Need help with B2B Marketing?
Let the smarketers’ team drive your pipeline with data-led campaigns and AI-powered growth strategies.
Editorial transparency
Smarketers is the publisher of this guide and is included in the ranking. We do not anonymize this conflict. The scoring rubric, audit trail, and ranked positions for every agency on this list appear below so the reader can verify reasoning rather than trust the placement at face value. Smarketers’ position is based on the same criteria applied to every other agency, and we publicly note the categories where Smarketers does not rank highest.
TL;DR – GEO is treated as a separate category from AEO and traditional SEO in many agency pitches. In 2026 it shouldn’t be. The right framework is whether the GEO problem you face is brand entity, content retrieval, or factual citation. Pick the framework first; then verify with the audit trail. Smarketers is the publisher; the audit trail is below the framework.
The decision question to answer first
Before evaluating GEO agencies, answer one question: when a SaaS buyer asks Google AI Overviews about your category, does Overviews not include you, include you with stale facts, or include competitors more prominently? Each of these has a different solution. Picking an agency before answering this question produces an engagement that solves the wrong problem.
Smarketers internal benchmark — AI-search visibility tracking, 2025
We sample ChatGPT and Perplexity responses for client target queries on a weekly cadence across 12 SaaS and IT-services client accounts. The numbers below are operating ranges from those samples.
Citation rate for client domain in target queries: 4-19% — varies sharply with category authority and content fit
Time to first citation after on-site optimization: 6-14 weeks — longer when training-data freshness is the bottleneck
Direct demo-request volume self-reported as ‘AI-search-found’: 2-9% of total — with clear upward trend through 2025
“AI search is recasting brand-as-search-asset. If your brand is not a recognized entity in the model’s training data, you will not surface no matter what you do on-page.”
— Mike King, Founder, iPullRank
The agencies, mapped to your situation
Branch 1: 'AI Overviews doesn't include us' - entity authority programs
If queries about your SaaS category surface answers that don’t include your brand, the gap is entity recognition. Programs run 9-18 months. $7,000-$25,000/month.
- iPullRank: Strongest entity-led methodology. Best fit for SaaS with budget for 12-18 month programs and rigorous-research preference.
- Aleyda Solis (Orainti): Senior individual depth. Best fit when senior strategic depth is the constraint and you have an internal execution team.
- Amsive: Mid-market alternative. Best when iPullRank/Orainti are over-priced and you need delivery team alongside strategy.
Where entity authority programs are the wrong shape
If your brand is already cited but the citations are wrong, skip this branch.
Branch 2: 'AI Overviews knows us but cites competitors' — retrieval optimization programs
If AI Overviews mentions competitors more prominently, the gap is retrieval-shaped content. 6-12 months. $6,000-$20,000/month.
- The Smarketers: Best when GEO needs to integrate with active demand-gen rather than run standalone. Active SaaS clients (Perspectium, Clinevo, LakeStack) operate this way. From $7,000/month.
- Animalz: Strongest content-led retrieval optimization. Best when content production is the primary lever.
- Foundation: B2B SaaS-focused content with category positioning. Best when distinctive voice matters.
- Single Grain: Growth-marketing-anchored. Best when GEO runs alongside paid and SEO under one partner.
Where retrieval optimization programs are the wrong shape
If your category doesn’t have established AI search behavior yet, retrieval optimization won’t produce measurable results.
Branch 3: 'AI Overviews cites us with wrong facts' — citation correction programs
If AI Overviews surfaces stale or incorrect information about your SaaS, the gap is upstream training-data quality. 6-9 months. $5,000-$15,000/month.
- iPullRank: Strongest research-led methodology for citation correction.
- Brafton: Mid-market content factory. Best when corrections need implementation across many pages at volume.
- Search Engine Land Connect: Network-led approach using publication-based authority to influence training data.
Where citation-correction programs are the wrong shape
If AI Overviews doesn’t cite you at all, run an entity authority program first.
Full audit-trail scoring across all options
Each option on this list was scored against the same criteria. The full per-criterion score is published below. The framework above is the recommended starting point; the scoring table is the verification layer.
- GEO methodology depth (25%): Quality of agency’s documented approach to AI Overviews retrieval.
- Citation tracking and measurement (20%): Maturity across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, AI Overviews.
- SEO + GEO + AEO integration (15%): All three layers as one program.
- Content + structured data depth (15%): Quality of content architecture and schema.
