AI SEO & GEO agencies in the United States

What being listed here means

A firm appears here only if this is its primary focus: at least 50% of the business, or its largest area of work by 2× or more, or two of five evidenced specialisation signals, or the firm is native or vertical to the category.

The 9 we held back are firms we examined and could not admit on what we hold. They are not published as refusals, and in most cases it is not because the work is poor — it is because something else is what they mainly do.

All 6 came in the same way, and it is worth being straight about it: on evidenced specialisation, not on share of revenue. Each is an established SEO firm that rebuilt how it delivers around AI search, and each had to show at least two of the five signals with a public URL. None of them is a firm whose billing is mostly AI search — very few exist yet. That is the honest state of this market, and we would rather say so than let the rule above imply otherwise.

The full method · Run your own firm through the rule

6 AI SEO agencies clear the gate

Onely ranks first on 34/100. We have run 44 of 120 checks across the group, and every result — including the 76 still outstanding — is on the cards below. Ranked by evidence; nobody here has paid us.

ranked by evidence · ordering code cannot read billing state · scripts/test-rank.mjs

This ranking is provisional. 44 of 120 checks have run and the automated ladder has not executed yet, so the order separates these firms far less than it eventually will. We publish it rather than hide an incomplete state, and every card shows which of its own checks are outstanding.

9 firms we looked at are not on this list

Where we measured it and can show the sources, we publish the rule they missed. Where we could not check, we publish nothing — not being able to check is not the same as failing, and treating them the same is how a verification engine becomes a defamation problem.

None of the 9 are published by name today. Every one is held rather than refused: we have not yet gathered enough sourced evidence to state in public why a named company missed the rule, and we do not publish that sentence until we can stand behind it.

Questions about this category

What the list means, and what it deliberately doesn’t.

What does it mean that a firm is listed under AI SEO?

That AI SEO is what the firm is primarily focused on — not one of a dozen services it will take money for. It clears one of four published routes: at least 50% of the business, or its largest area of work by 2× or more, or 2 of five evidenced specialisation signals each with a public URL, or the firm is native or vertical to the category. Other service lines are fine, and we publish them — the split is on every row.

Why are only 6 firms listed when you looked at 15?

Because the bar is what a firm is best at, not what it offers. The 9 we held back are firms we examined and could not admit on the evidence we hold. In most cases that is not because the work is poor — it is because something else is what they mainly do. We do not publish those as refusals unless we measured it and can show the sources.

Are these firms mostly billing for this work, or is it a practice they built?

A practice they built. All 6 were admitted on evidenced specialisation rather than share of revenue: established firms that rebuilt how they deliver around this category, each showing at least 2 of the five signals with a public URL. Very few firms yet bill mostly for this work, and we would rather say so than let the rule imply otherwise.

What decides the order of this list?

Evidence, and nothing that can be bought. The code that orders the list reads a database view that physically cannot see whether a firm pays us, and a test asserts every score is byte-identical across every billing state — if it fails, the site does not deploy. A firm can buy a sponsored slot, which sits above the list, is capped, is labelled on every card, and is excluded from the structured data an AI assistant reads.

Does a higher score mean a better agency?

No. The score is how completely we have researched a firm and how much of what it claims we could confirm from public record. A genuinely excellent firm can score low simply because we have not finished checking it — which is why every card shows how many of its own checks are still outstanding.

Who wrote these profiles?

We did, from public record, before any of these firms were asked. A firm can claim its profile and reply in its own words; it cannot edit what we found. Correcting a factual error is free for anyone, whether or not they have claimed or paid for anything.

How current is this list?

Every firm here has been reviewed at least once, and each profile shows the date. Scores are recomputed on ten named triggers — a claim approved, evidence submitted, a source going stale, a reviewer decision — and every recomputation is recorded so a published number can be re-derived from the inputs it was made on.