Who are the best GEO agencies for start-ups?
A start-up needs clear pricing, useful measurement and evidence that an agency can work with a smaller business. We assessed 20 UK GEO agencies against seven criteria, then weighted the results for start-up fit. This page also considers published start-up and small-business experience, so you can compare the agencies on evidence rather than promises.
Sarah RiceEditor14 September 2026Last reviewed14 minReadStart-ups rarely have room for a long agency experiment. You need a clear idea of the work involved, evidence that the agency can measure AI-search visibility, and pricing you can assess before the first sales call.
The evidence has one important gap. None of the UK agencies in this study publishes a start-up client result with an AI-search figure. That means this ranking cannot rely on a neat set of start-up case studies.
Instead, we compared the twenty agencies against the same seven criteria used in the main study, then changed the weighting for start-up needs. Published entry pricing matters here, alongside proven outcomes, measurement, reviews and references, research, the agency's own AI visibility, team and reputation, and pricing transparency.
The result favours agencies that give a growing business enough information to make a sensible first decision. A lower starting price helps, but it does not settle the question. You also need to check what the first month includes, how the agency will measure progress, and whether its experience matches your market and ambitions.
Quick verdict
The top three
These three agencies score highest when the main study is weighted for start-up priorities. We considered published start-up and small business work, entry pricing and the broader evidence behind each agency's GEO capability. Published proof of start-up AI-search results is limited, so the ranking focuses on fit as well as track record.
Buried
Buried has the strongest combined evidence for measurement, client results and pricing. Most of its published case studies refer to AI or LLM visibility, and three include an AI-search figure. The Pinter case reports a fourfold increase in AI citations. Atomic Cubes reached number one share of voice across tracked ChatGPT and Gemini prompts.
SEO Works
SEO Works pairs clear pricing with the largest body of published AI-search client work in the study. Five pieces name AI visibility, including DHL's 287% increase in AI Overview citations and 121% growth in ChatGPT referrals. Four pricing tiers also give start-ups a clearer way to judge the likely scope and cost.
Propellernet
Propellernet provides named-client AI-search work with detailed explanations of its methods. Its PureGym case reports a 226% increase in AI Overview appearances. The work covered content structure, comparison tables, question-led titles and content accuracy, giving buyers evidence of both the result and the work behind it.
Key takeaways
- Published start-up pricing starts at £1,200 a month. SEO Works combines that clear entry price with the largest body of published AI-search client work in the study. Before you compare quotes, check what the first month includes and how reporting works.
- Buried has the strongest published evidence across AI-search measurement, client results and pricing. Three of its case studies include an AI-search figure. The Pinter case reports a fourfold increase in AI citations, while Atomic Cubes reached number one share of voice across tracked ChatGPT and Gemini prompts.
- No UK agency publishes a start-up client result with an AI-search figure. That makes published evidence especially important when comparing agencies. This ranking therefore combines the wider GEO assessment with published entry pricing and other measures that matter to start-ups. The order can change when the same twenty agencies are assessed for a different type of buyer.
The full ranking
This table shows how all twenty agencies scored for start-up fit.
Each agency receives a score from 1 to 10 for the seven core GEO criteria, plus scores for start-up evidence and start-up fit. The total is a weighted calculation, not a judgement added by hand. Start-up evidence accounts for 30% of the result, start-up fit accounts for 26%, and the remaining 44% comes from the main GEO agency study.
The core scores use the same evidence and definitions across the site. We scored reviews using the published Google Business import formula, then rounded the result to a whole number here. You can see the precise sub-score in each agency's Reviews panel.
The score panels below explain the reasoning and sources behind each result. The table also carries each agency's position and total for this start-up ranking. If we change a weighting, the totals need recalculating. The agencies themselves do not set their scores or positions.
