We are an agency publishing a list of agencies, and we are on it. That is a conflict of interest and no disclosure removes it. Disclosure only lets you price it in. Every figure below that we did not verify on the company’s own website is labelled as reported rather than confirmed. Nobody paid to be here and no link on this page earns us anything.
Twenty of twenty-two lists were written by a company on the list
Before we listed a single agency, we counted. On 28 July 2026 we pulled every page-one listicle we could reach for this query and its close variants, and recorded who published each one.
Twenty-two lists had a roster we could extract in full. Twenty of the twenty-two were published by a company that appears on its own list. Nineteen of those twenty placed themselves first. One, Grizzle, publishes an explicitly unranked list and appears second on it. Three publishers with rosters left themselves off entirely.
Two of the twenty-two are not independent of each other: jasonjkhoo.com and zupo.co are the same operator, Jason Khoo, and both put Zupo at the top. Any count that treats those as two opinions is inflated, so we treat them as one.
This is the structure of the format rather than a scandal. It does mean a buyer should read every page like this as marketing rather than research, and that includes the one you are reading.
How this list was built
What we searched, and when
On 28 July 2026 we ran the head query for this page and every close variant we could think of, and read every organic result on page one. We recorded who published each list, whether the publisher appeared on its own list, and at what position. That structural reading came first, before any agency went into a list of ours.
What qualified an agency for inclusion
Appearing on two or more independent page-one lists, having a live site describing the work, and being a real operating company we could identify. Two lists published by the same operator count once. That is a low bar and we are saying so: this is a starting set for your own research, not a shortlist of the best. The URLs of every list we counted are available on request, because a count you cannot check is worth nothing.
Where each fact came from
Company facts were taken from the agency's own site wherever it stated them. Where it did not, we say so and cite the directory instead. Founding year is missing from the about page of seven agencies here, so every founding year below that came from Clutch is labelled that way rather than presented as the company's own claim.
What we could not verify
We have not worked alongside these agencies, have not seen their reporting and have not spoken to their clients. We cannot rank their results and we do not. Where two sources gave different numbers, both appear below with the disagreement named.
Why we are on our own list
Leaving ourselves off would be a different kind of dishonesty. We are an agency publishing a list of agencies, and posing as a neutral observer of a market we compete in would be the most misleading thing on the page. Our entry is marked and our placement is explained.
No payments, no affiliate links
Nobody paid to appear here and no link on this page earns us anything. If that changes, this section changes with it.
The comparison-column tell
The mechanism is easy to spot once you have seen it. Look at the comparison columns. A list builds a table of criteria, and one column turns out to be the thing only the publishing agency satisfies.
A live example. Pixelmojo's comparison table carries six columns: GEO, AEO, llms.txt, Schema and Citations, by agency. In the llms.txt column, Pixelmojo reads “Yes (dynamic, auto-generated)”. Every one of the six competitors in the table reads “Not documented”. Pixelmojo also holds the only “Full” rating in both the GEO and AEO columns, each qualified in its own favour: “Full (built the tooling)” and “Full (published the methodology)”. To its credit the page discloses the self-inclusion in plain words.
Searchbloom does the same thing with a number. Its table scores each agency out of fifty, awards itself 48, and justifies the top slot with a criterion only one company passes: being “the only firm on this list strong across all five at once”. Searchbloom is also the most candid publisher we read, stating outright that it publishes the guide and ranks itself first, and that you should be sceptical of that.
SEOProfy is the case worth studying hardest, because there the tell inverts. On its GEO agencies list it scores each agency on AI citations measured through Ahrefs, gives itself 7.0 out of 10 and gives WebFX 9.0, the highest score on its own table. It then ranks itself first and WebFX ninth. It scores iPullRank and RevenueZen 1.0 each, and ranks them tenth and fourth. The measurable column and the ordinal ranking are simply independent of each other.
So when you read a comparison table, ask which column the author wins, and then ask which column is missing that you would have chosen. Applied here: our column is published methodology, and we win it because we picked it. The honest counter is that method transparency is not results, and an agency with an undisclosed process and excellent outcomes beats us on the thing you actually care about.
Half of what these lists call an agency is software
There is a second problem with these lists, and it is more likely to waste your time than the self-ranking is. A large share of the entries are software, not agencies.
Profound ranks on page one for “best AI visibility agencies”. Its list contains no agencies: six of the seven entries are tracking platforms and the seventh, AIclicks, is a platform that also sells done-for-you plans. Profound is first. Sanbi.ai ranks for the same family of queries and names no other company at all, agency or otherwise; the only entity on the page is Sanbi.ai, a platform. Respona appears fourth on Minuttia’s list of GEO agencies and is primarily a link-building and outreach platform with a done-for-you layer. Conductor appears ninth on Zupo’s list of AI visibility agencies and is enterprise software, though to Zupo’s credit the entry says so. AIclicks appears as an agency on one page-one list and as a tool on another.
The distinction matters because the two things fail differently. A platform tells you where you are cited. It will not change anything. Buying a dashboard when you needed a programme, or a programme when a $99 dashboard would have answered your question, are both expensive in different directions.
