Who are the best GEO agencies for local and multi-location businesses?

Propellernet publishes two pieces of client work with named AI-visibility results and year-on-year periods. One explains the method clearly. Neither gives a before-and-after pair or identifies the source of the figures, which limits how easily a buyer can check them.

Propellernet sets out one of the clearest measurement positions in the study. It explains which metrics the agency trusts, names two instruments, defines the competitor set and publishes quarterly reporting. The reporting ends at visibility, so buyers looking for leads or revenue attribution will need to ask for more.

The available reviews average a perfect score, although there are only a few and they contain little written detail. The one substantive review is nine years old and does not describe the work itself.

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

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

Propellernet reaches the top staffing band in this group. Three job titles carry the discipline directly, with more 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 external support.

Propellernet publishes one figure, covering training. The site does not explain what changes an engagement price, and it gives no minimum term. That leaves the cost of the wider service unclear before you make contact.

Propellernet publishes local client work with an AI-search figure attached. The clearest example is PureGym, a multi-location operator that appeared in over 7,000 AI Overviews.

We did not count Propellernet's published client work for this measure. The agency therefore receives the field median of 4, which leaves its position unchanged.

Buried publishes four case studies with AI-visibility results. Three include a figure, and each names the client and period. One compares the starting and ending position against a named competitor. The agency does not identify 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. The agency also connects reporting to leads and sales, which gives buyers a clearer commercial picture.

The available reviews average a perfect score and remain recent. Buried is the only agency in the study with a readable client review that specifically names GEO work.

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 gives useful local context but sits some distance from the way generative search itself 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 focused 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. The site gives no minimum term or notice period. Buyers can see the starting structure, then need to confirm the contractual detail.

We read every case study Buried publishes and found no local client with an attached AI-search result.

Three of Buried's seven published clients operate from more than one location, giving a 43 per cent share. The agency also runs a service page aimed at multi-location businesses.

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. Buyers receive live dashboards, with reporting extending through to leads, sales and revenue. That gives the service a clear route from visibility to commercial outcomes.

Clickslice has the highest review count in the study, alongside a strong and recent average. The readable reviews cover search work. Two describe the sales process before the work began, rather than the results delivered.

Clickslice covers a broad range of AI-search subjects and publishes two calculators. Its strongest material 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 the tracked AI answers 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's own record.

Clickslice publishes a starting monthly figure and an itemised link-building rate card. Its AI-search pages have no specific price, and the site gives no minimum term. Buyers can see a broad entry point but will need a conversation for the GEO cost.

We read every case study Clickslice publishes and found no local client with an attached AI-search result. The published work also contains no multi-location client with an AI-search result.

We did not count Clickslice's published client work for this measure. The agency receives the field median of 4, which leaves its position unchanged.

Passion Digital publishes one AI-search case study with a before-and-after pair for visibility share and a five-step method. The client remains unnamed, and the agency does not say where the figures came from. That makes the result harder to verify.

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

Passion Digital has a strong average across a good number of reviews, although all date from about a year ago. One names search work. The rest are general, and one comes from a partner agency.

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 does not analyse a dataset of its own.

Passion Digital is not rated here. It joined the prompt set too recently to produce a reading, so this criterion drops out of its average and counts neither for nor against the agency. The position is the same on every list. We measure an agency's own AI visibility once, and the result does not relate specifically to local work.

The team page and LinkedIn profile agree, but neither shows a job title aligned to AI search. Award recognition and recent finalist places provide external support. The company's record is clean.

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 each band buys, so transparency and value are difficult to judge before contact.

Passion Digital publishes local client work with an AI-search result attached. The client is an anonymous UK aesthetic medicine group, with LLM visibility rising from 7.8% to 15.6%.

4 of Passion Digital's 39 published clients operate from more than one location, a 10 per cent share. They include Knight Frank local paid media, Quintain Living, Yoga London and Junkwize.

Targeted SEO publishes one case study with a named client and an AI-visibility outcome. It describes the starting position in words. The figures alongside the case study relate to ordinary organic search, so no number attaches directly to the AI claim.

Targeted SEO offers a productised audit with a clear process. It identifies 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 measurement instrument, gives no reporting cadence for the one-off audit and does not connect visibility to a commercial result.

The available reviews average a perfect score and remain recent. There are a good number of them, and two readable reviews name search work.

Targeted SEO covers seven distinct AI-search subjects. Its work on regulated industries and healthcare takes a clear position on managing risk in AI answers, which is unusual in this study. The agency does not analyse an original dataset.

Targeted SEO appears only rarely in the tracked AI answers, 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 what Targeted SEO charges. 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 read Targeted SEO for local work. It therefore receives the field median of 3 for this column, which leaves its position unchanged.

25 of Targeted SEO's 33 published clients operate from more than one location, a 76 per cent share. The agency runs a service page aimed at them, and several page slugs use the words local SEO.

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 identifies the source of the figures.

Exposure Ninja explains what its audit assesses across five named platforms, and clients receive the full prompt library. The agency names no measurement instrument and gives no reporting rhythm for the AI work. Buyers should ask how the audit becomes an ongoing programme.

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 only 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 further external evidence.

Exposure Ninja publishes no price for its own services. An outside register carries a rate, but the agency's site does not. That is a particular gap here because Exposure Ninja has argued publicly that businesses should publish pricing. Buyers have little basis for judging proportionality or value before making contact.

