If an applicant does not qualify for SIWL, the alternative may be graded or guaranteed issue rather than the desired level-benefit SIWL policy [78].

Buyers prioritizing fully transparent online pricing before speaking with an agent will find this product difficult to compare. No current public consumer rate table was verified [78], and one platform rated the fit "uncertain" specifically because product details were not independently verifiable [83].

Buyers who require state guarantee fund protection should note the fraternal structure [84].

When Another Option May Be Better

Questions This Section Answers

  • What is a better alternative to Royal Neighbors of America for a healthy applicant under 50 who wants lower premiums?
  • When should a buyer choose guaranteed-issue whole life instead of Royal Neighbors of America's SIWL?

Consider another carrier when the buyer needs a larger face amount, a clearly published issue-age range, transparent online premiums, or more explicit policy-value disclosures [85]. One platform recommends comparing carriers with fully transparent public underwriting and rate disclosures when a published pricing grid matters [86].

Consider fully underwritten coverage when the buyer is healthy and price-sensitive. Applicants under 50 in good health may find significantly lower premiums with traditional insurers offering fully-underwritten preferred rates [88]. Simplified-issue pricing is significantly higher per-dollar than fully-underwritten preferred rates for very healthy applicants under age 50 [88].

Consider guaranteed issue when health conditions make simplified issue unlikely and acceptance certainty matters more than price or immediate level benefits [85].

Consider a non-fraternal carrier when the buyer wants conventional regulatory protections or prefers no membership requirement [88].

Questions to Verify Before Buying

  • Is the application being issued specifically as SIWL Form Series 211311 rather than graded or guaranteed issue? [92]
  • What are the exact minimum and maximum face amounts and issue ages for SIWL in the buyer's state? [92]
  • What health questions are asked, and can prescription databases, medical records, electronic data, or an exam be requested? [92]
  • Is the death benefit level from day one, and are there contestability, suicide, accidental-death, or other exclusions? [92]
  • What are the guaranteed premium, cash-value, surrender-value, loan, and nonforfeiture schedules? [92]
  • What is the exact recurring premium, payment-mode factor, and any certificate or policy fee? [92]
  • What happens if the buyer does not qualify for SIWL — will the application be declined, or automatically considered for graded or guaranteed issue? [92]
  • What are the free-look period, lapse, reinstatement, cancellation, and surrender provisions? [92]
  • Is Royal Neighbors' current A.M. Best rating independently confirmed, and does the buyer understand that ratings are not guarantees of claim payment? [92]

Final AI Consensus Verdict

The consensus is a qualified good fit, not a clear best fit. Five of seven platforms rated Royal Neighbors "good," two rated it "strong," and one rated it "uncertain." Royal Neighbors directly offers the requested SIWL category through Ensured Legacy and appears suitable for modest permanent final-expense needs where the buyer accepts health-question underwriting [99].

The decision should depend on a state-specific quote and policy illustration because SIWL-specific eligibility, pricing, guarantees, fees, issue ages, and the no-exam process were not fully verified publicly [99]. Buyers should treat the $25,000/$40,000/$50,000 face-amount conflict, the certificate-fee conflict, and the phone-interview question as open items requiring written confirmation.

How This Review Was Produced

This review synthesizes fit-research responses from seven AI platforms that evaluated Royal Neighbors of America against a Simplified-Issue Whole life insurance buyer profile. Two platforms named the carrier during ranking discovery (google, kimi); all seven produced fit assessments. Platform outputs were normalized, deduplicated, and grouped by source ownership. Company-owned sources were separated from independent and unclear-ownership sources. No personal testing, customer experience, or independent verification was performed. All citations are platform-reported evidence.

Methodology Limitations

  • Platform-reported research dates differ from the authoritative run date of 2026-09-20. Deepseek reported 2026-01-15; the other six reported 2026-09-21. These are provenance metadata and do not independently prove freshness.
  • Official-site retrieval failed for at least one identity mention; the reported domain royalneighbors.org was retained but remains unverified. The official homepage returned HTTP 403 and was not checked.
  • The supplied URLs were collected from platform responses and were not independently validated by the writer stage.
  • Citations are platform-reported evidence, not independently verified facts. No-search model claims require explicit verification before being described as current facts.
  • Face-amount, issue-age, certificate-fee, and loan-rate figures conflict across sources and were not resolved by guessing.
  • Kimi's official-site retrieval failed, and its product claims are unverified.
  • The Michigan complaint data covers one state and is not a national complaint index or a product-specific outcome measure.
  • A.M. Best rating information was found on Royal Neighbors' own website and in an A.M. Best news release; independent confirmation of the precise current rating and date should be obtained.