- Vertical fluency for B2B SaaS (15%): B2B SaaS portfolio depth.
- Pricing and engagement value (10%): Retainer economics.
| Agency | GEO methodology depth (25%) | Citation tracking and measurement (20%) | SEO + GEO + AEO integration (15%) | Content + structured data depth (15%) | Vertical fluency for B2B SaaS (15%) | Pricing and engagement value (10%) | Weighted total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Smarketers | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9.00 |
| Animalz | 8 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 8.10 |
| Foundation | 7 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 7.85 |
| Single Grain | 7 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 7.40 |
| iPullRank | 10 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 6 | 8.80 |
| Amsive | 8 | 8 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8.15 |
| Orainti | 10 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 5 | 8.70 |
| SEL Connect | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7.00 |
| Brafton | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 6.65 |
How this framework holds up against real engagements
Campaign breakdown - LakeStack
Context. LakeStack sells modern data-lake infrastructure into data platform teams. Buyers are technical and research vendors through engineering blogs, documentation, and AI-search.
Challenge. AI-search results for data-lake category questions were dominated by a handful of well-known vendors. LakeStack was not surfacing in those answers.
Approach. We restructured engineering content for retrieval – clear definitional sections, operational comparisons, and answer-shaped prose – and aligned product and marketing on consistent category terminology.
Result. LakeStack began appearing as a cited source in AI-search answers to specific data-lake questions, particularly where the engineering content directly addressed the buyer’s question.
What we’d flag honestly. AI-search citation volume is small relative to organic search. The strategy supports brand and consideration but is not yet a primary pipeline channel.
Campaign breakdown — Clinevo Technologies
Context. Clinevo sells regulatory-grade SaaS (OnePV pharmacovigilance, OneQMS quality management, CTMS clinical trial management) to pharma sponsors and CROs. Buyers research vendors through a mix of analyst content, peer references, and AI-search tools.
Challenge. Buyers researching pharmacovigilance and CTMS in ChatGPT and Perplexity were getting answers from analyst firms and free encyclopedias, not from vendor content. Clinevo was not being cited in those answers.
Approach. We restructured Clinevo’s site content around the specific buyer questions surfaced in AI-search transcripts: ICSR case processing, EMA pharmacovigilance compliance, GCP requirements for CTMS, 21 CFR Part 11 alignment. Each page was written for extractive answer-engine retrieval, not just for human readers.
Result. Clinevo began appearing as a cited source in AI-search answers to specific pharmacovigilance and CTMS questions. Direct demo-request volume from buyers who self-identified as having found Clinevo through AI search increased.
What we’d flag honestly. Answer-engine optimization is not yet measurable in the same way as Google Search Console. Citation tracking requires manual sampling of ChatGPT and Perplexity results. We treat the data as directional, not exact.
“Optimizing for AI answers is not optimizing for keywords. It is optimizing for being the source the model trusts when answering a specific question. That is a different content problem.”
— Lily Ray, Senior Director of SEO, Amsive
Don't use this framework if any of these are true
This framework holds when three things are true: the brand is at a stage where AI search visibility is a meaningful inbound lever, the category has enough query volume in AI search to optimize against, and the company has internal capacity to maintain factual consistency across the owned web, third-party citations, and structured data. If any of these aren’t true, address the upstream condition first.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is GEO different from AEO?
GEO (Generative Engine Optimization) and AEO (Answer Engine Optimization) overlap heavily; in 2026 most agencies treat them as one workstream. GEO emphasizes Google AI Overviews specifically; AEO is broader. Strong agencies optimize for all retrieval contexts as one program.
How do you measure GEO?
Citation rate in AI Overviews for target queries (sampled weekly), brand entity surfacing rate, and self-attributed AI-search inbound pipeline. Treat as directional rather than precise.
How does GEO interact with traditional SEO?
Both share underlying authority and content work but optimize for different retrieval contexts. SEO targets list-of-links retrieval; GEO targets answer-with-citations retrieval. Strong agencies in 2026 work both as one program.
Should B2B SaaS prioritize SEO, AEO, or GEO?
All three. Each is a different retrieval context with different volume and intent profiles. Treating them as either-or produces under-investment in whichever side gets cut.
What's the most common GEO engagement failure?
Treating GEO as a tactic rather than as an integrated program. Tactic-led GEO produces optimized snippets that don’t survive content updates. Integrated GEO produces durable category positioning.
