Three different labels, one job. Answer engine optimisation, generative engine optimisation and AI SEO all describe the same commercial problem: your buyers now ask an AI model for a recommendation, and you are either in the answer or you are not.
The agency market has not settled on a shared vocabulary, which makes comparison genuinely hard. Some firms sell AEO. Some sell GEO. Some sell AI SEO and mean schema work. This page compares 15 of them against one rubric so the label stops mattering.
Omni Eclipse is an AEO agency and we are included in this list. That is a conflict of interest. We have scored ourselves against the same rubric as every other firm, published our own drawbacks, and marked our pricing with the same evidence label. Read the methodology before you read the table, and treat our own entry with the scepticism you would apply to any agency ranking itself.
What is the difference between an AEO, GEO and AI SEO agency?
In practice, very little. The three terms describe overlapping work on the same problem, and the differences are mostly positioning rather than method.
AEO (answer engine optimisation) focuses on being the cited source inside a direct answer, whether that answer comes from ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini or Google AI Overviews. GEO (generative engine optimisation) is the same discipline named for the generative model rather than the answer. AI SEO is the loosest of the three and often means traditional SEO with AI tooling applied to research and production, which is a different thing entirely.
That last distinction matters commercially. An agency selling AI SEO may be selling you faster keyword research, not AI answer visibility. Ask which one you are buying.
| Term | Usual scope | What to verify |
|---|---|---|
| AEO | Citation and recommendation inside AI answers | Which engines are tracked, and how often |
| GEO | Same work, framed around generative models | Whether reporting is prompt-level or vanity-level |
| AI SEO | Sometimes AEO, often just SEO with AI tooling | Whether the deliverable is rankings or citations |
| Relevance or entity engineering | Technical entity and knowledge graph work | Whether content and off-site work are included |
Why AI search visibility is now a budget line
The shift is not speculative. It is already visible in consumer behaviour and in click data.
McKinsey's New Front Door to the Internet report found that 44% of consumers now prefer AI search for buying decisions against 31% for traditional search, based on a survey of 1,927 US consumers. Seer Interactive's CTR study measured a 61% drop in organic click-through rate on queries where an AI Overview appeared, from 1.76% to 0.61%.
The same Seer study found the upside: brands actually cited in an AI Overview earned 35% more organic clicks and 91% more paid clicks (Seer Interactive). Being in the answer is worth more than it was, and being absent costs more than it did.
The most useful number for choosing an agency is from Yext's study of 6.8 million AI citations: 86% of AI citations came from brand-managed sources, split 44% first-party websites and 42% business listings (Yext, Oct 2025). That means most of what determines your AI visibility is under your control, and an agency that cannot explain how it will work on both your site and your listings is only doing half the job.
How we scored these agencies
We built one rubric and applied it to every firm, including ourselves. The weights are published so you can disagree with them and re-rank the list yourself.
| Criterion | Weight | What earns a high score |
|---|---|---|
| AEO specialisation depth | 25% | AI answer visibility is the core offer, not a bolt-on |
| Engine coverage | 20% | Tracks ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini and AI Overviews, not one engine |
| Measurement method | 20% | Prompt-level reporting with repeat runs, not a single vanity score |
| Named public proof | 15% | A case study, dataset or published method anyone can open |
| Pricing transparency | 10% | A published range or a straight answer on first call |
| Buyer fit clarity | 10% | States who it is not for |
Every factual field below carries an evidence label so you can see how much weight to give it.
| Label | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Verified | Confirmed against a public page or primary source |
| Claimed | Stated by the agency, not independently confirmed |
| Not published | No public figure found at the time of writing |
This is not a ranking based on measured client outcomes. No agency in this market, including us, publishes enough comparable outcome data to support that. It is a structured comparison of specialisation, coverage, method and transparency. Positions reflect fit against the rubric above, not proof that one firm outperforms another.
Which agency fits your business?
