Who are the best GEO agencies for ecommerce brands?

Buried publishes four case studies that name AI visibility. Three include a figure, with the client and period stated. One compares performance before and after the work against a named competitor. The figures do not identify their source, which keeps this from scoring higher.

Buried has the clearest measurement approach in the study. It covers eight indicators, names three tools, sets out a reporting rhythm and tracks six answer engines. The reporting links visibility with leads and sales, giving ecommerce teams a clearer view of commercial impact.

Buried records a perfect average across the available reviews. It is the only agency in the study with a readable client review that specifically names GEO work. The reviews are recent, too.

Buried covers the widest range of GEO subjects in the study. Its published work includes two original data studies with named authors and reviewers. Both datasets measure AI interest by city, which sits somewhat apart from the way generative search behaves.

Buried appears in our tracked AI answers more often than most agencies, placing it near the top of the field.

Buried publishes a team with AI-search expertise. LinkedIn shows roles focused mainly on SEO rather than dedicated AI-search titles. We also checked the company's external record.

Buried publishes GEO pricing in tiers, matched to buyer size and itemised by deliverable. That gives an ecommerce buyer a useful starting point for budgeting. The agency publishes no minimum term or notice period.

Buried publishes ecommerce work with AI-search figures attached. It names Pinter, Atomic Cubes and Dunnes Stores as clients, with a figure for AI visibility attached to each one.

Buried publishes work for seven clients, four of which are ecommerce businesses. That gives ecommerce clients a 57 per cent share, alongside a dedicated ecommerce SEO service page. The sample is small, so the percentage rests on a handful of examples.

Clickslice publishes four dedicated answer-engine case studies. Each names the client and shows where visibility and citation share started and finished. The fourth case study covers Clickslice's own brand, which the agency discloses. None gives a measurement period.

Clickslice names its measurement instrument and builds prompt sets for individual clients. Clients get live dashboards, while reporting continues through to leads, sales and revenue. That commercial link is useful for an ecommerce brand trying to connect AI visibility with the till.

Clickslice has the highest review count in the study, with a strong and recent average. The readable reviews cover search work. Two describe the sales process before the work began, so they provide less evidence about delivery itself.

Clickslice publishes a broad range of AI-search material, including two calculators. Its strongest work takes a clear methodological position on measuring visibility. Much of the remaining AI content consists of agency rankings, and the agency publishes no original dataset analysis.

Clickslice appears in our tracked AI answers more often than most agencies, putting it in the upper part of the field.

A LinkedIn role carries the AI-search discipline directly. An agency-of-the-year win and vendor partner accreditation add external evidence to the company record.

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 is published. You can estimate the entry point, but you will need to ask what the GEO work adds.

Clickslice publishes ecommerce work with AI-search figures attached. Furl, a furniture retailer, moved from around 5 per cent visibility to nearly 15 per cent, while citation share rose from 0.5 per cent to 4. Knit in a Box, which Clickslice owns and discloses as its own brand, moved from 24 per cent to 40.

Twenty-one of the twenty-eight clients Clickslice publishes work for sell consumer products online, giving it a 75 per cent ecommerce share. Its case-study page is titled eCommerce SEO Case Studies, so that description comes from the agency itself. The work spans furniture, fashion, jewellery, fireworks, humidors, e-bikes and pharmacy.

Charle publishes three pieces of client work with AI-visibility figures as headline statistics on a service page. Two clients are named. None of the figures gives a starting point, measurement period or source, so the results are difficult for a buyer to check.

Charle tracks citations, mention frequency, prompt match rates and traffic across four named engines. It reports monthly through its own published platform. The reporting stops at traffic, with no published link to leads or revenue.

Charle has a high average across a modest number of reviews. They are all about a year old and focus on Shopify build work. None mentions search, so the reviews say more about ecommerce delivery than GEO.

Charle covers five distinct GEO subjects. The strongest piece is a methodological guide bylined by the chief executive. The agency publishes no original dataset.

