Crypto Wallet AI Visibility Index 2026: which wallets and money apps ChatGPT, Gemini and Google AI name on their own

Last updated: 8 September 2026

There is a lot of noise about which crypto wallet is "best," and almost none of it says what an AI engine actually names when a real person asks. This index closes that gap for the wallets and everyday-money apps people reach for alongside crypto: self-custody wallets, exchange wallets, crypto cards and the community and fan-rewards apps that sit next to them. On 8 September 2026 we put a set of everyday wallet and money questions to ChatGPT, Gemini and Google AI Overview, and recorded 569 answers that did not already name a brand in the question. We tracked 15 wallet and money-app brands, and all 15 came up at least once. That last fact is the headline: in most categories we measure, several tracked brands never appear at all. Here, none did.

The numbers in brief

• MetaMask is named most often, in 21.27 percent of the 569 answers. Revolut follows on 14.41 percent, then Phantom on 11.07 percent.
• The median across all 15 tracked brands is 6.15 percent.
• Every one of the 15 tracked brands appeared in at least one answer. None scored zero.
• Zerion is named in only 3.16 percent of answers, yet is mentioned 5.67 times within the answers it does appear in, the highest rate of repetition in the set.
• Reddit is the most retrieved source, opened in 12.65 percent of answers, ahead of YouTube and Coinbase's own site.

What we measured, and how

We track a set of questions phrased the way someone actually types them when they need a wallet or an everyday money app: setting up a first self-custody wallet, moving off an exchange, finding a card that spends crypto like cash, joining a community rewards scheme, or comparing two apps before switching. The questions split into five themes: digital wallets and everyday money apps, community finance and fan rewards, self-custody wallets and account security, crypto cards and stablecoin spending, and wallet comparison and switching. Those five themes carried 125, 117, 114, 114 and 99 answers respectively, which sum to the full 569.

The figures in this report are drawn from those 569 answers, recorded on 8 September 2026, across ChatGPT, Gemini and Google AI Overview. We record what the engine actually returns, not what it was asked to return.

Three measures, in plain words:

• How often AI names them: the share of the 569 answers in which the brand is named.
• Share of the answer: the brand's portion of all 1,448 mentions recorded across every answer.
• Average position: where the brand tends to land in a list when it is named. Lower is better.

Every brand was measured against the same 569-answer denominator. No brand paid to be included, and the names in this report identify research subjects, not customers and not endorsements.

One brand needs a naming note. "Ready" as a bare word collides with unrelated products, an education platform and a lending firm among them, so its pattern is anchored on longer strings such as "Ready Wallet" and "ready.co". Its figures here are a floor. Any brand whose name is also a common word carries the same risk, and it is worth knowing which way the error runs.

Who the engines actually name

The table above is the full tracked cohort, not a cut-down top ten. That is worth pausing on. Every brand we track in this category appeared in the 569 answers we recorded. We do not see that in most categories, where a handful of tracked brands never come up once. Here, even the smallest name in the set, Rainbow Wallet, was named three times.

The field is also flatter than the leader suggests. MetaMask tops the table at 21.27 percent, but the median across all 15 brands is 6.15 percent, and half the field sits under seven names in a hundred answers. Below Rabby in eighth place, no brand clears 5 percent. There is a clear leader here, unlike some categories we have measured, but the leader still misses roughly four in five answers.

Being named often and taking up room are different things

Two brands can sit far apart in the leaderboard above and still be doing very different jobs inside the answer.

MetaMask is named in more answers than anyone else, and when it is named it is mentioned 1.94 times on average within that answer. Zerion sits near the bottom of the leaderboard, named in only 3.16 percent of answers, yet when it does appear it is mentioned 5.67 times on average, the highest repetition rate of any brand we tracked. Braavos shows the same pattern at 5.00 times per appearing answer, and Socios and Ready follow at 4.17 and 4.27 times respectively. These four brands rarely make the shortlist, but when the engine does bring them up, it keeps talking about them: walking through setup steps, comparing features, or naming the brand more than once across a longer explanation.

The practical read is this: a brand near the top of the first table has already won the shortlist fight and its job now is to earn a cleaner, higher position within it. A brand near the top of the mentions-per-appearance table has the opposite problem. It rarely makes the shortlist at all, but the evidence base that does exist about it is detailed enough that the engine has plenty to say once it decides to bring the name up. The fix for the first group is a stronger comparison page. The fix for the second is more coverage, full stop, so the engine has more chances to reach for the name in the first place.

