How we rank GEO agencies

Bird publishes a substantial collection of case studies. One mentions AI search, but does not attach a result to the work. Its only figures are ordinary organic-search results, so there is no AI-search outcome a buyer can check.

The service page explains the concept but names no tools or reporting schedule. It refers to visibility without defining what gets measured. The same template appears across hundreds of industry pages, with no detail shaped around an individual client.

Bird has a high average rating, a healthy review count and recent feedback. The reviews focus on website design and development, so they support the firm's wider reputation but provide no evidence about this service.

Bird has hundreds of published posts, but none focuses on AI search. The closest piece explains how AI changed rankings. It repeats material published elsewhere and offers no original view on how AI answers are produced.

Bird appears in some AI answers for our tracked prompts, but only rarely. It sits in the lower half of the study.

Five people carry GEO titles on Bird's website. None uses the same title on LinkedIn, where their roles appear as SEO, PPC and web. The leadership details, company record and awards all check out.

Bird publishes prices for its website plans, but the GEO page gives no figure. An outside register lists an hourly rate. The service offer is clear, while the cost of a GEO engagement remains uncertain.

Blue Array publishes 21 success stories. One mentions AI search as a reason for changing tactics, but the attached results are organic-search figures. The AI-search claim has no supporting result a buyer can check.

The service page specifies mentions, citations, sentiment and benchmarking against a client's competitors across named models. It names no measurement tool and gives no reporting schedule for the AI work.

Blue Array has a perfect average from a small number of reviews. One concerns search work, while the rest offer general praise. The newest review is two years old.

Blue Array has published three original AI-visibility studies across named models, alongside a broad range of GEO subjects. The method and sample are behind an email form, so we could not assess them.

Blue Array appears in our tracked AI answers more often than most agencies in the study. It sits in the upper third.

Blue Array's team page matches its LinkedIn information, which is more unusual than it should be. Neither source identifies an AI-search role. B Corp certification and an agency-of-the-year award provide outside support for the firm's reputation.

Blue Array publishes one audit price in full. Retainer budgets are set by the buyer. The GEO page gives no price, and no minimum contract term appears.

Four case studies name AI visibility, and three include figures. Each names the client and states the period. One gives a before-and-after comparison against a named competitor. Buried does not identify the tool behind the figures.

Buried gives the clearest measurement detail in the study. It names eight indicators, three tools, a reporting rhythm and six answer engines. Its reporting follows results through to sales and leads.

Buried has a perfect average, and its profile is the only one in the study with a readable review naming GEO work directly. The review is recent, too.

Buried covers the widest range of GEO subjects we found and publishes two original data studies with a named author and reviewer. The datasets measure AI interest by city, which sits one step away from the way generative search behaves. That limits the evidence here.

Buried appears in our tracked AI answers more often than most agencies. It sits near the top of the field.

The website describes a team with substantial AI-search expertise and names one person. LinkedIn shows a small team whose roles are SEO with AI added, and no AI-search title appears. The award-winning wording refers to an award won before the agency existed.

Buried publishes GEO tiers with prices on the GEO page itself. The tiers match the buyer's size and itemise the deliverables. No minimum term or notice period appears.

Three pieces of client work publish AI-visibility figures as headline statistics on a service page. Two name the client. None gives a starting point, measurement period or source for the figures.

Charle tracks citations, mention frequency, prompt-match rates and traffic monthly across four named engines. It uses a platform of its own and publishes details about it. Reporting reaches traffic but stops short of leads or revenue.

Charle has a high average across a modest number of reviews, all about a year old. The reviews concern Shopify development and none mentions search.

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

Charle is not rated here. It joined our tracked prompt set too recently to produce a reading, so this criterion neither raises nor lowers its average.

Charle describes a Shopify and GEO team and names one person. No individual carries a GEO title on the website or LinkedIn. Shopify Plus Partner status supports the firm's credentials. We found no company record, so the founding date comes from Charle's own information.

