GoldieBench Blog · 9 min read
Best Generative Engine Optimization Services: Eight Picks, What The Research Proves, And The Models Behind The Content
The best generative engine optimization services in 2026: 8 picks (mine first, disclosed), what the GEO paper proves, and the models that draft GEO pages.

The best generative engine optimization services on my list come from Goldie Agency, and I'm telling you upfront that it's my own agency so you can weigh my bias.
GEO services are the paid work of getting your brand used, cited and recommended inside the answers that AI tools write, such as ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini and Google's AI Overviews.
My other seven picks are Amsive, Searchbloom, Loganix, Thrive Agency, WEBRIS, Uproer and SEOProfy, and I read each one's GEO page on its own site on 18 October 2026.
If you want my team to look at your brand first, you can book a free SEO strategy session and get a custom AI visibility plan.
In this post I'll explain what GEO services are, what the original research actually proves and how to buy them.
Near the end, I'll show how the AI models that agencies use to draft GEO content score on this leaderboard, and what that does and doesn't tell you.
Here's my full ranking of the eight GEO service providers in one table, with my own agency at number one.
| Rank | Provider | Best for |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Goldie Agency (mine) | One team for GEO, coverage and links |
| 2 | Amsive | Larger brands that want one full-service partner |
| 3 | Searchbloom | Brands short on third-party mentions |
| 4 | Loganix | Buying one GEO package at a time |
| 5 | Thrive Agency | Done-for-you buyers |
| 6 | WEBRIS | Law firms |
| 7 | Uproer | Brands with $10M+ annual revenue |
| 8 | SEOProfy | Content-heavy sites |
What are generative engine optimization services?
GEO services improve how often generative AI tools use your content and name your brand in their answers.
The name comes from a research paper called GEO: Generative Engine Optimization by Pranjal Aggarwal, Vishvak Murahari, Tanmay Rajpurohit, Ashwin Kalyan, Karthik Narasimhan and Ameet Deshpande.
It was first posted on arXiv on 16 November 2023 and published at the KDD 2024 conference in Barcelona.
Almost every provider sells the same five packages under different names.
| Package | What the provider does | What you should receive |
|---|---|---|
| GEO audit | Asks your buyer questions in each AI tool and records who gets named and cited | A dated baseline you can re-run later |
| Content | Rewrites key pages with direct answers, statistics, quotes and named sources | Pages that open with the answer and back it up |
| PR and mentions | Earns coverage on the third-party sites AI tools already trust | A target list and the coverage won |
| Technical | Checks AI crawler access and schema that matches the page | A robots.txt and structured data check |
| Tracking | Re-asks the same questions and reports mentions, citations and accuracy | Monthly raw answers, not just a score |
Which GEO package should you buy first?
Start with the audit, because without a dated baseline you can't tell whether anything else worked.
If the baseline shows competitors being cited from review sites and comparison pages you're missing from, buy PR and mentions next.
If AI tools already cite your site but describe you wrongly, buy content work and clean up your brand facts.
If your robots.txt blocks AI crawlers, fix the technical basics first, because nothing else matters until they can read you.
Buy tracking last, because it only has value once there's work to measure.
That order keeps your first 90 days focused on the gap that's actually costing you mentions.
What the GEO paper actually proves
The researchers built GEO-bench, a benchmark of 10,000 queries from nine sources, then rewrote source pages in different ways to see which changes a generative engine rewarded.
Their test engine fetched the top five Google results for each query and had gpt-3.5-turbo write the answer from them.
| Change tested | What the paper reports |
|---|---|
| Cite Sources, Quotation Addition, Statistics Addition | The top methods, with a 30% to 40% relative improvement on position-adjusted word count |
| The same three on the subjective impression metric | A 15% to 30% improvement |
| Fluency Optimisation and Easy-to-Understand | A 15% to 30% visibility boost |
| Keyword Stuffing | Little to no improvement |
| A more authoritative, persuasive tone | No significant improvement |
| Testing on Perplexity.ai | Visibility improvements of up to 37% |
The abstract's headline is that GEO methods can boost visibility by up to 40% in generative engine responses.
The paper also found that sources ranked fifth in the search results gained far more than sources ranked first, so GEO matters most when you're not already the top result.
It found that the best method varies by domain, which is why a good provider adapts the package to your market.