| # | Entry | Proven outcomes | Measurement approach | Reviews and references | Published research | Their own AI visibility | Team and reputation | Pricing transparency | Start-ups evidence | Start-ups fit | Totalof 10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Buried |
7 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 8.5 | 8 | 9 | 3 | 8 | 6.7 | Visit site |
| 2 | SEO Works |
8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 9.5 | 7 | 8 | 3 | 8 | 6.6 | Visit site |
| 3 | Propellernet |
6 | 9 | 5 | 10 | 3 | 10 | 5 | 3 | 10 | 6.2 | Visit site |
| 4 | Clickslice | 8 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 7 | 3 | 6 | 6 | Visit site |
| 5 |  Targeted SEONot assessed |
5 | 3 | 8 | 8 | 1.5 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 10 | 5.6 | Visit site |
| 6 |  Quirky DigitalNot assessed |
5 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 2.5 | 6 | 7 | 3 | 8 | 5.5 | Visit site |
| 7 |  Polaris Agency |
6 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 3 | 6 | 5.4 | Visit site |
| 8 |  Found |
3 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 3 | 6 | 5.4 | Visit site |
| 9 |  Impression |
7 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5.2 | Visit site |
| 10 |  Exposure Ninja |
9 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 4.5 | 9 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 5 | Visit site |
| 11 |  Passion Digital |
6 | 8 | 8 | 8 | – | 7 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | Visit site |
| 12 | 4 | 9 | 7 | 6 | – | 6 | 8 | 3 | 5 | 4.9 | Visit site | |
| 13 |  Blue ArrayNot assessed |
1 | 4 | 7 | 9 | 7.5 | 7 | 8 | 3 | 5 | 4.4 | Visit site |
| 14 |  Reboot |
6 | 7 | 6 | 10 | 5 | 9 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 4.3 | Visit site |
| 15 |  VarnNot assessed |
0 | 4 | 8 | 8 | 5.5 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 6 | 4.3 | Visit site |
| 16 |  Rise at SevenNot assessed |
4 | 4 | 5 | 9 | 6.5 | 9 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 4.2 | Visit site |
| 17 |  PropellerNot assessed |
0 | 10 | 7 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 4.0 | Visit site |
| 18 |  Bird MarketingNot assessed |
1 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 5 | 3.7 | Visit site |
| 19 |  GAINNot assessed |
0 | 1 | 8 | 6 | 2 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 3.6 | Visit site |
| 20 |  SolvidNot assessed |
0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 3 | 5 | 2.9 | Visit site |
Why trust this ranking
We use the same published evidence for every agency, then weight it for start-up buyers. The process has four checks.
View methodologyWe score seven core criteria against evidence a buyer can check. We also consider start-up relevance and published entry pricing for this page.
Sarah Rice reviews the evidence as a PR specialist and digital marketing expert with more than 30 years' experience working with SEO and GEO agencies, PR agencies and brands.
The full ranking covers twenty UK agencies. Inclusion or paid listing does not guarantee a position. Each agency's position comes from its assessment against the criteria.
The study is updated during our monthly review. Each page shows the evidence and method behind its ranking, so you can check what influenced an agency's position.
Detailed review
The top ten, broken down by each scoring measure. The seven core scores come from our main study and stay the same on every page. This ranking changes their weighting for start-ups and adds two start-up-specific columns.
Buried
Bristol| Criterion | Score | What we found | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proven outcomes13.2% | 7 | Four case studies report client visibility in AI answers. Three include figures, name the client and state the period covered. One compares results before and after against a named rival. None says which tool produced the figures, which limits how easily a buyer can check them. | 1234 |
| Measurement approach6.6% | 10 | This is the clearest tracking approach in the study. Buried measures eight things, names three tools, reports on a set schedule and covers six answer engines. Its reports connect visibility with leads and sales. | 123 |
| Reviews and references7.7% | 9 | Buried has the highest average review score among the agencies assessed. It is the only agency here with a readable client review that names GEO work, and its reviews are recent. | 12 |
| Published research3.3% | 8 | Buried covers the widest mix of GEO topics. It has also published two original data pieces with named authors and reviewers. The data tracks AI interest by city, so it says less about how generative search itself behaves. | 1234 |
| Their own AI visibility5% | 8.5 | Buried appears in our tracked AI answers more often than most agencies, placing it near the top on this measure. | 1 |
| Team and reputation1.6% | 8 | Buried lists team members with AI-search skills. LinkedIn shows roles covering both GEO and SEO. We also checked the company's external record. | 123 |