Charle publishes membership tiers and prices for Shopify support. The GEO page gives no figure, and no minimum term appears.

Clickslice publishes the clearest before-and-after client work in the study. Four dedicated answer-engine case studies name the clients and show where visibility and citation share started and finished. The fourth case study covers Clickslice itself, which the agency makes clear. None gives a measurement period.

Clickslice names its measurement platform and holds an accreditation with that third-party provider. It builds prompt sets for each client, provides live dashboards and follows reporting through to leads, sales and revenue.

Clickslice has the highest review count in the study, with a strong average and recent feedback. The readable reviews cover search work. Two discuss the sales process before any work began.

Clickslice covers a broad range of AI-search subjects and publishes two calculators. Its strongest work takes a clear methodological position on measuring visibility. Much of its AI content ranks other agencies, and the site analyses no original dataset.

Clickslice appears in our tracked AI answers more often than most agencies. It sits in the upper part of the field.

One LinkedIn job title directly names the discipline. An agency-of-the-year win and a vendor-partner accreditation provide outside support, and the company record is clean.

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

Ten case studies mention AI visibility, and three include figures. The strongest names the client, states the period and follows AI Overview presence and ChatGPT traffic through to conversions. None identifies the source of the figures.

Exposure Ninja's audit page explains what it assesses across five named platforms and gives clients the full prompt library used. The site names no measurement tool and sets no reporting schedule for the AI work.

Exposure Ninja has a large review base, a strong average and recent feedback. The readable reviews cover search and website work. None mentions AI search.

One report is fully readable and includes original analysis. It explains the method and counts which brands AI answers cite across a sector. The sample size is missing, while two further reports sit behind download forms. Exposure Ninja covers one of the widest subject ranges here.

Exposure Ninja appears only occasionally in our tracked AI answers. It sits in the lower half of the field.

Two formal job titles include AI search, more than almost any other agency here. The chief executive speaks at major industry conferences. The agency also holds an agency-of-the-year title and has a long list of award shortlists.

Exposure Ninja publishes no price for its own services. An outside register lists a rate. Its own webinar advises clients to publish prices, arguing that AI platforms may otherwise skip a brand or invent a figure.

Found publishes one case study naming AI visibility. Its figure measures the share of citations attributed to content, so it shows attribution rather than a change in visibility. There is no starting point, period or measurement tool. Found reuses the same figure across several service pages.

Found has a detailed service structure covering individual answer engines. It names the measures used across five platforms and uses its own named product. Tracking runs continuously, with prompt work 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 concern web projects and general service. The newest is two years old.

Found covers at least ten distinct AI-search subjects, and its strongest pieces take a clear position. The site analyses no 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 corroborates it. Neither source shows an AI-search role. The only AI wording appears in a director's positioning headline. Award shortlists and wins provide outside support.

Found publishes three price bands and explains what changes the price. It does not itemise what each band includes, and its AI-search pages give no separate figure.

We reviewed every case study and page, and none names AI-search work. GAIN publishes organic, paid and conversion results, but no client figure for AI search. Complete coverage produced no evidence for this criterion.

GAIN has more than 100 service pages, but none covers GEO, answer-engine or AI-search services. Its only AI-search offer is a free review behind a lead form. The page explains no method, metric or tool.

Two Google profiles point to the same business, so we scored them as one. Together they show a perfect average. The readable reviews concern SEO work and are eight years old. Recent reviews contain no text.

GAIN covers five distinct AI-search subjects. Its strongest piece takes a sceptical position, arguing that nobody can yet attribute AI visibility to revenue and that much of the relabelling is SEO in new clothes. The site contains no original dataset.

GAIN almost never appears in our tracked AI answers. It sits near the bottom of the field.

GAIN has by far the largest team in the study, but no job title includes AI search. The leadership team is named with its backgrounds, the company record is clean and the firm has a strong award history under its former name.