Start here before reading the profiles. Most bad agency fits are size and vertical mismatches, not quality problems.
| Your situation | What to prioritise | Best fits |
|---|---|---|
| SMB or local services | Clear deliverables, listings work, predictable scope | Omni Eclipse, GenOptima, Online Marketing Gurus |
| B2B SaaS | Buyer-question content, pipeline attribution | Directive, Minuttia, RevenueZen, Discovered Labs |
| Ecommerce | Product entity data, feed and listing accuracy | iPullRank, Siege Media, Brainlabs |
| Enterprise or regulated | Governance, centralised schema, security review | iPullRank, Brainlabs, Directive |
| Content-led brands | Editorial capacity and publishing velocity | Siege Media, First Page Sage, Graphite |
| Multi-engine coverage | Breadth across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini | Omni Eclipse, Seal Global Holdings, NoGood |
The 15 agencies
Omni Eclipse
Globally distributed, HQ in UAEA pure-play AEO agency built for AI search rather than an SEO firm that added AEO later. All three co-founders work directly on accounts. The sprint model targets measurable AI answer inclusion in 4 to 8 weeks, with coverage across ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity, Gemini and Claude. Pricing: not published, quoted per scope (Verified: we do not publish a rate card). Drawback and conflict note: we wrote this page, so weight our position accordingly. We are headquartered in the UAE rather than the US or Australia, our pricing reflects a specialist methodology, and we are not the right fit for businesses wanting the cheapest possible retainer.
iPullRank
New York, USAFounded by Mike King, iPullRank is the most documented technical operator in this category. They publish extensively on how models crawl, process and cite content, and they work on large, complex sites in ecommerce, media and SaaS. Public proof: extensive published technical writing (Verified). Pricing: minimum engagement reported at $50,000 and above (Claimed). Drawback: that depth is genuinely wasted on mid-market and SMB budgets. The minimum excludes most businesses that would otherwise benefit from the methodology.
Brainlabs
London / GlobalFormerly Distilled, Brainlabs pairs technical SEO with editorial authority building. Their AI search work centres on entity architecture, centralised schema strategy and enterprise measurement frameworks, which suits organisations with many stakeholders and a governance requirement. Pricing: not published (Not published). Drawback: the enterprise investment level outpaces what most SMBs need, and buyers outside the UK should verify regional localisation and compliance handling before signing.
First Page Sage
San Francisco, USAOne of the earliest US agencies to position formally around AEO, and among the most prolific publishers of AI search research in the category. The model is content-heavy, building expert-authored thought leadership assets designed to be cited. Public proof: regularly published research and benchmarks (Verified). Pricing: not published (Not published). Drawback: they feature prominently in their own agency rankings, which is worth weighing when reading their self-reported market position. The volume-led methodology suits some verticals and fits regulated or technically complex industries less well.
Directive
California / GlobalDirective ties AI search performance to pipeline and revenue rather than to visibility scores. Programs include conversion tracking against AI answer citations and prompt-level dashboards, which is a meaningfully higher standard of reporting than most of this market offers. Pricing: not published (Not published). Drawback: the model assumes clean data foundations and internal analytics resourcing. Businesses without reliable attribution infrastructure will spend early budget fixing that before the AEO work shows a return.
NoGood
New York, USANoGood built Goodie, their own AI tracking platform, which puts them ahead of most agencies on proprietary measurement infrastructure. AEO sits inside a broader performance marketing framework, which works well when you want one partner across channels. Public proof: proprietary platform and documented case studies (Verified). Pricing: not published (Not published). Drawback: AEO is one service among several. Buyers wanting a specialist AEO-only engagement may find strategic depth diluted across service lines.
Siege Media
San Diego, USAOne of the strongest content production operations in the US, now applied to AEO with a focus on high-volume citation-worthy editorial. The right choice when the gap is a missing content foundation rather than a technical problem. Pricing: not published (Not published). Drawback: the AEO work is content-first. Technical depth on schema, entity architecture and structured data is less prominent than the editorial capability, so businesses needing both should confirm the technical layer specifically.