📞 Want to know which package your brand needs first? Book a free SEO strategy session and my team will show you your AI visibility, a competitor gap analysis and a roadmap you keep either way.
The 8 best generative engine optimization services in 2026
I avoided the providers already compared in my best GEO agency and AI SEO optimization agency posts, so these are fresh options.
| Rank | Provider | What its own GEO page says today | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Goldie Agency (mine) | A free AI brand visibility session for Google, AI Overviews, ChatGPT, Perplexity and Gemini, built on trusted-source coverage | One team for GEO, coverage and links |
| 2 | Amsive | AI and LLM visibility optimisation (AEO, GEO, LLMO) with share of voice and revenue tracking | Larger brands |
| 3 | Searchbloom | GEO services through a MERIT framework that leads with third-party mentions | Brands short on mentions |
| 4 | Loganix | AI visibility in four layers, including editorial placements, with a free AI Quick Scan | Buying one package at a time |
| 5 | Thrive Agency | Fully managed generative engine optimisation services | Done-for-you buyers |
| 6 | WEBRIS | GEO for law firms across entity data, content, mentions, reviews and tracking | Law firms |
| 7 | Uproer | GEO and AEO services with audits and analyses up front | Brands with $10M+ annual revenue |
| 8 | SEOProfy | GEO combined with SEO, focused on structuring content for AI | Content-heavy sites |
1. Goldie Agency
Goldie Agency is the SEO and link building agency I started on my own, and it now has 70+ people.It's my company, so this is the most biased entry on the page.
The session page says AI platforms look for consistent signals across the wider web, so the work is expert bylines, independent reviews, industry comparisons and research-led coverage.
The agency site also lists link building with manual outreach and no PBNs, a Complete Site Audit and AI Automation.
2. Amsive
Amsive's page lists question-cluster content, consistent product information across platforms, multimodal content and analysis of which sources cite you.
3. Searchbloom
Searchbloom's MERIT framework covers mentions, original data and quotable proof, citable content, technical accessibility and measurement.
4. Loganix
Loganix's page describes entity work, earned media, third-party editorial placements and owned content structured for AI citation.
5. Thrive Agency
Thrive Agency's page says its Demand Generation team tests strategies across the leading AI platforms before rolling them out.
6. WEBRIS
WEBRIS's page covers attorney and firm schema, citation-ready practice area pages, legal publication mentions and reviews.
7. Uproer
Uproer is based in Saint Paul, Minnesota, and its page says it works best with trusted brands doing $10+ million in annual revenue.
8. SEOProfy
SEOProfy's page says it structures content so AI-driven systems can scan it, with a clear budget agreed up front.
I haven't hired these seven providers, so I'm describing what each one says about itself.
I haven't listed prices, because GEO packages are quoted after a call and I won't guess.
How to buy GEO services without getting burned
Use this table on every sales call.
| What to judge | A strong answer | A weak answer |
|---|---|---|
| Baseline | The provider shows dated AI answers for questions you chose | The provider only shows traffic charts |
| Mentions | The plan names real publications, reviews and comparisons in your market | The plan is only more blog posts |
| Content | The provider shows a page rewritten with statistics, quotes and sources | The provider talks about keyword density |
| Fact-checking | A named human checks every AI-drafted line | Nobody reviews the AI drafts |
| Honesty | The provider says results can't be guaranteed | The provider guarantees a mention or a date |
Google's guidance on generative AI content says "It is critical to manually factcheck and review all AI-generated content for accuracy and trustworthiness before publishing."
Google's AI features guide says AI Overviews and AI Mode have no additional requirements, so nobody should sell you a special AI file. OpenAI's crawler page recommends allowing OAI-SearchBot, and Perplexity's crawler page recommends allowing PerplexityBot.What GEO looks like on my own sites
In my GEO examples video, Google's AI Overview for "best geo expert" names me first, and several of my pages appear in its sources.
For "best HARO agency", the AI Overview lists five suppliers and links Goldie Agency first, and the page also ranks first organically.
One of my sites went from zero to about 1,300 Google clicks a day, and on one day it got over 9,600 impressions inside Google's AI features.
Those are my results on my own screens, and I also had a site that flopped, so treat them as proof of the method rather than a promise.