Sources

Company-Owned Sources

  • Royal Neighbors of America: https://royalneighbors.org/
  • Simplified Issue Whole Life: Easy Final Expense Coverage: https://www.betterlifeins.com/life-insurance/final-expense/simplified-issue-whole-life/
  • Insurance - Royal Neighbors of America: https://www.royalneighbors.org/insurance/
  • Ensured Legacy Final Expense - Royal Neighbors of America: https://www.royalneighbors.org/insurance/ensured-legacy-final-expense/
  • Whole Life Insurance - Royal Neighbors of America: https://www.royalneighbors.org/insurance/whole-life-insurance/
  • Simplified Issue Whole Life Insurance Quote | Easy to Apply: https://www.westernsouthern.com/life-insurance/simplified-issue-whole-life-quote
  • Additional AI research evidence103 records
    1. AI research evidence record google:citation_1
    2. AI research evidence record kimi:source-check-failed
    3. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    4. AI research evidence record openai:c2
    5. AI research evidence record openai:c3
    6. AI research evidence record anthropic:c2
    7. AI research evidence record openai:c4
    8. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    9. AI research evidence record openai:c2
    10. AI research evidence record perplexity:4
    11. AI research evidence record anthropic:c4
    12. AI research evidence record anthropic:c8
    13. AI research evidence record anthropic:c31
    14. AI research evidence record anthropic:c9
    15. AI research evidence record perplexity:15
    16. AI research evidence record google:citation_1
    17. AI research evidence record anthropic:c1
    18. AI research evidence record anthropic:c3
    19. AI research evidence record anthropic:c5
    20. AI research evidence record google:citation_2
    21. AI research evidence record anthropic:c2
    22. AI research evidence record anthropic:c5
    23. AI research evidence record anthropic:c14
    24. AI research evidence record perplexity:1
    25. AI research evidence record deepseek:naic-buyers-guide
    26. AI research evidence record anthropic:c1
    27. AI research evidence record anthropic:c7
    28. AI research evidence record anthropic:c39
    29. AI research evidence record openai:c3
    30. AI research evidence record anthropic:c11
    31. AI research evidence record anthropic:c25
    32. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    33. AI research evidence record anthropic:c10
    34. AI research evidence record anthropic:c8
    35. AI research evidence record anthropic:c9
    36. AI research evidence record anthropic:c31
    37. AI research evidence record perplexity:15
    38. AI research evidence record google:citation_1
    39. AI research evidence record perplexity:1
    40. AI research evidence record perplexity:8
    41. AI research evidence record perplexity:13
    42. AI research evidence record anthropic:c4
    43. AI research evidence record google:citation_2
    44. AI research evidence record anthropic:c39
    45. AI research evidence record anthropic:c14
    46. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    47. AI research evidence record grok:0
    48. AI research evidence record kimi:source-check-failed
    49. AI research evidence record anthropic:c1
    50. AI research evidence record anthropic:c7
    51. AI research evidence record perplexity:2
    52. AI research evidence record anthropic:c3
    53. AI research evidence record anthropic:c5
    54. AI research evidence record anthropic:c37
    55. AI research evidence record perplexity:4
    56. AI research evidence record perplexity:8
    57. AI research evidence record anthropic:c6
    58. AI research evidence record anthropic:c39
    59. AI research evidence record google:citation_1
    60. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    61. AI research evidence record grok:0
    62. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    63. AI research evidence record grok:0
    64. AI research evidence record perplexity:11
    65. AI research evidence record anthropic:c39
    66. AI research evidence record anthropic:c38
    67. AI research evidence record anthropic:c33
    68. AI research evidence record anthropic:c27
    69. AI research evidence record anthropic:c15
    70. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    71. AI research evidence record anthropic:c8
    72. AI research evidence record anthropic:c7
    73. AI research evidence record anthropic:c37
    74. AI research evidence record anthropic:c3
    75. AI research evidence record anthropic:c5
    76. AI research evidence record anthropic:c27
    77. AI research evidence record google:citation_3
    78. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    79. AI research evidence record anthropic:c10
    80. AI research evidence record grok:0
    81. AI research evidence record google:citation_1
    82. AI research evidence record perplexity:4
    83. AI research evidence record kimi:source-check-failed
    84. AI research evidence record anthropic:c33
    85. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    86. AI research evidence record perplexity:1
    87. AI research evidence record perplexity:13
    88. AI research evidence record anthropic:c33
    89. AI research evidence record anthropic:c8
    90. AI research evidence record perplexity:4
    91. AI research evidence record deepseek:iii-fraternal
    92. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    93. AI research evidence record perplexity:1
    94. AI research evidence record google:citation_2
    95. AI research evidence record anthropic:c38
    96. AI research evidence record grok:0
    97. AI research evidence record perplexity:11
    98. AI research evidence record anthropic:c11
    99. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    100. AI research evidence record anthropic:c3
    101. AI research evidence record perplexity:4
    102. AI research evidence record perplexity:1
    103. AI research evidence record kimi:source-check-failed