Charle is not rated on this criterion. It joined our tracked prompt set too recently to produce a reading, so the criterion drops out of its average and counts neither for nor against the agency. This result is the same on every list, and it does not relate specifically to ecommerce work.

Charle claims a Shopify and GEO team, with one person named publicly. No individual carries a GEO title on the site or LinkedIn. Shopify Plus Partner status supports the agency's ecommerce credentials. We could find no company record, so the founding date rests on Charle's own word.

Charle publishes membership tiers and figures covering Shopify support. The GEO page carries no price, and no minimum term is published. An ecommerce buyer can see the Shopify entry points but will need to ask separately about GEO.

Charle publishes ecommerce work with AI-search figures attached. Cambridge Satchel is up 164 per cent on AI-search citations, while Rhute is up 1,030 per cent on GEO visibility. Both figures appear on Charle's GEO service page.

All twenty-one clients Charle publishes work for are consumer brands trading on Shopify. The agency runs separate ecommerce SEO and ecommerce GEO service pages, and we verified its published Shopify partnership. No client base in the study is more completely ecommerce-focused.

Rise at Seven's work pages do not name AI visibility. Its client AI figures appear on a service page that is absent from the sitemap and reachable only through the navigation. The figures render as animated counters, so we had to read them from the page source. Three of the four clients are named, but each figure gives only a level, with no starting point, period or measurement instrument.

Rise at Seven explains its strategy prompt by prompt and competitor by competitor, with onsite work set out separately. It names no measurement instrument or reporting rhythm, and the published material does not connect visibility with traffic, leads or revenue. The agency's stated position is that this work belongs with its SEO team.

Rise at Seven has very few reviews, and none of the readable ones describes specific work. They discuss collaboration and communication. Two come from other agencies, which gives them limited value for an ecommerce buyer assessing delivery.

Rise at Seven publishes a live leaderboard combining Google visibility, AI-search visibility and brand demand into one score for each category. The agency names its data source, explains the method, publishes the leaderboard free and tracks it over time. It does not state the universe from which the data is drawn.

Rise at Seven appears in our tracked AI answers around the middle of the field.

Two job titles carry the AI-search discipline, and the agency names its leadership throughout the site. Award wins and conference organising add external evidence to the published team record.

Rise at Seven publishes no price for its own work. It does not explain what changes the price, and we found no rate in an outside register. The only pound figures on the site belong to client results and other people's statistics.

Rise at Seven publishes ecommerce work with AI-search figures attached. Revolution Beauty reaches 73 per cent share of voice in LLM answers, while InSinkErator reaches 58 per cent. Both are consumer retail brands.

Fifteen of the thirty-six clients Rise at Seven publishes work for are online retailers, a 42 per cent share. They include JD Sports, PrettyLittleThing, Revolution Beauty, Dermalogica, Interflora, GAME, Haribo, Lloyds Pharmacy, Xbox and PlayStation. Rise at Seven publishes no ecommerce service page, so this score rests on the client list.

Propellernet publishes two pieces of client work that name AI visibility. Both name the client and give year-on-year periods. One explains the method properly, but neither provides a before-and-after pair or names the source of the figures.

Propellernet sets out one of the clearest measurement positions in the study. It explains which metrics the agency trusts and which it does not, names two instruments, defines the competitor set and publishes quarterly reporting. The reporting stops at visibility, with no stated link to leads or revenue.

Propellernet has a perfect average from a small number of reviews, but little written detail. The only substantive review is nine years old and does not describe the work. That leaves the agency's own published evidence doing most of the heavy lifting.

Propellernet publishes a quarterly AI-adoption tracker with a national polling firm. It uses representative samples and publishes the research in full. That gives the work a stronger evidence base than most agency content in the study.

Propellernet appears in our tracked AI answers with a middling level of visibility.