We read every case study Exposure Ninja publishes and found no local client with an attached AI-search result.

We did not count Exposure Ninja's published client work for this measure. The agency receives the field median of 4, which leaves its position unchanged.

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 and 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, reports monthly and builds the work around client targets. Its case studies connect AI visibility with conversions and revenue. The agency names no tools, which makes the measurement process harder to assess.

SEO Works has a solid average across a large number of reviews. Two readable reviews specifically mention search work and remain recent. There is also a noticeable tail of one-star reviews, which deserves a closer look before appointment.

SEO Works has 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. Buyers should separate the broader search evidence from the GEO-specific material.

SEO Works appears in the 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, so buyers should confirm who will lead the GEO work.

SEO Works publishes four pricing tiers, with figures and an explanation of who each tier suits. Five pieces of client AI-search work add evidence that the service exists beyond the pricing page. Buyers should still confirm which tier covers the local or multi-location work they need.

SEO Works publishes local client work, but the case study gives no AI-search figure. It describes conventional local SEO results rather than AI visibility, so it supports local experience more than GEO outcomes.

9 of SEO Works' 82 published clients operate from more than one location, an 11 per cent share. The agency also runs a service page aimed at multi-location businesses.

Quirky Digital publishes four case studies with AI-visibility results, and names the client in each. 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 numbers.

Quirky Digital's service page covers three named engines and offers a visibility audit. Asked how it tracks results, the agency answers in general terms and points to other people's tools without naming the ones it uses. The case studies measure something and reporting reaches qualified leads, but the site gives no reporting rhythm.

The available reviews average a perfect score and remain recent. There are a good number of them, and two readable reviews name search work.

Quirky Digital covers six distinct AI-search subjects. The writing explains the field without taking a clear position, and the agency publishes no analysis of an original dataset.

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

No job title carries AI search. The managing director mentions it in a headline only. Two search award wins provide external recognition. No company number is published, and we could not find one.

Quirky Digital publishes a monthly range and explains what moves it, including a worked example for one sector. The description of campaign coverage remains broad, and the GEO pages carry no figure of their own. Buyers can understand the general shape of the cost but should ask what the GEO work includes.

We have not yet read Quirky Digital for local work. It therefore receives the field median of 3 for this column, which leaves its position unchanged.

6 of Quirky Digital's 13 published clients operate from more than one location, a 46 per cent share. They include Gladstones Clinic, Stockton Students, a weight-loss clinic, Bell Lamb & Joynson solicitors, JG Mortgages and Halton Stairlifts. Local service businesses make up the other half of its published client mix.

Polaris Agency publishes one AI-search case study, and it is among the best evidenced in this group. It names the client, includes a named client quote, gives the starting position in figures, states the period and shows a substantial change. The agency does not identify the instrument behind the figures.

Polaris Agency has a full GEO service tree. Its tracking page names the measures, and reporting reaches referral attribution and conversion. The agency deliberately builds the 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. It publishes no 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 is named on LinkedIn and is the same person quoted in the AI case study, which supports the link between the published work and the team. A strong, recent run of search award wins adds external evidence.

Polaris Agency has a dedicated pricing page with three tiers, figures and the team assigned at each level. That is unusually useful. The tiers cover search, content and digital PR, while the GEO pages carry no price of their own. Buyers should confirm how a local GEO brief fits within the tiers.

We read every case study Polaris Agency publishes and found no local client with an attached AI-search result.

We did not count Polaris Agency's published client work for this measure. The agency receives the field median of 4, which leaves its position unchanged.

We read every case study and page Propeller publishes. None of the client work names AI-search visibility. The AI service tree describes the offer in detail but gives no client outcome. Complete coverage produced no qualifying result here.

Propeller has the strongest measurement offering on paper in the study. It defines its own metric, tracks it by topic, product line and competitor set across seven platforms, names its own dashboard and follows the path from citation to pipeline. The gap is evidence that the system has delivered results for clients.

The available reviews average a perfect score, with the newest only a few months old. All the readable reviews concern website work rather than AI search or GEO.

Propeller covers four distinct AI-search subjects. Its writing explains the field without taking a clear position, and three further pieces rank other agencies, which we score at nothing. The agency publishes no original dataset.

Propeller appears in the tracked AI answers around the middle of the field.

No job title across Propeller's sizeable team aligns with AI search. A Shopify partner accreditation provides external support. No company number is published, and we could not find one.

Propeller publishes no price for its own work. The site explains neither what changes the price nor what an engagement costs, and no outside register carries a rate. Its flagship AI offer is described as a single monthly strategy with no figure attached. Buyers must ask for the basics before they can judge proportionality or value.

We have not yet read Propeller for local work. It therefore receives the field median of 3 for this column, which leaves its position unchanged.

All ten of Propeller's published clients operate from more than one location, a 100 per cent share. They include Nobu Beach Club, Star Pubs, Brother Marcus, Sushi Samba, Incipio Group, Bartlett Group, Collegiate, 200 Degrees, Young's and Hallwood House. The mix covers restaurants, pub estates, a coffee chain and student accommodation. It is the clearest multi-location client base in the study, although you would not guess that from Propeller's overall score.