GAIN publishes full prices and dates for its training courses. It publishes no prices for its services, gives no indication of what changes a fee and has no rate listed on an outside register.

Impression publishes one AI-search case study, and it is the best-evidenced piece of client work in the study. It names the client, explains the problem from the arrival of AI Overviews, states a 12-month period and sets out the tested tactics. The figures link back to their tools. The case study does not give the starting position.

Impression names three measures, tracks prompts by topic and business, and builds dashboards for each client. Reporting reaches conversion and revenue. The agency describes its tracking software in detail but does not name it, and gives no reporting schedule.

Impression has a perfect average across a good number of reviews. One names search work and the rest are general. The newest readable review is a year old.

Impression covers eight distinct AI-search subjects. Its strongest work takes a clear position, particularly on the metrics a board should see. The team refers to tests it has run but does not publish the results as research.

Impression appears in our tracked AI answers more often than almost any other agency. It sits near the top of the field.

Impression has a large team, but no job title includes AI search. It has the strongest outside record in the study, with B Corp certification and several agency-of-the-year wins.

Impression publishes no price for its own work. Every pound figure on the site belongs to a client result. An outside register lists the highest rate we found.

Passion Digital publishes one AI-search case study. It gives before-and-after visibility-share figures and explains a five-step method. The client is unnamed, and the source of the figures is not stated.

Passion Digital has an AI-search service with its own supporting pages. It names the measures tracked across four engines, identifies two tools, including one of its own, and builds prompts for each client. Reporting reaches traffic and leads. No sampling frequency is stated.

Passion Digital has a strong average across a good number of reviews, all about a year old. 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. It relies on other people's figures and analyses no original dataset.

Passion Digital is not rated here. It joined our tracked prompt set too recently to produce a reading, so this criterion neither raises nor lowers its average.

Passion Digital's team page matches LinkedIn, and neither source shows an AI-search job title. Award recognition and recent finalist places support the firm's reputation. The company record is clean.

Passion Digital publishes no service price. Its enquiry form includes a budget selector, but that only shows the bands it works with. It does not explain what any band buys.

Polaris publishes one AI-search case study, and it is among the best evidenced in the study. The client and quoted spokesperson are named, the starting position appears in figures, the period is stated and the change is substantial. Polaris does not identify the tool behind the figures.

Polaris publishes a full GEO service structure. Its tracking page names the measures, and reporting reaches referral attribution and conversion. The agency builds the measurement stack around each client and names no platform. It gives no reporting schedule.

Polaris has a reasonable average across a modest number of reviews. One names search work, one concerns email marketing and one gives general praise. The newest is a year old.

Polaris covers more than six AI-search subjects, and its playbooks take clear positions. Where it uses figures, it cites other sources. The site analyses no original dataset about generative search.

Polaris appears in our tracked AI answers a fair amount. It sits in the upper half of the field.

Polaris 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 pieces of information. The agency also has a strong and recent run of search award wins.

Polaris has a dedicated pricing page with three tiers, prices and the team assigned to each level. That is unusual and useful. The tiers cover search, content and digital PR, while the GEO pages give no separate price.

We reviewed every case study and page, and none of Propeller's client work names AI-search visibility. Its AI service pages describe the offer in detail but publish no client outcome. Complete coverage produced no evidence for this criterion.

On paper, Propeller has the strongest measurement offer in the study. It defines its own metric, tracks it by topic, product line and competitor set across seven platforms, names its dashboard and follows the path from citation through to pipeline.

Propeller has a perfect average across a good number of reviews. The newest is a few months old. All readable reviews concern website work.

Propeller covers four distinct AI-search subjects. Its writing explains the field without taking a clear position. Three further pieces rank other agencies, which score nothing under this criterion. The site contains no original dataset.

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

No job title across Propeller's sizeable team includes AI search. A Shopify partner accreditation supports the firm's credentials. Propeller publishes no company number, and we could not find one.