| Pricing transparency6.6% | 9 | Buried publishes GEO prices in tiers matched to buyer size, with the deliverables listed. The site does not show a minimum term or notice period. | 12 |
| Start-ups evidence30% | 3 | We read all of Buried's case studies. None shows a start-up with an AI-search result attached. | |
| Start-ups fit26% | 8 | Buried publishes no count of start-up clients, so this score uses its entry retainer. The published entry price is £2,000 a month. |
SEO Works
SheffieldLeedsBirminghamCoventry| Criterion | Score | What we found | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proven outcomes13.2% | 8 | Five client pieces mention AI visibility, more than any other agency in the study. The strongest names the client, states the period covered and links the result to revenue. None gives a starting point or names the tool used. | 1234 |
| Measurement approach6.6% | 8 | Service pages explain what SEO Works tracks, and reports go out monthly. The work links to client targets, while case studies connect AI visibility with conversions and revenue. The tools remain unnamed. | 123 |
| Reviews and references7.7% | 8 | SEO Works has a good average from a large number of reviews. Two readable reviews mention search work and are recent. There is also a clear tail of one-star reviews. | 1 |
| Published research3.3% | 8 | SEO Works has a large library of datasets, with sources and sample limits stated. Some of its strongest work concerns SEO and brand rather than generative search itself. | 123 |
| Their own AI visibility5% | 9.5 | SEO Works appears in our tracked AI answers more often than almost any other agency, ranking second on this measure. | 1 |
| Team and reputation1.6% | 7 | SEO Works has an established team and outside signs of a good reputation. Its public material gives fewer signs of dedicated AI-search roles. | 123 |
| Pricing transparency6.6% | 8 | SEO Works publishes four tiers, their prices and the type of client each suits. Five client pieces support the service claims around AI search. | 12 |
| Start-ups evidence30% | 3 | We read all of SEO Works's case studies. None shows a start-up with an AI-search result attached. | |
| Start-ups fit26% | 8 | SEO Works publishes no count of start-up clients, so this score uses its entry retainer. The published entry price is £1,500 a month. |
Propellernet
Brighton| Criterion | Score | What we found | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proven outcomes13.2% | 6 | Two client pieces report AI visibility. Both name the client and give a year-on-year period. One explains the method well. Neither shows a before-and-after comparison or names the data source. | 123 |
| Measurement approach6.6% | 9 | Propellernet is very clear about what to measure and what to leave out. It names two tools, sets out a competitor list and reports quarterly. The reporting stops at visibility, with no link to leads or sales. | 123 |
| Reviews and references7.7% | 5 | Propellernet has a perfect average from a small set of reviews, but the written detail is limited. The only detailed review is nine years old and does not describe the work. | 12 |
| Published research3.3% | 10 | Propellernet publishes a quarterly AI adoption tracker with a national polling firm and representative samples. The full publication is stronger than most agency research in this study. | 123 |
| Their own AI visibility5% | 3 | Propellernet has a mid-level presence in our tracked AI answers. | 1 |
| Team and reputation1.6% | 10 | Propellernet sits in the top staffing band. Three job titles mention AI search directly, and more include it in their headlines. The agency is B Corp certified, has two agency-of-the-year wins this year and has traded for 20+ years. | 123 |
| Pricing transparency6.6% | 5 | Propellernet publishes one price, for training. The site does not explain what changes the price of an engagement or show a minimum term. | 12 |
| Start-ups evidence30% | 3 | We read all of Propellernet's case studies. None shows a start-up with an AI-search result attached. | |
| Start-ups fit26% | 10 | Propellernet publishes no count of start-up clients, so this score uses its entry retainer. The published entry price is £1,000 a month. |
Clickslice
London| Criterion | Score | What we found | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proven outcomes13.2% | 8 | Four answer-engine case studies name the clients and show where visibility and citation share began and ended. One covers Clickslice's own brand and is clearly marked. None gives a time period. | 1234 |
| Measurement approach6.6% | 9 | Clickslice names its tracking tool, builds prompt sets for each client, provides live dashboards and reports through to leads, sales and revenue. | 123 |
| Reviews and references7.7% | 8 | Clickslice has the largest review volume here, with strong and recent feedback. Readable reviews cover search work, and two describe the sales process before the work began. | 12 |
| Published research3.3% | 8 | Clickslice covers a wide range of AI-search topics and has two calculators. Its strongest pieces explain how to measure visibility. Much of the AI content consists of agency rankings, and it has no original dataset analysis. | 123 |
