Lloyds vs Close Brothers: Battle in Motor Finance Fallout

Perplexity shows no favoritism between Lloyds and Close Brothers Motor Finance, both at 1.4% visibility share, indicating equal attention to their roles in the scandal. Its neutral tone suggests a balanced perspective on compensation and PR response without highlighting specific strengths or weaknesses.

Gemini assigns equal visibility shares of 2.8% to both Lloyds and Close Brothers Motor Finance, reflecting no clear preference in handling the scandal. The neutral tone implies neither bank stands out in terms of compensation or PR response effectiveness.

ChatGPT favors Close Brothers Motor Finance with a higher visibility share of 9.7% compared to Lloyds at 8.3%, suggesting greater public or contextual focus on their scandal response. Its neutral-to-skeptical tone, inferred from broader data spread, indicates a critical lens on institutional handling of compensation and PR.

Grok gives equal visibility shares of 2.8% to both Lloyds and Close Brothers Motor Finance, showing no bias in their handling of the motor finance scandal. The neutral tone reflects an impartial view on their compensation strategies and PR responses.

Deepseek equally represents Lloyds and Close Brothers Motor Finance at 1.4% visibility share, indicating no preference in their scandal management. Its neutral tone suggests a lack of distinction in how each handles compensation or PR response.

ChatGPT shows a slight favor towards Close Brothers Motor Finance with a higher visibility share (9.7%) compared to Lloyds (6.9% combined with Lloyds Banking Group at 2.8%), suggesting a focus on specific scandal exposure, yet its tone is neutral as it emphasizes visibility over recovery potential.

Grok presents a balanced view with equal visibility shares for Lloyds and Close Brothers Motor Finance (2.8% each), indicating no clear preference for recovery feasibility, and maintains a neutral tone with no strong sentiment towards either brand’s ability to recover.

Gemini equally distributes visibility (1.4% each) between Lloyds and Close Brothers Motor Finance, showing no favoritism and a neutral tone, with no specific reasoning on recovery feasibility beyond basic awareness of the scandal.

Deepseek assigns equal visibility shares (2.8% each) to Lloyds and Close Brothers Motor Finance, indicating neutrality in perception, with a neutral tone and no distinct insight into which brand’s recovery is more feasible post-scandal.

Perplexity equally represents Lloyds and Close Brothers Motor Finance (2.8% each), reflecting a neutral stance and tone, lacking explicit reasoning on recovery but suggesting similar levels of public or institutional scrutiny for both.

Deepseek shows equal visibility for Lloyds and Close Brothers Motor Finance at 2.8% each, with a neutral sentiment tone indicating no clear favor. The perception is balanced, suggesting both brands are equally implicated in the scandal without deeper differentiation.

Grok equally highlights Lloyds and Close Brothers Motor Finance at 2.8% visibility, alongside other entities like the Financial Conduct Authority, reflecting a neutral tone with no favoritism. Its perception ties both brands to the scandal but dilutes focus with multiple stakeholders, suggesting shared culpability.

Gemini assigns equal visibility of 2.8% to Lloyds and Close Brothers Motor Finance, maintaining a neutral sentiment without favoring either. The perception links both brands to the scandal equally, with slight regulatory context via the Financial Conduct Authority, implying comparable trust erosion.

Perplexity slightly favors Close Brothers Motor Finance with a 2.8% visibility share over Lloyds at 1.4% (plus 1.4% for Lloyds Banking Group), displaying a neutral to slightly skeptical tone toward Lloyds. It perceives Close Brothers as more prominently associated with the scandal, potentially due to a specialized motor finance focus, while Lloyds’ split naming diffuses impact.

ChatGPT gives equal and notably higher visibility to Lloyds and Close Brothers Motor Finance at 9.7% each, with a neutral to slightly negative tone due to high attention in scandal context. It perceives both as significantly impacted, but Lloyds’ broader recognition as a major bank may amplify perceived trust loss compared to the more niche Close Brothers.

Grok shows equal visibility share (2.8%) for both Lloyds and Close Brothers Motor Finance, indicating no clear favoritism, with a neutral sentiment tone as it references both alongside regulatory and market entities like the Financial Conduct Authority.

ChatGPT assigns equal and notably higher visibility (9.7%) to both Lloyds and Close Brothers Motor Finance, suggesting balanced coverage, yet its neutral-to-skeptical tone hints at equal scrutiny of both brands in the context of the scandal's financial impact.

Gemini equally distributes visibility (2.8%) between Lloyds and Close Brothers Motor Finance, adopting a neutral tone with minimal focus on differentiating impact, indicating no clear preference in share price fall attribution.

Perplexity slightly favors Close Brothers Motor Finance with a higher visibility share (2.8%) compared to Lloyds (1.4%), alongside a neutral-to-negative tone, suggesting a stronger perceived impact on Close Brothers’ share price post-scandal.

Deepseek equally represents Lloyds and Close Brothers Motor Finance at 2.8% visibility share, maintaining a neutral tone with no distinct sentiment favoring one over the other regarding the share price decline.

ChatGPT shows a slight favor toward Close Brothers Motor Finance with a higher visibility share of 9.7% compared to Lloyds at 8.3%, suggesting greater association with the motor finance scandal. Its tone is neutral, focusing on visibility metrics without explicit sentiment, indicating Close Brothers may face larger exposure due to prominence in discussions.

Gemini presents an even split between Lloyds and Close Brothers Motor Finance, each at 2.8% visibility share, implying comparable exposure to the scandal. The tone is neutral, with no clear favoring, but the equal weighting suggests both face significant scrutiny in the context of regulatory oversight.

Perplexity favors Close Brothers Motor Finance with a 2.8% visibility share against Lloyds at 1.4% (and Lloyds Banking Group at 1.4%), indicating stronger association with the scandal. Its tone is neutral, focusing on data distribution, suggesting Close Brothers may have higher exposure due to greater mention in relevant contexts.

DeepSeek leans toward Close Brothers Motor Finance with a 2.8% visibility share compared to Lloyds at 1.4%, pointing to greater perceived involvement in the motor finance issue. The tone remains neutral, but the data implies Close Brothers could face larger financial exposure due to higher visibility in scandal-related discussions.

Grok assigns equal visibility share to Lloyds and Close Brothers Motor Finance at 2.8%, indicating balanced exposure to the motor finance mis-selling scandal. The tone is neutral, with no favoring, though the inclusion of additional financial entities suggests a broader industry impact rather than a focus on one brand.