AI tipping transparency report 2026
Most AI tipping tools can't be checked. Of the 122 AI betting tools we rate, 85 (70%) don't publish enough of a record to score, and only 2 of the 34 with a full Performance score are independently proofed. The median Transparency score is 40/100 for AI tools and 75/100 for human tipsters. Data as of 5 Nov 2026; this page updates with every re-check.
Key findings
- 70% of the 122 AI betting tools we rate (85) don't publish enough of a level-stakes record to score.
- A full public ledger including losers is verified for 66 of 122 AI tools (54%); for 56 it isn't.
- Of the 37 AI tools that publish a scoreable record, 29 are self-reported, 6 were recomputed by us from their own bet-by-bet data, and 2 are independently proofed.
- 16 of 34 full-score AI records are in profit at level stakes (median ROI -0.95%); 13 of those 16 are settled at advised odds.
- Human tipsters are more often independently proofed (54 of 64 full scores), and 76 of 102 publish a full ledger. Median Transparency score: AI tools 40, tipsters 75.
- 30 AI tools make marketing claims we show as stated, not verified.
How openly records are published
Transparency score bands (60–100 high, 30–59 medium, 0–29 low).
| High | Medium | Low | Median | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AI tools (122) | 39 (32%) | 34 (28%) | 49 (40%) | 40 |
| Tipsters (102) | 64 (63%) | 21 (21%) | 17 (17%) | 75 |
Each criterion
| Criterion | AI tools | Tipsters |
|---|---|---|
| Picks published before the off, timestamped | 34% | 87% |
| Full public ledger including losers | 54% | 75% |
| Price basis stated (SP, BSP, exchange, CLV) | 38% | 73% |
| 500+ settled selections | 37% | 57% |
| Methodology documented | 42% | 4% |
| Results downloadable (CSV/API) | 14% | 7% |
By sport
AI tools
| Sport | Rated | Median Transparency score | Full public ledger | With a Performance score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Horse racing | 41 | 50 | 25 (61%) | 15 (37%) |
| Football | 25 | 40 | 14 (56%) | 7 (28%) |
| Multi-sport | 23 | 40 | 13 (57%) | 8 (35%) |
| US sports | 11 | 0 | 2 (18%) | 1 (9%) |
| Tennis | 4 | 45 | 2 (50%) | 1 (25%) |
| Esports | 3 | 40 | 2 (67%) | 0 (0%) |
Sports with 3 or more rated entries.
Tipsters
| Sport | Rated | Median Transparency score | Full public ledger | With a Performance score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Horse racing | 76 | 75 | 50 (66%) | 46 (61%) |
| Football | 12 | 65 | 12 (100%) | 10 (83%) |
| Multi-sport | 5 | 80 | 5 (100%) | 4 (80%) |
| Tennis | 4 | 65 | 4 (100%) | 4 (100%) |
| Golf | 3 | 80 | 3 (100%) | 1 (33%) |
Sports with 3 or more rated entries.
What the scoreable records show
AI tools
| Evidence behind the record | Records with a full Performance score | In profit at level stakes | Median ROI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Independently proofed | 2 | 2 | +8.15% |
| Recomputed by us | 5 | 2 | -1.20% |
| Self-reported | 27 | 12 | -1.29% |
| All full scores | 34 | 16 | -0.95% |
Tipsters
| Evidence behind the record | Records with a full Performance score | In profit at level stakes | Median ROI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Independently proofed | 54 | 46 | +10.15% |
| Recomputed by us | 7 | 5 | +1.61% |
| Self-reported | 3 | 2 | +3.15% |
| All full scores | 64 | 53 | +8.62% |
“In profit” = level-stakes ROI above 0% over the stated period, at each record's own price basis, before fees. Price bases differ, so records aren't strictly comparable. Past results don't predict future returns.
Sports data and API providers
We also list 56 data, odds and API providers. Share that publish each item on their own pages:
| Published | Providers |
|---|---|
| Pricing published (a paid price with currency, or a stated free-only product) | 50 of 56 (89%) |
| Public documentation (readable without signing up) | 46 of 56 (82%) |
| Coverage list published (sports / competitions) | 54 of 56 (96%) |
| Plan limits or allowances published (requests, leagues, features) | 41 of 56 (73%) |
| Public status page | 12 of 56 (21%) |
| Company identity stated (legal entity or address) | 16 of 56 (29%) |
| Delivery method stated (API, feed, files, app) | 56 of 56 (100%) |
Method and sources
Every entry is scored from its own public pages on the date shown on its entry, with the source linked. Scores follow our published methodology; every change is on the changelog. The population is every AI tool, tipster and provider we have listed, not a random sample of the market, so the shares describe our list. The ratings behind this report can be downloaded as a CSV under a CC BY 4.0 licence: see open data.
Press and corrections: [email protected].
How to cite this report
Recommended citation
AI Sports Ratings (2026). AI tipping transparency report 2026. Published 18 October 2026, last updated 5 November 2026. https://aisportsratings.com/reports/ai-tipping-transparency-2026
BibTeX
@misc{aisportsratings2026transparency,
author = {{AI Sports Ratings}},
title = {{AI tipping transparency report 2026}},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://aisportsratings.com/reports/ai-tipping-transparency-2026}},
note = {Published 18 October 2026, last updated 5 November 2026}
}You're welcome to quote figures from this report with a link back to this page.
Related reading
- Does AI sports betting work? What the records show · the Performance side of the same data
- Best AI sports betting tools, ranked by their records · the ranking built from these scores
- How to check a tipster before you pay · the six checks behind the Transparency score
- AI tipping tracker: weekly movers · how these numbers change week by week
How we check the records
The transparency checklist sets out what counts as evidence for each Transparency criterion in this report, the same for every listing.