| Their own AI visibility5% | 8 | Clickslice appears in our tracked AI answers more often than most agencies, placing it in the upper group. | 1 |
| Team and reputation1.6% | 9 | A LinkedIn role mentions AI search directly. Clickslice also has one agency-of-the-year win and vendor partner status. We checked the company record. | 12 |
| Pricing transparency6.6% | 7 | Clickslice lists a starting monthly price and an itemised link-building rate card. It does not publish a specific AI-search price or show a minimum term. | 12 |
| Start-ups evidence30% | 3 | We read all of Clickslice's case studies. None shows a start-up with an AI-search result attached, and no client is presented as a start-up. | |
| Start-ups fit26% | 6 | Clickslice publishes no count of start-up clients, so this score uses its entry retainer. The published entry price is £2,500 a month. |
Targeted SEO
SouthamptonPortsmouth| Criterion | Score | What we found | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proven outcomes13.2% | 5 | One case study mentions AI visibility and gives an outcome. It names the client and describes the starting point in words. The figures are standard organic-search measures, so none is tied directly to the AI claim. | 12 |
| Measurement approach6.6% | 3 | Targeted SEO sets out a clear audit method. It finds real customer questions, tests them on four named platforms and checks which brands appear. The agency explains its wording choices. It names no tool, presents the audit as a one-off and gives no set reporting schedule or link to leads and sales. | 12 |
| Reviews and references7.7% | 8 | Targeted SEO has a perfect average across a good number of recent reviews. Two readable reviews mention search work. | 1 |
| Published research3.3% | 8 | Targeted SEO covers seven AI-search topics. Its pieces on regulated industries and healthcare give useful attention to risk in AI answers. There is no original dataset analysis. | 123 |
| Their own AI visibility5% | 1.5 | Targeted SEO almost never appears in our tracked AI answers, placing it near the bottom on this measure. | 1 |
| Team and reputation1.6% | 6 | Targeted SEO has a small team and no AI-search job title. Both founders are named, and the company record is clean. We found no outside recognition beyond conference attendance. | 12 |
| Pricing transparency6.6% | 3 | Targeted SEO publishes detailed tables showing UK agency market rates. They end with an invitation to request a quote, rather than prices for Targeted SEO's own work. There is no price for its AI audit. | 12 |
| Start-ups evidence30% | 3 | We have not yet read Targeted SEO for start-up work. We use the field median of 3 here, so being unread neither helps nor hurts. | |
| Start-ups fit26% | 10 | Targeted SEO publishes no count of start-up clients, so this score uses its entry retainer. The published entry price is £1,000 a month. |
Quirky Digital
Liverpool| Criterion | Score | What we found | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proven outcomes13.2% | 5 | Four case studies mention AI visibility, and all name the client. The clearest gives a share-of-voice figure across three named engines and shows qualified leads. None gives a starting point, time period or the tool behind the figures. | 123 |
| Measurement approach6.6% | 6 | Quirky Digital's service page covers three named engines and offers a visibility audit. When asked how it tracks results, the agency answers in general terms and points to other people's tools without naming them. The case studies clearly track something and report through to qualified leads, but no set reporting rhythm is shown. | 123 |
| Reviews and references7.7% | 8 | Quirky Digital has a perfect average across a good number of recent reviews. Two readable reviews mention search work. | 1 |
| Published research3.3% | 6 | Quirky Digital covers six AI-search topics. Its writing explains the field but does not put forward a clear view of its own. There is no original dataset analysis. | 123 |
| Their own AI visibility5% | 2.5 | Quirky Digital appears only rarely in our tracked AI answers, placing it near the bottom on this measure. | 1 |
| Team and reputation1.6% | 6 | Quirky Digital has no formal AI-search title. Its MD mentions AI search in a headline only. The agency has two search award wins, but no company number is published and we could not find one. | 12 |
| Pricing transparency6.6% | 7 | Quirky Digital publishes a monthly price range, explains what moves the price and gives a worked sector example. It outlines the campaign scope, but its GEO pages do not show a separate price. | 12 |
| Start-ups evidence30% | 3 | We have not yet read Quirky Digital for start-up work. We use the field median of 3 here, so being unread neither helps nor hurts. | |
| Start-ups fit26% | 8 | Quirky Digital publishes no count of start-up clients, so this score uses its entry retainer. The published entry price is £1,500 a month. |