Propellernet is the first agency in this ranking to reach the top band for staffing. Three job titles carry the AI-search discipline outright, with more people mentioning it in their headlines. B Corp certification, two agency-of-the-year wins this year and more than two decades on the company record add support.

Propellernet publishes one figure, covering training. It does not explain what changes an engagement price, and no minimum term appears. An ecommerce buyer will need to ask for the cost and scope of the ongoing work.

We read every case study Propellernet publishes and found no ecommerce client with an AI-search result attached. Its ecommerce client base is one of the strongest in this ranking, so the gap concerns what the agency has published about AI search for those clients.

Nine of Propellernet's twelve published clients are online retailers, a 75 per cent share. They include Holland & Barrett, Beauty Pie, Evans Cycles, Pour Moi, Dr Barbara Sturm and Long Tall Sally. Its Ecommerce Marketing sector page also names SportsShoes.com as a long-standing client. After Charle, this is the most ecommerce-weighted client list in the study.

SEO Works publishes five pieces of client work that name AI visibility, the highest number in the study. The strongest names the client and period, then tracks the result through to revenue. None gives a starting point or names the measurement instrument.

SEO Works explains what it tracks on its service pages and reports monthly. The work is built around client targets, while case studies connect AI visibility with conversions and revenue. The agency does not name the tools behind the measurement.

SEO Works has a solid average across a large number of reviews. Two readable reviews specifically mention search work and are recent. A noticeable tail of one-star reviews brings some balance to the overall picture.

SEO Works publishes a substantial dataset library, including research with clear sourcing and stated sample limitations. Some of its strongest work concerns SEO and brand rather than generative search itself.

SEO Works appears in our tracked AI answers more often than almost any other agency in the study, ranking second on this measure.

SEO Works has an established team and external evidence of its reputation. Its published material gives less specific evidence about dedicated AI-search roles, which limits the score on this criterion.

SEO Works publishes four pricing tiers, with figures and an explanation of who each tier is intended for. Five pieces of client AI-search work provide further evidence of the service. The main point to clarify is how the published tiers map to an ecommerce programme.

SEO Works publishes one ecommerce result for AI search. A coffee retailer reported a 78 per cent rise in sales from AI. The client is unnamed, which makes the result harder to check and holds this score down.

SEO Works tags eight of its eighty-two published case studies as ecommerce, fewer than 10 per cent of the total. It does run a dedicated ecommerce service page, which lifts the score off the bottom band. The evidence points to a generalist agency with an ecommerce practice inside it.

Impression publishes one unusually detailed AI-search case study. It names the client, states a 12-month period, explains the tactics and sources the figures to the tools behind them. It does not give the starting position, so the size of the change cannot be checked.

Impression names three measurements and tracks prompts by topic and business. Its reporting reaches conversion and revenue. The agency describes the tracking software without naming it, and gives no reporting rhythm for the AI work.

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

Impression covers eight distinct AI-search subjects. Its strongest pieces take a position on issues such as the AI metrics boards should care about. The team refers to tests, but does not publish the underlying results as research.

Impression appears in our tracked AI answers more often than almost all other agencies, placing it near the top of the field.

Impression has a large team and strong external reputation, including B Corp certification and several agency-of-the-year wins. No published job title across the team specifically carries AI search.

Impression publishes no clear price for its AI service. An ecommerce buyer will need to establish the likely monthly range, scope and commercial terms before comparing the agency with more transparent options.

We read every case study Impression publishes and found no ecommerce client with an AI-search result attached. The agency has substantial ecommerce experience, but it has not presented that experience with an AI-search figure.

Twenty-one of Impression's sixty-eight published clients are online retailers, a 31 per cent share. They include Clarins, Topps Tiles, Queensmith, Funky Pigeon, Cuckooland, Rutland Cycling, Abigail Ahern and Rise Art. Impression also publishes an Ecommerce Marketing Agency page.

Polaris publishes one AI-search case study with unusually strong evidence. It names the client, includes a named client quote, gives the starting position in figures, states the period and shows a substantial change. The case study does not identify the instrument behind the figures.