Nobody can guarantee what a model says
Nobody can guarantee what a model says, and that includes me and Goldie Agency.
None of the companies behind ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini or Claude publishes a formula for which brands get recommended.
📞 Want a straight answer about your own brand? Grab a free SEO strategy session with my team, and we'll look at your site, your competitors and the keywords you're closest to winning.
Which AI models draft GEO content, and how do they score on GoldieBench?
Now for the GoldieBench part, and I need to be clear about what it measures.
GoldieBench scores models on one-shot builds such as landing pages, apps, games and visuals, on a 0 to 10 scale.
It doesn't measure which brands an AI recommends, and it doesn't measure GEO results.
A GEO service doesn't ship its own model, and none of the providers above has a model on the board.
The paper's own test engine used gpt-3.5-turbo, which isn't on GoldieBench, so I can't give you a score for it.
What I can show you is how the models an agency might use today to draft answer-first pages score on their live pages.
| Model | Maker | GoldieBench average |
|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 5 | Anthropic | 8.27 |
| GPT-5.6 Sol | OpenAI | 8.16 |
| Qwen 3.8 | Alibaba | 8.10 |
| Kimi K3 | Moonshot AI | 7.89 |
| Claude Opus 5.5 | Anthropic | 7.57 |
| Claude Sonnet 5 | Anthropic | 7.01 |
Claude Opus 5 leads this group at 8.27, with GPT-5.6 Sol at 8.16 and Qwen 3.8 at 8.10.
Kimi K3 averages 7.89, Claude Opus 5.5 averages 7.57 and Claude Sonnet 5 averages 7.01.
Please don't read these scores as a ranking of which AI is easiest to get cited in, because the board doesn't test that.
What the model scores mean when you buy GEO services
The scores matter when a provider uses AI to draft the work, such as rewriting a page with statistics, quotes and sources.
A model that follows a detailed brief well first time leaves fewer mistakes for a human editor to catch.
Even so, the system around the model matters more than the model itself.
A top model with no fact-checking still produces confident mistakes, and confident mistakes are the last thing you want an AI tool to quote about your brand.
So ask every provider what it does before and after the model writes, and not just which model it uses.
Related reading on GoldieBench
My best GEO agency post ranks eight different agencies with the models behind generative engines.
In the same batch as this post, I also ranked the best generative engine optimization agency picks by region and company size.
If you'd like my team to look at your brand, you can book a free SEO strategy session and leave with a plan for traffic, mentions and leads.
Also On Our Network
- Agent Operatorshow to scope a GEO services package step by step
- AI Income Deskwhich GEO service fits your kind of business
- AI Tool Verdicteight GEO services compared package by package
- agentos.guidea five-step GEO services quick start from your Agent OS
- aiprofitboardroom.comwhy AI SEO agencies are replacing the traditional kind
Buy the packages the research backs, judge the system around the model, and you'll be ready to choose the best generative engine optimization services.
FAQ
What are the best generative engine optimization services in 2026?
Julian Goldie ranks his own agency, Goldie Agency, first and discloses the bias. His third-party picks are Amsive, Searchbloom, Loganix, Thrive Agency, WEBRIS, Uproer and SEOProfy.
What did the GEO paper find?
The 2023 GEO paper by Pranjal Aggarwal and colleagues found citing sources, adding quotations and adding statistics were the top methods, with 30% to 40% relative gains on its main metric. Keyword stuffing gave little to no improvement.
Can a GEO service guarantee a mention in ChatGPT or Gemini?
No. Nobody can guarantee what a model says. A provider can improve the footprint a model reads and measure the answers honestly.
Do GEO services ship their own AI model?
No. They sell services, and none of the providers in this post has a model on GoldieBench. The paper's test engine used gpt-3.5-turbo, which is not on the board either.
How do the drafting models score on GoldieBench?
Claude Opus 5 averages 8.27, GPT-5.6 Sol 8.16, Qwen 3.8 8.10, Kimi K3 7.89, Claude Opus 5.5 7.57 and Claude Sonnet 5 7.01. GoldieBench measures one-shot builds, not which brands an AI recommends.
Is the free SEO strategy session a written report?
No. It is a one-to-one call, and the page says you leave with a custom visibility plan, an AI visibility roadmap and a competitor gap analysis.


