Who are the best GEO agencies for B2B companies?

SEO Works publishes five pieces of client work that name AI visibility, more than any other agency in the study. The strongest names the client and period, then connects the result to revenue. None gives a starting point or names the measurement instrument, which limits how easily a buyer can check the change.

Its service pages explain what gets tracked, and the agency says it reports monthly against client targets. Case studies connect AI visibility with conversions and revenue. The published material does not name the tools used, so the reporting approach is harder to assess in detail.

SEO Works has a solid average across a large review base. Two readable, recent reviews specifically mention search work. A noticeable tail of one-star reviews is worth discussing before appointment.

The agency has a substantial library of datasets and explains the sources and sample limitations in some of its strongest work. Much of that material focuses on SEO and brand rather than generative search, so its relevance to GEO varies.

SEO Works appears in the tracked AI answers more often than almost every other agency, ranking second on this measure. The result is the same across every list. We measure an agency's own AI visibility once, and the result says nothing specific about its B2B experience.

SEO Works has an established team and external evidence of its reputation. Its published material gives less detail about people with dedicated AI-search responsibilities, so a B2B buyer should ask who would lead this part of the work.

Four pricing tiers publish figures and explain who each tier suits. Five pieces of client AI-search work add useful evidence about the service being sold. The practical advantage is that a buyer can form an initial view of fit and budget before booking a call.

SEO Works publishes B2B client work with an AI-search figure attached. A seating manufacturer reached 60.6% share of voice in AI Overviews, and DHL also appears in the published work. The seating result gives B2B buyers a figure they can examine rather than a general visibility claim.

9 of the 82 published clients are businesses selling to other businesses, an 11 per cent share. SEO Works also runs a B2B service page. That gives the agency relevant experience, although B2B work represents a smaller part of its published client base than it does for some agencies above and below it.

Clickslice publishes four dedicated answer-engine case studies. They name the clients and show where visibility and citation share started and finished. The fourth covers Clickslice's own brand, which the agency discloses. None gives a measurement period, leaving the pace of change unclear.

The agency names its measurement instrument, builds prompt sets for individual clients and offers live dashboards. Reporting extends to leads, sales and revenue. That commercial connection is useful for B2B teams, where visibility alone rarely satisfies a finance director.

Clickslice has the highest review count in the study, with a strong and recent average. The readable reviews cover search work. Two also describe the sales process before the work began, giving buyers some insight into how the agency handles initial conversations.

Its published material covers a broad range of AI-search subjects and includes two calculators. The strongest work takes a clear position on measuring visibility. Much of the AI content consists of agency rankings, and the agency has not published an original dataset analysis.

Clickslice appears in AI answers to the tracked prompts more often than most agencies, placing it in the upper part of the field. The result is the same across every list. We measure this once, so it does not tell a B2B buyer anything about the agency's B2B client work.

A LinkedIn role carries the AI-search discipline directly. An agency-of-the-year win and vendor partner accreditation provide external evidence, alongside the company's record. Buyers should still confirm who will work on the account and how that role connects with B2B strategy.

Clickslice publishes a starting monthly figure and an itemised link-building rate card. Its AI-search pages do not give a specific price, and no minimum term appears. The information helps with an initial budget check, but a buyer will need to ask what the GEO service includes.

Clickslice publishes B2B client work with an AI-search figure attached. Secure Redact, a SaaS business, recorded a 54.6% visibility score and ranked first overall. Its result rose 19.6% month on month, with the highest share of voice and citation share across the tracked competitors.

3 of the 28 published clients are businesses selling to other businesses, an 11 per cent share. They include Secure Redact, Trinity Power, which sells power stations, and Dejex, which supplies the horticulture trade. The range is relevant, although the B2B share of the published client base is modest.

Polaris Agency publishes one AI-search case study, and it is among the best evidenced in this group. The client and quoted spokesperson are named, the starting position appears in figures, the period is stated and the change is substantial. The case study does not say which instrument produced the figures, so the result cannot be independently checked as closely as it might be.

Polaris has a full GEO service tree and names the measures on its tracking page. Reporting reaches referral attribution and conversion. The agency builds the measurement stack around each client and names no platform, while the published material sets no reporting rhythm.

The agency has a decent average across a modest number of reviews. One review names search work, one covers email marketing and another offers general praise. The newest review is a year old, so buyers should ask for more recent references.

Polaris covers more than six distinct AI-search subjects, and its playbooks take positions of their own. Where figures appear, the agency cites other sources. It has not published an analysis of an original generative-search dataset.

