How are different AI agents reshaping the retail shopper journey?
As AI shopping agents proliferate, are they organized into distinct types with different competitive impacts? Understanding these categories matters because each poses different threats and opportunities for traditional retailers.
Bain & Company's report on agentic AI in retail identifies three types of AI shopping agents now emerging, each reshaping retail in different ways: "Third-party 'objective' agents" such as Perplexity, ChatGPT, and Gemini that "crawl vendor sites, aggregate listings, compare prices, read reviews, and recommend products"; "on-site retailer agents" that retailers build themselves, such as Amazon's Rufus, which Bain says helped generate "nearly $12 billion in incremental annualized sales last year"; and "off-site retailer agents" that extend a retailer's own agent beyond its own inventory, such as Amazon's "Buy for Me" feature, which "can purchase on other brands' sites, even as the retailer restricts other agents from scraping its own listings."
Bain frames the three types as carrying different stakes. Third-party agents pose "the greatest immediate threat to the traditional retailer-shopper and retailer-advertiser relationships" because they disintermediate the top of the funnel — Bain cites estimates from Similarweb, a digital marketing intelligence company, that "shopping referrals from ChatGPT have more than doubled in the US, France, UK, and Germany over the past year" — yet AI still accounts for "less than 1%" of total retailer traffic even where it reaches "up to a quarter of referral traffic" for some retailers. On-site agents let retailers keep "proprietary retailer data, such as return rates and reasons, expert reviews, and longer-term purchase history," and Bain reports that Rufus's monthly active users were "up 115%" and "were 60% more likely to complete a purchase." Off-site agents like "Buy for Me" let a retailer extend its own agent's reach while still gatekeeping its own listings — a hedge against disintermediation that doesn't require ceding the loyalty relationship.
The taxonomy sharpens Will brands succeed by building their own AI shopping agents?: Bain's on-site and off-site categories are two concrete strategies for becoming the agent of choice rather than being chosen by a third-party one. It also supplies retailer-side context for Do consumers want to approve AI shopping purchases before they happen? — Bain reports that shoppers "trust retailers' on-site agents three times more than third-party agents," a trust gap that helps explain why retailers are racing to build their own agents rather than cede the relationship to third parties. Could AI agents reassemble shopping baskets across multiple retailers? describes the more consequential shift Bain sees past this taxonomy.
Bain's figures (the 115% user growth, the 60% higher purchase likelihood, the $12 billion in incremental sales) are the company's own retailer-reported estimates, not independently audited numbers, and the report does not say how its referral-traffic or trust-gap figures were measured. The taxonomy is also a near-term snapshot — Bain itself says "timing and depth of adoption are uncertain" — so it describes the current landscape of agent types rather than a stable or final structure for how agentic retail will organize.
Inquiring lines that read this note 3
This note is a source for these research framings, grouped by the broader line of inquiry each explores. Scan the bold lines of inquiry; follow any specific question forward.
How can merchant-funded agents remain loyal to consumer interests in digital commerce? Do AI shopping agents exhibit systematic bias in recommendations?Related concepts in this collection 6
This note in its neighbourhood — explore the map, then jump to a related concept in the list below.
Click a node to walk · click center to open · click Open in graph to see this note in the full knowledge graph
-
Will brands succeed by building their own AI shopping agents?
Explores whether brands can compete by creating proprietary AI agents that mediate consumer purchases, or whether structural conflicts of interest and missing ecosystem conditions will undermine this strategy.
Bain's on-site and off-site agent strategies are concrete paths to becoming the "agent of choice" Accenture describes
-
Do consumers want to approve AI shopping purchases before they happen?
RTB House surveyed whether people would let AI agents buy autonomously or prefer human sign-off before purchase. The finding matters because it shapes how retailers should design AI shopping assistants to match customer comfort levels.
Bain's 3x trust gap for on-site agents supports the same caution toward third-party buying agents
-
Could AI agents reassemble shopping baskets across multiple retailers?
Bain & Company explores whether AI agents that compare prices and products across vendors could fragment the traditional retailer-controlled basket, especially in grocery. This matters because it would shift competitive pressure from individual products to entire baskets.
sibling note on the more consequential shift Bain sees beyond this taxonomy
-
Do advertising-funded shopping agents favor paid product placements?
Explores whether AI shopping agents funded by advertising revenue systematically steer purchases toward products that pay for placement rather than those best matching consumer needs.
Evidence for Bain's third-party-agent risk: ad-funded shopping agents may steer purchases toward paid placements, undermining objectivity
-
Does agent ownership determine whose interests get optimized?
A research paper explores whether shopping agents built by platforms serve sellers while consumer-owned agents serve buyers. This matters because ownership may be the key design lever shaping how AI agents behave in commerce.
Extends A: ownership (platform-owned vs consumer-owned) explains why Bain's agent categories optimize for different, sometimes conflicting, interests
-
Why did Amazon block Meta's shopping agent while opening its own?
Amazon blocked Meta's Muse from shopping on its platform while running its own cross-site buying agent. Is this really about AI adoption, or about who controls the transaction and collects fees?
Evidence for: Amazon blocking third-party Muse while running its own agent, and Shopify opening checkout, illustrates differing retailer risk by agent type
Related papers in this collection 8
Papers most semantically related to this note, ranked by cosine similarity in the embedding space.
- Agentic AI in Retail: How Autonomous Shopping Is Redefining the Customer Journey
- AI Agents Want to Shop for You: The Future of Agentic Commerce
- An Agentic Commerce Reality Check
- What Is Your AI Agent Buying? Evaluation, Biases, Model Dependence, & Emerging Implications for Agentic E-Commerce
- Agentic AI and Consumer Protection (CERRE Issue Paper)
- From Product Search to Preference Articulation: The Economics of Agentic Commerce
- Consumer Law for AI Agents
- Consumer Pulse Research 2026: Talk to my AI agent
Original note title
Bain distinguishes third-party, on-site and off-site retail AI agents, each reshaping the shopper journey differently