A third pattern sits between the two: agencies that ship their own software, which the lists then treat as the differentiator. Intero Digital has InteroBOT, Siege Media has BlueprintIQ and DataFlywheel, Avenue Z runs an AI Visibility Index, Single Grain has ClickFlow and Karrot.ai, Directive has DiscoverabilityOS. Owning a tool is a real investment. It tells you nothing about whether the programme works, though on these lists it is usually presented as though it did.
The agencies, and who each one is actually for
Ordered by how many independent page-one lists each agency appeared on, which measures how often other agencies name them and nothing else. It is not a quality ranking and we are not in a position to publish one. Read the “best for” line rather than the number.
Siege Media
The most-recommended name in this category by a wide margin. Content marketing and digital PR retainers with a named GEO service line, so an established content agency with an AI layer rather than an AI-native shop. Its about page lists offices in Austin, Chicago, New York and San Francisco and names no single headquarters and no founding year; Clutch reports 2012, an Austin headquarters with a San Diego second office, and 50–249 staff, all as reported. Clutch 4.9 from 46 reviews, as reported. No price on its own site, and the three third-party figures we found disagree.
Best for: Brands that want content and digital PR at scale, with AI citation treated as an outcome of that.
iPullRank
One of only two firms here positioning AI search as the headline product rather than an add-on. Its own page frames it as continuous with search work rather than a break from it: “Relevance Engineering is the next evolution of SEO.” It sells both, with Relevance Engineering out front. Founding year is absent from its site; Clutch reports 2014 and 10–49 staff, as reported, along with a $50,000 minimum project size. Worth knowing before you call: its Clutch profile carried no reviews and no rating when we checked, so the second-most-recommended firm in the category has no Clutch score.
Best for: Buyers with an enterprise budget who want the AI search work led rather than bolted on.
Intero Digital
Full-service digital with a GEO line and a patented crawler-simulation tool. Its own about page says founded 2003 and 200+ staff; Clutch says 1996 and 250–999. We could not resolve either gap, so both are here. Clutch 4.8 from 147 reviews, as reported, the second-highest review volume in this set. Clutch reports a $1,000 minimum; nothing is published on its own site.
Best for: Mid-market buyers who want one agency across search, paid and marketplace work.
WebFX
The exception on price. Its AI search optimization page publishes a full tiered table starting at $3,000 a month and running to $68,250, which almost nobody else in this category does. Founded 1995. Its own page claims 750 experts on staff against a Clutch employee band of 250–999, as reported. Clutch 4.9 from 450 reviews and G2 4.8 from 203, as reported. Scored highest on SEOProfy's own AI visibility table at 9.0, where SEOProfy ranked it ninth.
Best for: Buyers who want to compare a real published price before a sales call, at any size from $3,000 up.
Omniscient Digital
Organic growth retainers for B2B software, with GEO as one line among roughly nine. Founding year absent from its site; Clutch reports 2019, 10–49 staff and a $5,000 minimum, as reported. Clutch 4.8 from five reviews, so a thin evidence base for a firm appearing on seven lists.
Best for: B2B software companies wanting content and organic growth with an AI search component.
NoGood
Growth marketing across paid, SEO, content, video and UX, with a named answer engine optimization service line covering AI visibility audits across ChatGPT, Gemini and Perplexity, AEO content, digital PR and technical AEO. Worth knowing where that positioning lives: the AEO service page carries it, and the company’s own about page does not mention AI visibility, GEO or AEO at all. Clutch reports 2017 and 10–49 staff, pricing undisclosed, and a 5.0 rating from a single review, as reported.
Best for: Growth-stage companies wanting performance marketing breadth with a real AEO line attached.
Seer Interactive
Founded 2002, stated on its own about page, which is rarer here than it should be. B Corp certified. SEO, paid and analytics with an AI consulting line. Its site says 250+ people across full-time, contract and part-time; Clutch bands it at 50–249. Clutch reports $200–$300 an hour on a $10,000 minimum, as reported. Its Clutch rating is 3.8 from four reviews, as reported, the lowest among the firms here that carry a rating at all, and none of the lists we read mentions it.
Best for: Analytics-led buyers who want measurement practice alongside the search work.
Directive
B2B demand generation with a proprietary methodology. AI search is marketed through a webinar rather than as a standalone service line, which is worth clarifying on a call. Founding year absent from its site; Clutch reports 2013, 50–249 staff and undisclosed pricing. Clutch 4.8 from 56 reviews, as reported. Its about page claims $2.2M a year spent on research and development.
Best for: B2B companies with a defined pipeline target rather than a visibility target.
Victorious
SEO-weighted, with AI engine optimization layered on. Clutch reports founded 2013, 50–249 staff, monthly packages from $5,999 to $14,999 and $300+ an hour, as reported. We went looking for that pricing on Victorious's own site and both pricing URLs we tried returned 404, so treat the $5,999 as a directory figure. Clutch 4.8 from 119 reviews, as reported.
Best for: Buyers who want a large, review-heavy SEO firm with AI work attached.