Polaris Agency
London| Criterion | Score | What we found | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proven outcomes13.2% | 6 | Polaris Agency has one AI-search case study, and it is one of the best evidenced in this review. It names the client, includes a named quote, gives starting figures, states the period and reports a large uplift. The tool used is not named. | 12 |
| Measurement approach6.6% | 6 | Polaris Agency sets out a full GEO service map. Its tracking page names the measures, and reports connect referral attribution with conversion. The agency chooses tools for each client but does not name a platform. No set reporting rhythm is shown. | 12 |
| Reviews and references7.7% | 7 | Polaris Agency has a decent average from a modest number of reviews. One mentions search, one mentions email and one offers general praise. The newest review is a year old. | 1 |
| Published research3.3% | 8 | Polaris Agency covers six-plus AI-search topics and publishes its own playbooks. Where figures appear, the agency cites other sources. There is no original dataset work on generative search. | 123 |
| Their own AI visibility5% | 7 | Polaris Agency appears a fair amount in our tracked AI answers, placing it in the upper half. | 1 |
| Team and reputation1.6% | 7 | Polaris Agency has a small team and no AI-search title. The search director named on LinkedIn is also the person quoted in its AI case study, which supports both claims. The agency has strong and recent search award wins. | 123 |
| Pricing transparency6.6% | 8 | Polaris Agency publishes three pricing tiers, their figures and the team assigned at each level. That detail is rare and useful. The tiers cover search, content and digital PR, but the pages do not show an AI-search price. | 12 |
| Start-ups evidence30% | 3 | We read all of Polaris Agency's case studies. None shows a start-up with an AI-search result attached. | |
| Start-ups fit26% | 6 | Polaris Agency publishes no count of start-up clients, so this score uses its entry retainer. The published entry price is £3,000 a month. |
Found
London| Criterion | Score | What we found | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proven outcomes13.2% | 3 | One case study mentions AI visibility. Its figure shows the share of citations credited to content, which measures attribution rather than a change in visibility. It gives no starting point, time period or named tool. The same figure appears on several service pages. | 123 |
| Measurement approach6.6% | 9 | Found sets out a full service map by answer engine and names the measures used across five platforms. It uses its own named product, tracks work continuously and builds prompts for each client. Reporting stops at visibility and sentiment. | 123 |
| Reviews and references7.7% | 7 | Found has a good average from a small set of reviews. One mentions search, while the others cover web work and general praise. The newest review is two years old. | 1 |
| Published research3.3% | 8 | Found covers ten or more AI-search topics. Its stronger pieces put forward a view of their own. There is no original dataset analysis. | 123 |
| Their own AI visibility5% | 10 | Found appears in our tracked AI answers more often than any other agency. | 1 |
| Team and reputation1.6% | 8 | Found shows a large team on its site and LinkedIn. Neither source gives anyone an AI-search role. The only AI wording appears in a director's headline. Award shortlists and wins support the firm's reputation. | 123 |
| Pricing transparency6.6% | 8 | Found publishes three price bands with figures and explains what affects the price. It does not break down what each band includes, and the pages show no AI-search price. | 12 |
| Start-ups evidence30% | 3 | We read all of Found's case studies. None shows a start-up with an AI-search result attached. | |
| Start-ups fit26% | 6 | Found publishes no count of start-up clients, so this score uses its entry retainer. The published entry price is £3,000 a month. |
Impression
Nottingham (HQ)London| Criterion | Score | What we found | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proven outcomes13.2% | 7 | Impression has one AI-search case study with more detail than most. It names the client, covers 12 months, explains the tactics and cites the tools used. It does not give the starting position. | 12 |
| Measurement approach6.6% | 6 | Impression names three tracked measures. It groups prompts by topic and business, and reports connect with conversion and revenue. The software is described but not named, and no set reporting rhythm is shown. | 1 |
| Reviews and references7.7% | 8 | Impression has a strong average across a good number of reviews. One mentions search, while the rest are general. The newest readable review is about a year old. | 12 |
| Published research3.3% | 8 | Impression covers eight AI-search topics. Its strongest pieces explain which AI metrics matter to boards. The agency refers to tests without publishing the underlying results as research. | 123 |
