Who are the best GEO agencies for scale-ups and SMEs?

Ten case studies mention AI visibility, and three include a figure. The strongest names the client, gives the period, and tracks AI Overview presence and ChatGPT traffic through to conversions. None names the source of its figures.

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

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.

One report provides original analysis using 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.

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

Two formal job titles carry AI-search responsibilities. The chief executive speaks at major industry conferences. 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. The agency has also argued publicly that businesses should publish pricing, which makes the omission worth asking about.

Exposure Ninja publishes scale-up client work with an AI-search figure attached. Elite Renewables, an SME installer, recorded a 288% increase in AI Overview presence and a rise in ChatGPT sessions from 2 to 101.

We found no published count of scale-ups or established SMEs among Exposure Ninja's clients. This score therefore rests on its published entry retainer. Exposure Ninja publishes no entry price.

Four case studies name AI visibility, and three include a figure. Each names the client and states the period. One gives a before-and-after comparison against a named competitor. None names the source of the figures.

Buried has the clearest measurement approach in the study. It covers eight indicators, three named tools, a stated reporting rhythm and six answer engines. Reporting connects visibility with leads and sales.

Buried has a perfect average across its available reviews. It is the only agency with a readable client review that specifically names GEO work. The reviews are recent.

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

Buried appears in the 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 centred 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, with each deliverable itemised. It publishes no minimum term or notice period.

Buried publishes scale-up client work, although it attaches no AI-search figure. Its model uses a two-to-ten-person team at £2,000 a month, and it publishes clients at that scale.

We found no published count of scale-ups or established SMEs among Buried's clients. This score therefore rests on its published entry retainer of £2,000 a month.

Clickslice publishes four dedicated answer-engine case studies. Each names the client and shows where visibility and citation share started and finished. The fourth 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 receive live dashboards, and reporting reaches leads, sales and revenue.

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.

Clickslice covers a broad range of AI-search subjects and publishes two calculators. Its strongest material takes a clear position on measuring visibility. Much of the AI content consists of agency rankings, and it contains no 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.

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 record.

Clickslice publishes a starting monthly figure and an itemised link-building rate card. Its AI-search pages give no specific price, and it publishes no minimum term.

Clickslice publishes scale-up client work, although it attaches no AI-search figure. Twenty-one of its 28 published clients are small and mid-market consumer brands. The agency does not present the work as being linked to client size.

21 of Clickslice's 28 published clients are scale-ups or established SMEs, giving it a 75 per cent share. Its client base consists of small and mid-market consumer brands. This list also weighs its published entry retainer of £2,500 a month.

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.

The service pages explain what SEO Works tracks, and the agency states that it reports monthly. The work is built around client targets. Case studies connect AI visibility with conversions and revenue, although they name no tools.

SEO Works has a solid average across a large number of reviews. Two readable reviews specifically mention search work and are recent. There is also a noticeable tail of one-star reviews.

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

SEO Works appears in the tracked AI answers more often than almost any other agency in the study. It ranks second on this measure. This finding is the same on every list, and it says nothing specific about scale-up work.

SEO Works has an established team and external evidence of its reputation. Its published material gives less specific evidence of dedicated AI-search roles.

SEO Works publishes four pricing tiers, with figures and an explanation of who each tier suits. Five pieces of client AI-search work provide further evidence of the service.

We read every case study SEO Works publishes. None shows a scale-up client with an AI-search result attached.

We found no published count of scale-ups or established SMEs among SEO Works's clients. This score therefore rests on its published entry retainer of £1,500 a month.

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. Neither provides a before-and-after pair or names the source of the figures.

Propellernet takes one of the clearest positions on measurement in the study. It explains which metrics it trusts and which it does not. It publishes two named instruments, a defined competitor set and quarterly reporting. Reporting stops at visibility.

Propellernet has a perfect average from a small number of reviews, but the written detail is limited. The one substantive review is nine years old and does not describe the work.

Propellernet publishes a quarterly AI-adoption tracker produced with a national polling firm and based on representative samples. The research is published in full and has a stronger evidence base than most agency content in the study.

Propellernet has a middling level of visibility in the tracked AI answers.

Propellernet is the first agency here to reach the top staffing band. Three job titles carry the discipline directly, with more including it in their headlines. The agency is B Corp certified, has two agency-of-the-year wins this year and has traded for more than two decades.

Propellernet publishes one figure, covering training. It does not explain what changes an engagement price, and it publishes no minimum term.

We read every case study Propellernet publishes. None shows a scale-up client with an AI-search result attached.

We found no published count of scale-ups or established SMEs among Propellernet's clients. This score therefore rests on its published entry retainer of £1,000 a month.

One case study names AI visibility and gives an outcome. It names the client and describes the starting position in words. The figures quoted alongside it are ordinary organic figures, so no number attaches directly to the AI claim.