Minuttia
Remote (US)A strong reputation in B2B SaaS content strategy, with an AEO approach rooted in the same content-led philosophy. They build citation-worthy assets around specific buyer questions and work closely with subject matter experts to keep the material genuinely authoritative. Pricing: not published (Not published). Drawback: the expertise is concentrated in B2B SaaS. Outside software and tech the methodology is less tailored, and the vertical depth that makes them strong for SaaS limits fit elsewhere.
RevenueZen
Portland, Oregon, USARevenueZen approaches AEO from product marketing, building citation strategies around product-led growth frameworks. Particularly relevant for SaaS businesses where the product itself is central to the buyer query, and they tie visibility to pipeline reporting rather than stopping at impressions. Pricing: not published (Not published). Drawback: a smaller team than the larger firms here. Businesses needing enterprise capacity for large content production or multi-market rollouts may find delivery speed constrained.
LSEO
Pennsylvania, USALSEO has invested more in proprietary tooling than most agencies at their price point, building DIYSEO.AI as part of their infrastructure and applying it to machine-readable content structuring. The commitment to AEO-specific process rather than repackaged SEO is genuine. Pricing: not published (Not published). Drawback: a relatively recent entrant to AEO specifically. The tooling is solid but the documented AEO track record is shorter than the established names here. Ask for AEO-specific case studies, not general SEO performance data.
Seal Global Holdings
GlobalA global operator focused on generative engine optimisation across LLM-driven engines and answer platforms, with reporting that covers prompt coverage and citation frequency across multiple AI channels rather than a single engine. Pricing: not published (Not published). Drawback: a broad global operation means regional localisation and compliance need verifying directly, particularly for regulated sectors where jurisdiction affects what can be published.
Graphite
United StatesGraphite applies AI tooling to growth marketing broadly, with AEO integrated into overall search strategy. The strength is combining AI-assisted content production with distribution and tracking across multiple verticals. Pricing: not published (Not published). Drawback: AEO is not the primary specialisation. In a generalist growth model, AI answer visibility competes for strategic attention with other service lines inside the same retainer.
Discovered Labs
United StatesA B2B-first approach to generative engine optimisation, building citation strategies around the vendor-evaluation questions B2B buyers actually put to AI systems during a purchase process. Clear methodology and a focused vertical stance. Pricing: not published (Not published). Drawback: a newer agency with a shorter track record than the established names here. Ask specifically for documented before-and-after citation results before committing to an ongoing retainer.
GenOptima
United StatesGenOptima runs a Ranking as a Service model built to make AEO reachable for smaller businesses without enterprise budgets, with straightforward packaging for buyers who want a defined deliverable rather than open-ended consulting. Pricing: packaged model, rates not published (Not published). Drawback: the positioning includes guarantee claims, and guarantees in AEO deserve scrutiny. No agency can guarantee citation placement in any AI system. Clarify whether a guarantee covers process deliverables or ranking outcomes before signing.
Online Marketing Gurus
Australia HQ, US officesA large full-service performance agency whose scale genuinely helps businesses that want a single partner across paid, organic and conversion work, with AI-assisted tooling for campaign management and reporting. Pricing: not published (Not published). Drawback: generalist positioning means AI search optimisation is one service among many. Businesses that need AEO driven with dedicated focus rather than bundled into a wider retainer will get there faster with a specialist.
What should AEO actually cost?
Pricing transparency is the weakest field in this entire category. Of the 15 agencies here, none publishes a standard rate card publicly, which is why every profile above is marked Not published rather than given an invented range.
What we can say honestly is what changes the number. Scope units matter far more than the headline retainer, and a monitoring-only engagement is not comparable to one that includes content, off-site authority work and measurement.
| Factor | Why it changes price |
|---|---|
| Engines covered | Tracking four engines costs more than tracking one |
| Prompt volume | A 40-prompt set is cheaper to run and report than 400 |
| Repeat runs | Repeating prompts for reliable data multiplies monitoring cost |
| Content included | Production capacity is usually the largest single line |
| Off-site authority | Digital PR and listings work is labour, not software |
| Attribution depth | Pipeline-level reporting needs analytics engineering |
For a fuller breakdown of engagement models and what sits inside each one, see our guide on how much AEO costs, or the Australian pricing guide if you are buying in AUD. If you are still deciding whether to hire at all, DIY AEO versus agency covers what is realistically doable in-house.