| Their own AI visibility5% | 9 | Impression appears in our tracked AI answers more often than almost all other agencies, placing it near the top. | 1 |
| Team and reputation1.6% | 7 | Impression has a large team and strong external standing, including B Corp status and several agency-of-the-year wins. No job title mentions AI search specifically. | 123 |
| Pricing transparency6.6% | 3 | Impression publishes no clear price for its AI service. | 1 |
| Start-ups evidence30% | 3 | We read all of Impression's case studies. None shows a start-up with an AI-search result attached. | |
| Start-ups fit26% | 5 | Impression publishes no count of start-up clients, and the site gives no entry price. |
Exposure Ninja
West Bridgford, NottinghamLondonCebu City| Criterion | Score | What we found | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proven outcomes13.2% | 9 | Ten case studies mention AI visibility, and three include figures. 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. | 1234 |
| Measurement approach6.6% | 6 | Exposure Ninja's audit explains what it checks across five named platforms, and clients receive the full prompt library. The agency names no measurement tool and gives no set reporting rhythm for its AI work. | 123 |
| Reviews and references7.7% | 8 | Exposure Ninja has a very large volume of recent reviews and a strong average. Readable reviews cover search and web work, but none mentions AI search. | 1 |
| Published research3.3% | 9 | One report counts which brands AI answers cite in a sector and explains its method. It does not give the sample size. Two other reports sit behind download forms. | 123 |
| Their own AI visibility5% | 4.5 | Exposure Ninja appears only sometimes in our tracked AI answers, placing it in the lower half. | 1 |
| Team and reputation1.6% | 9 | Two job titles mention AI-search work. The CEO speaks at major conferences, and the agency has one agency-of-the-year title plus many award shortlists. | 1234 |
| Pricing transparency6.6% | 3 | Exposure Ninja publishes no prices for its own services. An outside register lists a rate, and the agency has argued publicly that businesses should publish pricing. | 12 |
| Start-ups evidence30% | 2 | Exposure Ninja shows start-up work, but none of it has an AI-search figure attached. Some work is with small businesses, without a named start-up client. | |
| Start-ups fit26% | 5 | Exposure Ninja publishes no count of start-up clients, and its site gives no entry price. |
You can read every other agency in the main ranking and on the methodology page.
How we score
We use the same seven evidence-based criteria as the main study, then weight them for a start-up buyer. The core scores stay unchanged. This page also adds two start-up measures, including published entry pricing.
Proven outcomes
We look for AI-search results delivered for a named client. The strongest evidence gives the time covered, the result and enough detail for a buyer to check it. Start-up-specific results carry extra weight here, although no UK agency publishes a start-up client result with an AI-search figure.
Measurement approach
We assess what the agency measures, which tools it uses, how often it reports and how much detail its reporting provides. Clear tracking matters to a start-up because the budget needs a visible link to progress.
Reviews and references
We review public client feedback for its volume, recency and relevance to GEO or AI-search work. Feedback from clients at a similar stage helps a start-up judge the likely working relationship.
Published research
We look for original research about AI search and GEO. Published work shows how much an agency shares beyond its service pages and gives you something specific to examine before making contact.
Their own AI visibility
We ask AI assistants questions an agency's buyers might ask, then record how often the agency appears. That gives us a direct view of its own visibility in AI answers.
Team and reputation
We examine who does the work, whether those people have a presence outside the agency website and how long the firm has been trading. A start-up may need senior input without paying for a large team it will rarely meet.
Pricing transparency
We check whether you can find out what an agency charges before booking a call. Published entry pricing receives extra attention on this page because start-ups need to test affordability early. It remains a starting point, so ask what the first month includes and what ongoing work costs.
The best GEO agency for start-ups, 2026
These are the five highest-ranked agencies in our start-up-focused review. We use the same seven evidence-based criteria as the main study, then give more weight to the things that matter when budgets, internal resource and published proof are limited.
The ranking uses information a buyer can check. That includes published outcomes, measurement methods, reviews, research, AI visibility, team and reputation, and pricing transparency. Start-up-specific evidence is scarce, so the list also considers how clearly each agency explains its offer and what it charges.