Targeted SEO offers a productised audit with a clear method. It finds the questions customers ask, tests them across four named platforms and benchmarks which businesses appear. The agency states its position on the terminology plainly. It names no instrument, gives no repeat measurement schedule and links visibility to no commercial outcome.

Targeted SEO has a perfect average across a good number of recent reviews. Two readable reviews name search work.

Targeted SEO covers seven distinct AI-search subjects. Its pieces on regulated industries and healthcare take a clear position on managing risk in AI answers, which is unusual in this set. None analyses an original dataset.

Targeted SEO almost never appears in AI answers to our tracked prompts, placing it near the bottom of the field.

Targeted SEO has a small team and no AI-search job title. Both founders are named, and the company record is clean. Beyond conference attendance, we found no outside recognition.

Targeted SEO publishes detailed price tables, but they describe what UK agencies charge rather than its own services. The guide ends with an invitation to request a quote. Its own work has no published price, and the AI audit carries no figure.

We have not yet reviewed Targeted SEO for scale-up work. This column therefore uses the field median of 3. Being unread has not moved the agency up or down.

33 of Targeted SEO's 33 published clients are scale-ups or established SMEs, giving it a 100 per cent share. Its published client base consists entirely of small professional firms. This list also weighs its published entry retainer of £1,000 a month.

Quirky Digital publishes four case studies that name AI visibility, and all four name the client. The clearest gives a share-of-voice figure across three named engines and includes qualified leads. None gives a starting point, a period or the instrument behind the figures.

The service page covers three named engines and offers a visibility audit. When asked how it tracks results, Quirky Digital answers in general terms and points to other people's tools without naming the ones it uses. The case studies clearly measure something, and reporting reaches qualified leads. No reporting rhythm is published.

Quirky Digital has a perfect average across a good number of recent reviews. Two readable reviews name search work.

Quirky Digital covers six distinct AI-search subjects. Its writing explains the field without taking a position on it, and none of the material analyses an original dataset.

Quirky Digital rarely appears in AI answers to our tracked prompts, placing it near the bottom of the field.

No job title carries AI search. The managing director mentions it in a headline only. Quirky Digital has two search award wins on record. It publishes no company number, and we could not find one.

Quirky Digital publishes a monthly range on its own site, explains what changes the price and gives a worked example for one sector. It describes campaign coverage only in outline, and its GEO pages carry no figure of their own.

We have not yet reviewed Quirky Digital for scale-up work. This column therefore uses the field median of 3. Being unread has not moved the agency up or down.

13 of Quirky Digital's 13 published clients are scale-ups or established SMEs, giving it a 100 per cent share. Its published client base consists of small businesses and clinics. This list also weighs its published entry retainer of £1,500 a month.

Polaris Agency publishes one AI-search case study, and it is among the best evidenced here. It names the client and quotes the client by name. It gives the starting position in figures, states the period and shows a substantial change. It does not say which instrument produced the figures.

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

Polaris Agency 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 Agency covers more than six distinct AI-search subjects, and its playbooks take positions of their own. Where figures appear, the agency cites other sources. None of the material analyses an original dataset about generative search.

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

Polaris Agency has a small team and no AI-search job title. Its search director on LinkedIn is the same person quoted in the AI case study, which supports both claims. The agency also has a strong and recent run of search award wins.

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

We read every case study Polaris Agency publishes. None shows a scale-up client with an AI-search result attached.

We found no published count of scale-ups or established SMEs among Polaris Agency's clients. This score therefore rests on its published entry retainer of £3,000 a month.

Impression publishes one AI-search case study with unusually detailed evidence. 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.

Impression names three measurements and tracks prompts by topic and business. Reporting reaches conversion and revenue. It describes the tracking software without naming it, and gives no reporting rhythm.

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.

Impression covers eight distinct AI-search subjects. Its strongest pieces take a position on issues such as which AI metrics matter to boards. The team refers to tests without publishing the underlying results as research.

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

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

Impression publishes no clear price for its AI service. Ask for the minimum engagement, what it covers and what would change the fee before comparing it with the other agencies here.

We read every case study Impression publishes. None shows a scale-up client with an AI-search result attached.

We found no published count of scale-ups or established SMEs among Impression's clients. This score therefore rests on its published entry retainer. Impression publishes no entry price.

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

Found publishes a full service tree covering individual answer engines. It names what gets measured across five platforms. Its own named product tracks continuously, and prompt work is built 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, and its strongest pieces take positions of their own. None analyses an original dataset.

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

Found publishes a large team, and LinkedIn supports that picture. Neither source shows an AI-search role. The only AI wording appears in a director's positioning headline. Award shortlists and wins add external support.

Found publishes three price bands with figures and explains what changes them. It does not itemise what each band includes, and its AI-search pages carry no figure of their own.

We read every case study Found publishes. None shows a scale-up client with an AI-search result attached.

We found no published count of scale-ups or established SMEs among Found's clients. This score therefore rests on its published entry retainer of £3,000 a month.