Single Grain
The densest AI product shelf in the set: separate service pages for AI SEO, AEO, LLM SEO, generative engine optimization and search everywhere optimization, plus two owned tools. Clutch reports founded 2009; the company's own about page dates its story to the 2014 acquisition. Both can be true and the site does not reconcile them. Clutch reports 10–49 staff, a $10,000 minimum and 4.8 from 12 reviews, as reported.
Best for: Buyers who want breadth of AI service naming and are comfortable asking what differs between the five.
First Page Sage
Thought-leadership SEO with a GEO line. Notable for publishing GEO price tiers at all, from $2,000 to $12,000 a month, though it frames them as market observation rather than its own rate card. We could not verify its headquarters, founding year or staff size, none of which appear on its own company page. It also publishes a home-services GEO list, which we cover on the companion page and where the independence question gets sharper.
Best for: Buyers who want a published view of what this work costs before they ask anyone for a quote.
Avenue Z
Founded 2023, stated on its own site, which makes it the youngest firm here by a decade. AI search optimization alongside PR and performance media, plus its own AI Visibility Index product. Claims to have launched the first comprehensive AI optimization solution in 2025 and describes itself as the top AI search agency. Staff size and pricing not published.
Best for: Brands that want AI search and earned media handled by the same team.
Mindflow Marketing
One location, a six-layer audit, three reported numbers and a Work Ledger. The X/12 measurement protocol is published in full: question selection, personalisation controls, the exact calculation, repeat-run handling and known limitations. From $3,500 a month, published on our own site, most at $5,500. Two clients whose results we are permitted to publish, against several firms above with hundreds.
Best for: Established businesses that have been handed a report they could not check and want measurement they can audit.
This is us. We are here because omitting ourselves from a list we publish would be more misleading, not less. We have not ranked ourselves first and we are not claiming to be the best agency on this page: we have two publishable clients and several of the agencies here have hundreds. What we can claim is that our measurement protocol is published in full and can be checked, and that of the agencies on this page we could count on one hand the ones publishing a real starting price on their own site. Those are narrow claims and they are the only ones we are making.
Three of fourteen publish a price on their own website
We looked for a published starting price on each agency's own website. Of the fourteen recurring firms we researched, three publish a real figure on their own domain: WebFX, whose AI search optimization page carries a tiered table opening at $3,000 a month; Pixelmojo, at a $4,500 sprint plus retainers from $2,000 to $10,000 a month and a $199 self-serve tier; and Digital Elevator, at from $3,000. First Page Sage publishes GEO tiers from $2,000 to $12,000 a month but frames them explicitly as what it has observed across the market rather than as its own rate card, which is a distinction the lists citing it tend to drop.
Every other price you will read about these agencies, including every price in the list below, was reported by a third party. Some of those disagree with each other by an order of magnitude. Onely is reported at a $10,000 minimum by one page-one list and at $120,000 to $150,000 by another, and neither figure is sourced to Onely. Siege Media appears at a $5,000 Clutch minimum, at around $11,000 a month on one list and at $10,000 to $20,000 on another, none of them from Siege.
Treat every one of them as the opening of a question rather than a quote.
We are the most expensive option a small contractor will find here
Our floor is $3,500 a month, published, and most engagements sit at $5,500. Set against the few figures on this page that agencies publish on their own sites rather than through a directory, that sits at the upper end for a programme of this kind and well above the productised tiers.
What the difference buys is measurement you can audit and a protocol published before you pay. It does not buy more hours, a bigger team or faster results, and we would rather you knew that before a call than after one.
Who should not hire us
Businesses under roughly $1M in revenue, where the retainer is a disproportionate share of the marketing budget. Anyone who needs leads this month, because this is a two-to-three-quarter programme and paid media is a better answer for immediate volume. Anyone who wants a guarantee on rankings or AI citations, because we will not give one.
Also anyone who wants to hand it over and stop looking. The whole model depends on a client who reads the monthly report.
Fair questions
Is this list ranked by quality?
No. It is ordered by how many independent page-one lists each agency appeared on, which is a measure of how often other agencies name them and nothing more. We have not worked alongside these firms and cannot rank their results.
Why should I trust a list you wrote about yourself?
You should not, entirely. What you can do is check the method, which is why it is published above and dated. Read our entry as marketing and the methodology as the part you can test.
Are the prices accurate?
Three of the agencies here publish a starting price on their own website. Every other figure came from a directory or another agency's list on 28 July 2026, is labelled that way, and in two cases the sources disagree by an order of magnitude. Treat them as the start of a question.
Some of these look like software rather than agencies.
Several are. Page-one lists for this query mix tracking platforms into agency rosters routinely, and one of the lists ranking for the term contains no agencies at all. We have flagged the ones we found; ask any shortlist candidate directly whether you are buying a dashboard or a programme.
Will you update this?
When the results change materially. The sourcing date is at the top so you can judge how stale it is rather than guess.
Start with a measurement, not a pitch
A free Visibility Check shows where you stand across Google and AI answers, which is useful whichever agency on this page you end up calling.
Get my free Visibility Check