Zerion is the clearest case of the second shape. It sits tenth of fifteen on how often it is named, at 3.16 percent, yet it is mentioned 5.67 times in every answer it enters, more than any other brand here, and it holds an average position of 1.1, second only to Whop. When the engines reach for it they put it first and they have plenty to say. They just do not reach for it often.

Where the answers come from

Three things stand out.

First, community sources lead the table. Reddit and YouTube together are opened more often than any single brand's own site. What people say in a thread or explain in a video carries real weight in how these engines build a wallet answer.

Second, brand sites still dominate the rest of the list. Coinbase, MetaMask, Stripe, Revolut, Trust Wallet, Kraken and Ledger all appear among the twelve most-retrieved sources, which means a wallet's own documentation and comparison pages are doing real work, not just its reputation elsewhere.

Third, only one purely editorial outlet, Coin Bureau, makes the top of the list. That is a thinner independent-coverage layer than we have seen in some other categories, which suggests real room for an editorial voice that has not yet built the depth Reddit and YouTube already carry.

What this report can and cannot tell you

These results are directional, not definitive. They describe one question set, on three engines, on one day.

Read this way, the data can answer a bounded set of questions:

• Which wallet and money-app brands the engines name without being prompted with a brand name.
• How concentrated, or in this case how complete, the field is across a real question set.
• Which source types the engines reach for when they build a wallet or money-app answer.
• Where a brand is named often but thinly, versus rarely but at length.

It cannot do several other things, and it is worth being blunt about them. It cannot prove that being named more often converts into more downloads or more funded accounts. It cannot establish a causal link between any single change a wallet made and its position here. It cannot tell any individual brand that it should appear in every one of the five themes, because a crypto card has no natural claim on a self-custody security question.

The operating instruction is therefore not to chase the leaderboard as one blended score. Split the answers by theme, read the exact wording the engines use for the theme you can genuinely win, and repair the weakest layer of evidence underneath it.

What this means if you run a wallet or money app

If your brand sits high on raw frequency but low on mentions per appearance, the shortlist fight is already won. The next job is the page the engine reaches for once it has decided to name you: a comparison page that states plainly what you do differently, with the kind of specific detail that earns more than a passing mention.

If your brand sits low on frequency but high on mentions per appearance, the opposite is true. The engine already has enough to say about you once it decides to bring your name up. What is missing is the coverage that gets you considered in the first place: more threads, more videos, more comparison pages that put your name next to the brands people already ask about.

If you run more than one product line under one brand, check your visibility by theme rather than as one blended number. A wallet can be strongly visible for self-custody questions and completely absent from card or rewards questions that sit right next to it in the same customer journey, and a single overall score will hide that gap.

We have found the same shape of finding across other categories we track. In UK tech recruitment, the pattern was reach versus quality of citation rather than reach versus room. In contact centre QA software, a thin field left real space for a specialist to take a theme outright. In two hospitality categories we have run, London burgers and London cookie bakeries, the leader still missed most answers, the same story we found in our Texas dining index. Our Middle East strategy consulting index shows a category dominated by a handful of famous names rather than the specialists who might expect to lead it. Every one of these indexes uses the same method: ask the questions a real buyer asks, count what the engines actually say, and report the honest shape of the field rather than the shape a brand would prefer.

Sources

• Schmitdy category tracking, crypto wallet and everyday-money question set, 8 September 2026. The 569 answers and 15 tracked brands behind every figure in this report.
• MetaMask, metamask.io. Official site of the most-named brand in the index.
• Revolut, revolut.com. Official site, second in the published table.
• Phantom, phantom.com. Official site, third in the published table.
• Trust Wallet, trustwallet.com. Official site, fourth in the published table.
• Crypto.com, crypto.com. Official site, fifth in the published table.
• Coinbase Wallet, coinbase.com. Official site, sixth in the published table.
• Wirex, wirexapp.com. Official site, seventh in the published table.
• Rabby, rabby.io. Official site, eighth in the published table.
• Zerion, zerion.io. Official site, highest mentions-per-appearance rate in the index.
• Braavos, braavos.app. Official site, second-highest mentions-per-appearance rate.
• Reddit, reddit.com. Most-retrieved source across the tracked answers.
• YouTube, youtube.com. Second most-retrieved source.
• Coin Bureau, coinbureau.com. Most-retrieved editorial source.

Every brand named in this report is a research subject. Inclusion is not an endorsement, and no brand paid to appear.

If you want to know which of these questions your own wallet or app already shows up in, we can run the same measurement for your market.