Buried
Buried ranks first because it combines the strongest overall fit for a start-up buyer with evidence across the wider GEO assessment. Its position reflects the balance of outcomes, measurement, reputation, research, AI visibility and pricing transparency.
That matters for a start-up choosing a specialist before it has a large marketing team or a long procurement process. Buried is the agency I'd examine first if you want a focused GEO partner and need to understand what you are buying.
Ask for a clear first-month plan, the people who would work on the account and examples of results for businesses at a similar stage. Published start-up-specific AI-search results are limited across the sector, so those questions still matter.
SEO Works
SEO Works ranks second and stands out for its published entry pricing. That gives a start-up a useful starting point when deciding whether professional GEO support fits the budget.
The wider assessment also informs its position, so the ranking does not rest on price alone. The practical benefit is a clearer route into a conversation about scope, cost and expected work.
Before signing, ask how much of the quoted service covers AI-search visibility itself. Some agencies publish prices for related services, so make sure the figure you are comparing covers the work you need.
Propellernet
Propellernet ranks third because its wider credentials score well against the criteria used in this review. That gives it a strong position for start-ups looking for an agency with broader evidence behind its work.
A wider agency offer can help when GEO needs to sit alongside established SEO, content or digital marketing activity. It may suit a start-up with more internal resource and a need to connect AI-search work with a broader marketing plan.
I'd ask how the agency would prioritise GEO work for a smaller team. A start-up should know what happens first, what can wait and how the work will be measured.
Exposure Ninja
Exposure Ninja has the strongest published start-up evidence outside the top three. That makes it worth a close look for founders who want to see signs of relevance to businesses at an earlier stage.
Its fourth-place position reflects the full start-up weighting, rather than one piece of evidence. The published material can help you judge whether the agency understands the constraints that come with a smaller budget and a leaner team.
Ask for the detail behind any start-up example, including the starting point, the work completed and the AI-search measures used. A case study is more useful when a buyer can check what changed.
Targeted SEO
Targeted SEO ranks fifth and has the best set-up for this start-up-focused list outside the top three. That suggests a proposition worth investigating when you want an agency whose offer is easier to relate to your stage of growth.
Its position still comes from the wider seven-criterion assessment. A good fit on paper needs to translate into a workable plan, sensible reporting and costs you can understand before the call.
Ask what the agency needs from your team each month. Start-ups often have limited time as well as limited budget, and the required input can affect the real cost of the engagement.
What does a GEO agency cost for a start-up?
Published pricing gives you a useful starting point. For start-ups, the main choice usually sits between an entry package and a broader monthly programme. The table shows the figures and scope agencies publish, plus the questions worth asking before you book a call.
| What you are looking at | Entry | Mid-market | Enterprise |
|---|---|---|---|
| Typical monthly spend | £450 to £1,500 a month | £1,500 to £8,000 a month | £8,000 a month and above |
| What the money buys | A fixed scope covering prompt research, a visibility baseline and a short list of fixes | Ongoing content, technical work and digital PR against a tracked prompt set | Multi-market or multi-brand programmes with named senior people on the account |
| Who publishes a figure | The two agencies that publish packages for the AI work itself | Most agencies that publish search retainers | Three agencies, two of which publish only a starting figure |
| What is almost never published | The minimum term and notice period | What each band includes, tier by tier | Pricing information on most agency websites |
| What to ask before the call | What happens in month one, and what the baseline is measured with | Which tool provides the reporting, and how often it runs | Who is actually on the account, and what they have shipped |
Start-ups should treat these figures as planning ranges rather than fixed market rates. The work can begin with a defined review of your current visibility and a short list of improvements. A broader retainer costs more because it may involve ongoing research, content, technical work and reporting.
The published evidence is thin at the start-up end of the market. No UK agency in this study publishes a start-up client result with an AI-search figure. That makes scope especially important. Before you compare quotes, ask what the monthly fee covers, who will do the work and how the agency will measure progress.
A low-cost package may suit a start-up that needs a clear baseline and practical fixes. A larger retainer may make sense when GEO sits alongside wider SEO, content or technical work. The sensible choice depends on the problem you need to solve, the capability you already have and how much support your budget can carry.