Polaris appears in AI answers to the tracked prompts a fair amount, placing it in the upper half of the field. The result is the same across every list. This criterion measures the agency once and does not assess its B2B work.

Polaris has a small team and no AI-search job title. Its search director appears on LinkedIn and is the same person quoted in the AI case study, which supports the link between the named expertise and the published work. Recent search award wins add external evidence.

A dedicated pricing page publishes three tiers, their figures and the team supplied at each level. That detail is unusual and useful. The tiers cover search, content and digital PR, while the GEO pages carry no separate figure, so ask how the work would be allocated within the package.

Polaris Agency publishes B2B client work with an AI-search figure attached. Six Degrees, a managed security provider, moved from 0% to 20% AI share of voice in seven days. The short measurement period deserves a careful discussion, but the result is clearly presented.

32 of the 73 published clients are businesses selling to other businesses, a 44 per cent share. Polaris also runs a B2B service page. Its AI-search case study covers Six Degrees, a B2B client, so the sector experience connects directly with the GEO evidence.

Impression publishes one unusually detailed AI-search case study. It names the client, states a 12-month period, explains the tactics and links the figures to the tools behind them. The case study gives no starting position, so the scale of the change remains difficult to judge.

The agency names three measurements, tracks prompts by topic and business, and reports through to conversion and revenue. It describes the tracking software without naming it and gives no reporting rhythm for the AI work. B2B buyers should clarify how often results will be reviewed.

Impression has a strong average across a good number of reviews. One mentions search work, while the others are more general. The newest readable review is around a year old, so recent client references would strengthen the picture.

The agency covers eight distinct AI-search subjects. Its strongest pieces take a position on questions such as which AI metrics matter to boards. The team refers to tests without publishing the underlying results as research, which limits what a buyer can examine.

Impression appears in the tracked AI answers more often than almost every other agency, placing it near the top of the field. The result is the same across every list. It measures the agency's visibility once and does not reflect B2B performance.

Impression has a large team and strong external reputation, including B Corp certification and several agency-of-the-year wins. No published team job title specifically carries AI search. A B2B buyer should confirm where GEO expertise sits and who would provide it.

Impression publishes no clear price for its AI service. That makes the service difficult to compare with agencies that publish tiers or starting figures. The sensible next question is what the proposed scope includes and how the fee relates to the wider search or digital programme.

Impression publishes B2B client work with an AI-search figure attached. Tensar appears in the work and is tagged as B2B and manufacturing by Impression. The published evidence gives the sector context, though the summary does not include a before-and-after figure.

14 of the 68 published clients are businesses selling to other businesses, a 21 per cent share. Impression runs a B2B service page. Its published B2B clients include Tensar, The Access Group, Precursive, hVIVO, CEIC, EMIS, EnviroBuild, Fire Seals Direct, Richard Nelson and a SaaS supply-chain client.

Exposure Ninja publishes ten case studies that mention AI visibility, with figures in three. The strongest names the client, states the period and tracks AI Overview presence and ChatGPT traffic through to conversions. None names the source of the figures, so buyers should ask how the results were produced.

The audit explains what it assesses across five named platforms, and clients receive the full prompt library. The AI work names no measurement instrument and gives no reporting rhythm. That leaves a B2B team with useful detail about the audit, but less certainty about ongoing measurement.

Exposure Ninja has a very large number of recent reviews and a strong average. The readable reviews cover search and website work, although none specifically mentions AI search. Ask for a B2B reference if sector experience matters to the appointment.

One report provides original analysis with a stated method. It counts which brands AI answers cite within a sector. The sample size is not given, and two further reports sit behind download forms, so the available evidence is incomplete.

Exposure Ninja appears only occasionally in the tracked AI answers, placing it in the lower half of the field. The result is the same across every list. This is a single agency-visibility reading and says nothing about its B2B client work.

Two formal job titles carry AI-search responsibilities. The chief executive speaks at major industry conferences, and an agency-of-the-year title plus a long list of award shortlists provide further external evidence. Buyers should still check which specialists would handle a B2B account.

Exposure Ninja publishes no price for its own services. An outside register carries a rate, while the agency has argued publicly that businesses should publish pricing. The position is easy to understand, but buyers still need a direct scope and fee before comparing the agency fairly.

Exposure Ninja publishes B2B client work without an AI-search figure attached. Elite Renewables serves homeowners and businesses. That shows relevant client exposure, but it does not provide a B2B AI-search result a buyer can test.

10 of the 26 published clients are businesses selling to other businesses, a 38 per cent share. Exposure Ninja also runs a B2B service page. B2B is its strongest sector by share in the published client list, although the AI-search evidence does not include a supporting figure.