If your business sits in a specific vertical, we have dedicated shortlists scored on vertical-specific criteria: best AI SEO and GEO agencies for B2B SaaS and best AEO agencies for ecommerce. For geographic shortlists, see the United States, Australia and Dubai and UAE lists.
Red flags when hiring an AEO agency
Guaranteed AI rankings. No agency controls what a model outputs. A guarantee is either about process deliverables or it is not credible.
A single visibility score with no method. Ask how many prompts, how many repeat runs, which engines, which dates. If the answer is vague, the number is decorative.
One engine only. ChatGPT reached 800 million weekly active users (Sam Altman via TechCrunch, Oct 2025) and Gemini passed 750 million monthly active users (Google, Feb 2026). Optimising for one and calling it AI visibility is a partial job.
No off-site plan. With 42% of AI citations coming from business listings (Yext), an on-site-only proposal is missing nearly half the surface area.
Screenshot proof only. A single prompt run is an anecdote. Model outputs vary between runs, so one screenshot proves very little.
Questions to ask on the sales call
Ask these five and the market sorts itself quickly.
- How many prompts do you track, and how often do you re-run them? You are looking for a number and a repeat cadence, not a dashboard tour.
- Which engines are included, and which are excluded? Exclusions are more informative than inclusions.
- Can you show me a prompt-level report from a real account, redacted? Real reports look messier than sales decks.
- What does the first 90 days deliver, specifically? Deliverables, not phases.
- What would make you tell me AEO is not worth it for my business? An agency that cannot answer this sells to everyone.
Our guide on how to check whether your business appears in AI search walks through establishing your own baseline first, which makes all five questions sharper.
Want to see where you stand before you hire anyone?
Book a free AI Visibility Audit. We will show you which prompts you appear in, which competitors own the answers you are missing, and what is causing the gap.
Book Your AI Visibility AuditFrequently Asked Questions
Is AEO different from GEO, or are they the same thing?
In practice they are the same discipline under two names. AEO frames the work around the answer, GEO frames it around the generative model producing it. The tactics overlap almost entirely. AI SEO is the term worth questioning, because it sometimes means traditional SEO performed with AI tooling rather than optimisation for AI answers.
How long before an AEO engagement shows results?
Faster than traditional SEO, but not instantly. AI systems reflect changes to your site and listings on their own recrawl schedules, so early movement typically shows in weeks rather than months. Treat any promise of immediate citation placement as a warning sign, and expect meaningful measurement to require repeat prompt runs over time rather than a single check.
Should I hire a specialist AEO agency or ask my current SEO agency?
It depends on whether your SEO agency can answer the five questions above. Plenty of capable SEO firms have built real AEO capability. Plenty have added the acronym to a service page. The distinguishing test is measurement: an agency doing this properly can show prompt-level reporting across multiple engines, not a rankings report with an AI section bolted on.
Why does this page rank Omni Eclipse first?
Because we wrote it, which is exactly why we disclosed it at the top and published the rubric. Under our weights, a pure-play specialist scores highest on specialisation depth and engine coverage. If you weight enterprise technical capability higher, iPullRank or Brainlabs should sit first. If you weight revenue attribution highest, Directive should. The rubric is published so you can re-rank it honestly.
How often is this comparison updated?
Agency evidence and pricing status are rechecked every 90 days, with a full methodology rerun at least annually. This edition reflects research completed 23 August 2026. Revision log: first published 24 August 2026.
Ashur Homa
Built and scaled a digital brand to $100M+ in sales with zero ad spend. Has helped businesses generate millions through AI go-to-market strategy. Leads growth at Omni Eclipse.
Connect on LinkedIn