Agency, freelancer or in-house
Start-ups can cover GEO through an agency, a freelancer or an internal hire. The right route depends on your budget, the skills already in the business and how quickly you need the work moving.
| Agency | Freelancer | In-house | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly cost | £1,500 to £8,000 a month | £500 to £8,000 a month | From £4,000 a month |
| In its favour | A quick start with a low initial commitment. You get several roles and specialisms through one retainer, usually including senior people. The support can scale up or down as your needs change. | Quick to hire, with the lowest commitment of the three. You get one person who knows the discipline. | The lowest hourly cost once someone is in post. Their whole week is dedicated to your business. |
| Against it | You are one client among several, and the day rate buys less time than a salary. | The hourly cost is highest, and you rely on one person. Copywriting, development and digital PR usually sit outside their work. | Hiring takes longer and creates a long-term commitment. Anyone at mid or senior level also brings a high entry cost. |
| Suits you if | You want work moving within weeks and need more than one discipline. | You already have the surrounding skills and need one specialist. | GEO is set to become a permanent part of how you go to market. |
In-house
An in-house hire gives you the most control over priorities, processes and reporting. It can suit a start-up with steady funding, a clear search strategy and enough work to keep the role busy.
The trade-off is wider responsibility. One hire may need to cover strategy, content, technical SEO, AI-search monitoring and reporting. You also carry recruitment, salary and management costs, and may still need outside specialists for work outside their experience.
This route suits you if you already have marketing leadership in place and expect GEO to remain a substantial part of the plan. For an early-stage team testing demand, the fixed cost can be harder to justify.
More GEO agency rankings
The best GEO agencies in the UK
See how the twenty agencies rank in the main study, before the criteria are re-weighted for a particular type of buyer.
See the rankingBest GEO agencies for ecommerce brands
Compare agencies through an ecommerce lens, with attention to the needs of online retailers and product-led brands.
See the rankingBest GEO agencies for Shopify stores
Find agencies assessed for Shopify businesses, where AI-search work needs to fit alongside the platform and its wider marketing activity.
See the rankingBest GEO agencies for B2B companies
See which agencies may suit B2B companies, where buyers often research complex products and services before speaking to sales.
See the rankingBest GEO agencies for enterprise brands
Compare agencies for larger organisations with more complex teams, websites, approval processes and technical requirements.
See the rankingBest GEO agencies for international businesses
Review agencies for businesses targeting customers in more than one country or market.
See the rankingBest GEO agencies for local businesses
Find agencies assessed for local businesses that need to improve their visibility in AI search alongside their local presence.
See the rankingBest GEO agencies for scale-ups and SMEs
Compare agencies for scale-ups and SMEs that need more GEO support as their marketing, content and commercial plans grow.
See the rankingFAQ
FAQs
How were the GEO agencies ranked for start-ups?
This ranking applies the main study to start-ups. It gives extra weight to factors such as published entry pricing, because a start-up usually needs to understand likely costs before committing to a specialist agency. The seven core criteria and their underlying scores stay the same as in the main study.
Can an agency pay to be in this table?
An agency can pay to be listed, but payment does not guarantee a ranking position or affect its score. Every agency is assessed against the same seven criteria. Paid listing gives agencies more opportunities to share information, such as pricing that is not published on their website.
Can an agency appeal its score?
Agencies can share additional information with us, and Gold listing includes the option to see the calculations behind each of the seven criteria. The published position still depends on the evidence used in the assessment.
How often is this updated?
The study is reviewed monthly. Agencies with a Bronze listing are included in the monthly review, and the ranking may change when new evidence becomes available.
Which agencies are in the study?
The study covers twenty UK agencies that sell AI search visibility services. The full ranking includes all twenty agencies, assessed against seven criteria using five data sources. Every score traces to a published source.
About the author
Sarah Rice
Editor
Sarah Rice is a PR specialist & digital marketing expert who has spent more than 30 years working with SEO & GEO agencies, PR agencies and brands across a huge range of sectors. She is Director of Rice PR and Director & Editor of The HR World. Earlier in her career, she was Head of Public Affairs and Press Manager at RAC and Head of Campaigns at JBP, and has also worked with DC Thomas and a number of charities.
Get your agency listed
Being included means being read and scored against the same seven criteria as everyone else. It does not buy a position in the table.
See how listing works