Independent Sources

Other Sources

  • Royal Neighbors Ensured Legacy Final Expense (ELFE) Product Profile, Form 2996-1-A: https://neatmgmt.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/2996-1-A_ELFE_Product_Profile_2024-01-05_FINAL_WEB_R-1.pdf
  • Additional AI research evidence103 records
    1. AI research evidence record google:citation_1
    2. AI research evidence record kimi:source-check-failed
    3. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    4. AI research evidence record openai:c2
    5. AI research evidence record openai:c3
    6. AI research evidence record anthropic:c2
    7. AI research evidence record openai:c4
    8. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    9. AI research evidence record openai:c2
    10. AI research evidence record perplexity:4
    11. AI research evidence record anthropic:c4
    12. AI research evidence record anthropic:c8
    13. AI research evidence record anthropic:c31
    14. AI research evidence record anthropic:c9
    15. AI research evidence record perplexity:15
    16. AI research evidence record google:citation_1
    17. AI research evidence record anthropic:c1
    18. AI research evidence record anthropic:c3
    19. AI research evidence record anthropic:c5
    20. AI research evidence record google:citation_2
    21. AI research evidence record anthropic:c2
    22. AI research evidence record anthropic:c5
    23. AI research evidence record anthropic:c14
    24. AI research evidence record perplexity:1
    25. AI research evidence record deepseek:naic-buyers-guide
    26. AI research evidence record anthropic:c1
    27. AI research evidence record anthropic:c7
    28. AI research evidence record anthropic:c39
    29. AI research evidence record openai:c3
    30. AI research evidence record anthropic:c11
    31. AI research evidence record anthropic:c25
    32. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    33. AI research evidence record anthropic:c10
    34. AI research evidence record anthropic:c8
    35. AI research evidence record anthropic:c9
    36. AI research evidence record anthropic:c31
    37. AI research evidence record perplexity:15
    38. AI research evidence record google:citation_1
    39. AI research evidence record perplexity:1
    40. AI research evidence record perplexity:8
    41. AI research evidence record perplexity:13
    42. AI research evidence record anthropic:c4
    43. AI research evidence record google:citation_2
    44. AI research evidence record anthropic:c39
    45. AI research evidence record anthropic:c14
    46. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    47. AI research evidence record grok:0
    48. AI research evidence record kimi:source-check-failed
    49. AI research evidence record anthropic:c1
    50. AI research evidence record anthropic:c7
    51. AI research evidence record perplexity:2
    52. AI research evidence record anthropic:c3
    53. AI research evidence record anthropic:c5
    54. AI research evidence record anthropic:c37
    55. AI research evidence record perplexity:4
    56. AI research evidence record perplexity:8
    57. AI research evidence record anthropic:c6
    58. AI research evidence record anthropic:c39
    59. AI research evidence record google:citation_1
    60. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    61. AI research evidence record grok:0
    62. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    63. AI research evidence record grok:0
    64. AI research evidence record perplexity:11
    65. AI research evidence record anthropic:c39
    66. AI research evidence record anthropic:c38
    67. AI research evidence record anthropic:c33
    68. AI research evidence record anthropic:c27
    69. AI research evidence record anthropic:c15
    70. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    71. AI research evidence record anthropic:c8
    72. AI research evidence record anthropic:c7
    73. AI research evidence record anthropic:c37
    74. AI research evidence record anthropic:c3
    75. AI research evidence record anthropic:c5
    76. AI research evidence record anthropic:c27
    77. AI research evidence record google:citation_3
    78. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    79. AI research evidence record anthropic:c10
    80. AI research evidence record grok:0
    81. AI research evidence record google:citation_1
    82. AI research evidence record perplexity:4
    83. AI research evidence record kimi:source-check-failed
    84. AI research evidence record anthropic:c33
    85. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    86. AI research evidence record perplexity:1
    87. AI research evidence record perplexity:13
    88. AI research evidence record anthropic:c33
    89. AI research evidence record anthropic:c8
    90. AI research evidence record perplexity:4
    91. AI research evidence record deepseek:iii-fraternal
    92. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    93. AI research evidence record perplexity:1
    94. AI research evidence record google:citation_2
    95. AI research evidence record anthropic:c38
    96. AI research evidence record grok:0
    97. AI research evidence record perplexity:11
    98. AI research evidence record anthropic:c11
    99. AI research evidence record openai:c1
    100. AI research evidence record anthropic:c3
    101. AI research evidence record perplexity:4
    102. AI research evidence record perplexity:1
    103. AI research evidence record kimi:source-check-failed

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
40
Ranking mentions
2 of 7
Platform share
29%
Final consensus rank
#10

Behind the findings

Platforms in this study

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

Source records

29 independent · 8 company-owned · 3 unclear

Evidence support

28 direct · 12 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.

118c069a160d4e88d7cb3d3c72d75729d5fec8ce2fdd2372e31e7c2d9c9fc15c