Polaris publishes a full GEO service tree. Its tracking page names what gets measured, and its reporting reaches referral attribution and conversion. The agency builds the measurement stack around each client and names no platform. It sets no reporting rhythm.

Polaris has a decent average across a modest number of reviews. One names search work, one covers email marketing and one offers general praise. The newest review is a year old.

Polaris covers more than six distinct AI-search subjects, and its playbooks take positions of their own. Figures that appear in the work come from other sources. The agency publishes no analysis of an original generative-search dataset.

Polaris appears in our tracked AI answers a fair amount, placing it in the upper half of the field.

Polaris is a small team with no AI-search job title. Its search director on LinkedIn is the same person quoted in the AI case study, which supports both claims. A strong and recent run of search award wins adds external evidence.

Polaris has a dedicated pricing page with three tiers, figures and the team assigned at each level. That is unusual and useful for a buyer. The tiers cover search, content and digital PR, while the GEO pages carry no figure of their own.

We read every case study Polaris publishes and found no ecommerce client with an AI-search result attached. The agency publishes AI-search results elsewhere, but none of those clients is an online retailer.

Thirty-five of Polaris's seventy-three published clients are online retailers, a 48 per cent share. Ecommerce is one of its two largest practices. The agency keeps a dedicated ecommerce archive and a sector landing page.

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

Found publishes a full service tree covering individual answer engines. It names what gets measured across five platforms, uses its own named product for continuous tracking and builds prompt work for each client. Reporting stops at visibility and sentiment.

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.

Found covers ten or more distinct AI-search subjects, with the strongest pieces taking positions of their own. The agency publishes no analysis of an original dataset.

Found appears in our tracked AI answers more often than any other agency in the study.

Found publishes a large team, and LinkedIn supports the published roles. Neither source shows an AI-search job title. The only AI wording appears in a director's headline. Award shortlists and wins provide external support for the firm.

Found publishes three price bands with figures and explains what changes the price. It does not itemise what each band includes, and its AI-search pages carry no figure of their own. The bands provide a useful starting point, but the scope still needs checking.

We read all thirty-three case studies Found publishes and found one with an AI-visibility figure. It belongs to Mahlkönig, which is not an online retailer, so it does not support Found's position on this ecommerce ranking.

Twelve of Found's thirty-three published clients are online retailers, a 36 per cent share and its largest single practice. The agency keeps a dedicated ecommerce archive and an Ecommerce Marketing Agency landing page.

Exposure Ninja mentions AI visibility in ten case studies, with figures in three. The strongest names the client, states the period and tracks AI Overview presence and ChatGPT traffic through to conversions. None identifies the source of the figures.

Exposure Ninja's audit explains what it assesses across five named platforms, and clients receive the full prompt library. The agency names no measurement instrument and gives no reporting rhythm for its AI work.

Exposure Ninja has a very large number of recent reviews with a strong average. The readable reviews cover search and website work, although none specifically mentions AI search. That gives the agency good general feedback, with less direct evidence for this service.

One report provides original analysis with a stated method, counting the brands cited by AI answers within a sector. The sample size is not given, and two further reports sit behind download forms.

Exposure Ninja appears only occasionally in our tracked AI answers, putting it in the lower half of the field.

Two formal job titles carry AI-search responsibilities. The chief executive speaks at major industry conferences, while an agency-of-the-year title and a long list of award shortlists add external evidence.

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 gives a buyer something to ask about, although it does not provide a usable budget figure.

We read every case study Exposure Ninja publishes and found no ecommerce client with an AI-search result attached. Three published AI-search figures appear in its wider work, and none belongs to an online retailer.

Six of Exposure Ninja's twenty-six published clients are online retailers, a 23 per cent share. The agency also runs a dedicated eCommerce sector page. The published client mix supports some ecommerce experience, but less than most agencies in this section.