Propeller publishes no price for its own work and gives no indication of what changes a fee. No outside register lists a rate. Its flagship AI offer is described as a single monthly strategy with no figure attached.

Two pieces of client work name AI visibility. Both name the client and state a year-on-year period, while one sets out its method properly. Neither gives a before-and-after comparison or names the source of the figures.

Propellernet takes the clearest position on measurement, including its limits. It publishes the metrics it trusts and those it does not. The agency names two of its own tools, defines the competitor set and reports quarterly. Its reporting stops at visibility.

Propellernet has a perfect average from a small number of reviews, but almost none contains written detail. The only readable review is nine years old and describes no work. The newest review has no text.

Propellernet publishes the strongest research in the study. Its quarterly tracker of AI adoption and trust runs with a national polling firm using representative samples. Four waves are published in full and free to read. The research starts with how people behave. Structured experiments run alongside it, and Propellernet says it publishes everything it finds.

Propellernet rarely appears in our tracked AI answers. It sits in the lower part of the field.

Propellernet is the first agency in the study to reach the top staffing band. Three job titles name 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 more than two decades on the company record.

Propellernet publishes one price, for training. It gives no indication of what changes an engagement fee, and no minimum term appears.

Quirky Digital publishes four case studies naming 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, period or measurement tool.

Quirky Digital's service page covers three named engines and offers a visibility audit. When asked how it tracks results, the page stays general and points to other companies' tools without saying which ones Quirky uses. The case studies measure something and reporting reaches qualified leads. No reporting rhythm appears.

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 clear position, and the site analyses no original dataset.

Quirky Digital rarely appears in our tracked AI answers. It sits near the bottom of the field.

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

Quirky Digital publishes a monthly price range and explains what changes it. A worked example covers one sector. The campaign scope remains an outline, and the GEO pages give no separate figure.

Reboot publishes one AI-search case study with the clearest starting point in the study. The brand appeared nowhere in AI answers for its target prompts before the work. The client is named and the gains are substantial. No period or measurement tool is stated.

Reboot explains what its service assesses, including how the brand appears in comparative answers and how its citation share compares with competitors. Reporting reaches referral traffic and conversions. The agency reviews tracking tools available in the market but does not identify its own, and gives no reporting schedule.

Reboot has the lowest rating in the study, based on very few reviews. One third are one-star ratings. Two readable reviews name search work.

Reboot publishes a controlled experiment with a stated hypothesis and method. It includes the full results, including where the experiment failed. The team planted a fact that existed nowhere else and measured whether models repeated it. The answer was sometimes, and Reboot says so.

Reboot appears occasionally in our tracked AI answers, a little below the middle of the field.

One job title includes the discipline. Reboot names its leadership, has a company record going back over a decade, and has an agency award and conference speaking experience behind it.

Reboot publishes one price for the service that carries out the AI work and explains the entry point. It publishes no tiers, minimum term or notice period.

None of Rise at Seven's work pages names AI visibility. Its client AI figures appear on a service page missing from the sitemap and reachable only through the navigation. The figures appear as animated counters, so we had to read them from the page source. Three of the four clients are named. Each figure gives a level without a starting point, period or measurement tool.

Rise at Seven explains what its strategy covers, prompt by prompt and competitor by competitor, with onsite work set out separately. It names no tool, gives no reporting schedule and connects visibility to no traffic, lead or revenue measure. Its published position is that this work belongs with the 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.

Rise at Seven publishes a live leaderboard combining Google visibility, AI-search visibility and brand demand into one score per category. It uses a named data source, publishes the results free and tracks them over time. The method and source are stated, but the universe behind the data is not.

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

Two job titles include the discipline, and Rise at Seven names its leadership throughout. The agency has award wins and conference organising experience on record.

Rise at Seven publishes no price for its own work, gives no indication of what changes a fee and has no rate listed on an outside register. The pound figures on its site belong to client results or other people's statistics.