Found publishes one case study that names AI visibility. Its figure measures the share of citations attributed to created content, so it shows attribution rather than a change in visibility. The case study gives no starting point, period or instrument, and the same figure appears as proof on several service pages.

Found has a full service tree covering individual answer engines and names the measures across five platforms. Its own named product provides continuous tracking, with prompt work built for each client. Reporting stops at visibility and sentiment, so the published approach does not connect the work to leads, sales or revenue.

Found has a strong average from a small number of reviews. One names search work, while the rest cover web projects and general praise. The newest review is two years old, making recent references particularly worth requesting.

Found covers ten or more distinct AI-search subjects, and its strongest pieces take positions of their own. It has not published an analysis of an original dataset. The material can help a buyer understand the agency's thinking, but it offers less evidence of first-party research.

Found appears in AI answers to the tracked prompts more often than any other agency in the study. The result is the same across every list. We measure this once, so it does not show how Found performs for B2B clients.

Found publishes a large team, and LinkedIn corroborates it. Neither source shows an AI-search role. The only AI wording appears in a director's headline. Award shortlists and wins provide external support for the firm's reputation.

Found publishes three price bands with figures and explains what moves a client between them. It does not itemise what each band includes, and the AI-search pages carry no separate figure. The published bands help with proportionality, but a buyer still needs a service breakdown to judge value.

Found publishes B2B client work without an AI-search figure attached. Mahlkönig, a German manufacturer selling to cafés, records 67% of LLM citations from created content. That is a useful B2B example, although the figure measures citation attribution rather than a visibility change.

5 of the 33 published clients are businesses selling to other businesses, a 15 per cent share. Found also runs a B2B service page. Its AI-search case, Mahlkönig, is B2B, giving the agency a relevant example despite the smaller share of published B2B clients.

Reboot publishes AI-search work with measurable results and explains the approach used. The evidence is stronger where the method is described than where the underlying measurement source is concerned. A buyer should ask to see the reporting behind the published figures.

The GEO service explains its tracking and monitoring approach. Reboot also publishes dedicated material about AI-visibility measurement and audits. That gives a B2B buyer a clearer view of the proposed work, although the client evidence still needs closer checking.

Reboot has the lowest review score in the study, based on a relatively small number of reviews. Around a third are rated one star. Two readable reviews mention search work, so buyers should investigate the reasons behind the wider review pattern.

Reboot publishes a controlled GEO experiment with a stated hypothesis and method. It gives the results in full and includes where the experiment failed. The study planted a fact that existed nowhere else and tested whether AI models would repeat it, making the method unusually easy to examine.

Reboot appears occasionally in the tracked AI answers, slightly below the middle of the field. The result is the same across every list. It measures the agency once and does not assess B2B client performance.

Reboot has a dedicated AI-search job title, clearly identified leadership and more than a decade of company history. Agency recognition and conference speaking provide further external evidence. That structure may suit a buyer who wants a named GEO specialist rather than a generalist account team.

Reboot publishes one figure for the service that performs the AI work and explains the reason for the entry point. It publishes no tiers, minimum term or notice period. The starting price gives a useful budget signal, but the missing terms make total cost harder to compare.

We reviewed every case study Reboot publishes and found no B2B client with an AI-search result attached. That leaves the agency with relevant sector examples to discuss, but no published B2B GEO outcome for a buyer to verify.

7 of the 53 published clients are businesses selling to other businesses, a 13 per cent share. Reboot runs a B2B service page at /industries/b2b-seo/. Its published B2B clients include Kiteworks, a second cybersecurity client, a trading platform, a career platform, CV App, a commercial cleaning supplier and UK PHA.

Buried publishes four case studies that name AI visibility, and three include a figure. Each names the client and period, while one compares the result before and after against a named competitor. The source of the figures is not named, which limits verification.

Buried publishes the clearest measurement approach in the study. It covers eight indicators, three named tools, a stated reporting rhythm and six answer engines. Reporting connects through to leads and sales, giving B2B buyers a more complete picture of how the work could be judged.

Buried has a perfect average across the available reviews. It is the only agency with a readable client review that specifically names GEO work, and the reviews are recent. The small review base still means a buyer should seek references beyond the public listings.

Buried covers the widest range of GEO subjects found in the study. It also publishes two original data studies with named authors and reviewers. The datasets measure AI interest by city, which is somewhat removed from how generative search itself behaves.

Buried appears in the tracked AI answers more often than most agencies, placing it near the top of the field. The result is the same across every list. It is a single reading of the agency's own visibility and does not measure B2B work.