SEO Works publishes five pieces of client work naming AI visibility, the most in the study. The strongest names the client and period and follows the change through to revenue. None gives a starting point or identifies the measurement tool.

SEO Works names what it tracks, reports monthly and builds the work around each client's targets. Its case studies follow results through to AI-assisted conversions and revenue. The agency refers to enterprise-grade tools and its own software but names neither, leaving buyers with nothing to check against.

SEO Works has a solid average across a large review base, with a noticeable tail of one-star ratings. Two recent readable reviews name search work.

SEO Works publishes a substantial dataset library. Its market report states its sourcing standard and uses official and independent figures. A study of 50 sites publishes its sample size, its bias and a clear warning that 50 remains tentative. That level of candour is unusual. The data covers brand and SEO, which sits one step away from generative search.

SEO Works appears in our tracked AI answers more often than almost any other agency. It ranks second in the field.

SEO Works has a large team, but no job title includes AI search. It has the deepest award record by volume, a long company history and employee ownership on the register.

SEO Works publishes four tiers with prices and explains who each suits. It also publishes separate media budgets. The tiers cover search, while the AI pages give no separate price. The inclusions are not itemised, and no minimum term appears.

Solvid has no case-study or results section. The site names no client with an outcome of any kind, including AI-search work.

Solvid publishes two long, reader-focused guides on the subject. It has no AI-search service page and gives no information about what it would measure for a client. No instrument, reporting rhythm or commercial outcome appears.

Solvid has the smallest review base in the study. The only review containing text praises a restaurant and appears to belong to the wrong business.

Solvid publishes two substantial guides based on published sources. They cover three distinct AI-search subjects. The rest of the site focuses on link building and outreach.

Solvid did not appear in any of our tracked AI answers. It ranks last in the field.

No job title includes AI search, and the published team focuses on content and copywriting. The founder appears on both the website and LinkedIn. We found no awards or other outside recognition, and Solvid publishes no company number.

Solvid publishes an itemised rate card for link placements, tiered by placement quality. It publishes no price for search, GEO or AI-search work.

Targeted SEO publishes one case study naming AI visibility and an outcome. The client is named, and the starting position is described in words. The figures alongside it concern ordinary organic results, so no number attaches to the AI-search claim.

Targeted SEO offers a productised audit with a clear method. It identifies the questions customers ask, tests them across four named platforms and benchmarks which agencies appear. The agency states its terminology plainly. It names no tool, presents the audit as a one-off with no stated cadence and connects 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 work on regulated industries and healthcare takes a clear position on managing risk in AI answers, which is unusual in this group. The site analyses no original dataset.

Targeted SEO almost never appears in our tracked AI answers. It sits 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 tables showing what UK agencies charge. The tables end with an invitation to request a quote. They give no price for Targeted SEO's own work, and the AI audit has no published fee.

We reviewed every results page and the rest of the site, and none of Varn's client work names AI visibility. The only AI figures concern other people's market statistics. Varn describes its GEO service but publishes no client outcome.

Varn sells a productised assessment in two versions. It explains what each examines and benchmarks the client against its own competitors. The offer is a one-off assessment, not ongoing measurement. Varn names no instrument or reporting rhythm, and its reporting stops at visibility.

Varn has a perfect average across a modest number of reviews. All three readable reviews concern search work, which is rarer than it sounds. The reviews are recent, too.

Varn covers six distinct AI-search subjects and takes its own position, particularly on whether optimising for AI Overviews merits the effort. The site analyses no original dataset.

Varn appears in our tracked AI answers around the middle of the field.

One job title includes the discipline, and the chief executive uses it in a headline. Varn names its leadership throughout. Its outside record is modest and local: one regional business award and an older search nomination.

Varn's contact page gives price ranges, but the wording describes the market rather than Varn's own services. The same passage appears on several location pages with different figures, including one that is years out of date. Varn's AI framework has two named versions, neither with a published price.