Buried publishes a team with AI-search expertise, although LinkedIn shows roles centred on SEO rather than dedicated AI-search titles. The company's external record was also checked. Buyers should clarify who would deliver the GEO work day to day.

Buried publishes GEO pricing in tiers, matched to buyer size and itemised by deliverable. It gives a buyer a useful basis for judging transparency and proportionality. No minimum term or notice period is published, so the full commitment remains unclear.

Buried publishes B2B client work without an AI-search figure attached. It also publishes a B2B lead-generation case without an AI-search figure attached. The sector relevance is there, but the published evidence does not yet show a measurable B2B GEO outcome.

One of the seven published clients is a business selling to other businesses, a 14 per cent share. Buried has no B2B service page. Its published client mix therefore provides only limited evidence of B2B fit.

Passion Digital publishes one AI-search case study with a before-and-after pair for visibility share and a five-step method. The client is unnamed, and the case study does not say where the figures came from. That gives a buyer something to examine, but little context for judging the result.

The agency has an AI-search service with supporting sub-pages. It names the measures across four engines, two instruments, including one of its own, and builds prompts for each client. Reporting reaches traffic and leads, but the agency gives no sampling frequency.

Passion Digital has a strong average across a good number of reviews, although all are about a year old. One names search work. The rest are general, and one comes from a partner agency, so recent client references would add useful context.

Passion Digital covers seven distinct AI-search subjects. Its strongest piece explains how to identify AI crawlers that ordinary analytics miss. The agency relies on other people's figures and has not published an analysis of its own dataset.

Passion Digital is not rated on this measure. It joined the tracked prompt set too recently to have a reading, so the criterion drops out of its average and counts neither for nor against the agency. The same treatment applies across every list. The missing reading says nothing about its B2B capability.

The team page agrees with LinkedIn, and neither shows a job title aligned to AI search. Award recognition and recent finalist places provide external evidence, while the company record is clean. A buyer should ask which specialists would own the AI-search work.

Passion Digital publishes no price for any service. Its enquiry form includes a budget selector, but that only shows the bands the agency works within. It does not explain what any band buys, so transparency and value remain difficult to judge before a sales conversation.

We reviewed every case study Passion Digital publishes and found no B2B client with an AI-search result attached. The agency has published B2B client work, but the available material does not provide a measurable B2B GEO outcome.

8 of the 39 published clients are businesses selling to other businesses, a 21 per cent share. They include Nutanix, Cyncly, Cloud Gateway, Moore Kingston Smith, Shoosmiths, P2 Consulting, Octopus Investments and DailyFX. B2B is Passion Digital's strongest sector by count in the published client list.

Blue Array publishes 21 success stories, but only one mentions AI search, and it does so as a reason for changing tactics. The attached results are organic, leaving the AI-search claim without evidence a buyer can check. This is a substantial gap for a ranking that gives weight to proven outcomes.

The service page specifies mentions, citations, sentiment and competitor benchmarking across named models. It names no tool for the work and gives no reporting schedule. The measures sound relevant to B2B buyers, but the missing operational detail makes the approach harder to assess.

Blue Array has a perfect average from a small number of reviews. One covers search work, while the rest offer general praise for the service. The newest review is two years old, so ask for recent references before placing much weight on the score.

Blue Array publishes three original AI-visibility studies across named models and covers a broad set of GEO subjects. The method and sample sit behind an email form, so we could not read them. That prevents a proper assessment of the research quality.

Blue Array appears in AI answers to the tracked prompts more often than most agencies, placing it in the upper third. The result is the same across every list. This criterion measures the agency once and does not indicate B2B performance.

The team page and LinkedIn agree, which is rarer than it should be. Neither shows an AI-search role. B Corp certification and an agency-of-the-year award provide external evidence, while a buyer should confirm who would deliver the GEO work.

Blue Array publishes one audit price in full, while retainers allow the buyer to set the size. The GEO page carries no figure, and no minimum term is stated. The audit price helps with transparency, but the retainer model leaves proportionality and value to establish in the proposal.

Blue Array has not yet been read for B2B work. This column uses the field median of 3, so the missing evidence has not moved the agency up or down. Buyers should treat the result as a neutral placeholder rather than proof of B2B experience.

9 of the 22 published clients are businesses selling to other businesses, a 41 per cent share. They include Automata, GoCardless, iwoca, Penfold, Pepper Money, The Private Office, Weightmans, Yell and Save My Exams. Fintech and professional services lead the published client list, giving Blue Array a clear B2B base even though its B2B GEO evidence remains unread.