GoldieBench Blog · 6 min read
Generative Engine Optimization Consultant Work: Which AI Models Draft The Pages, Reports And Schema (Real GoldieBench Scores)
Landing Page and Webos scores from GoldieBench, matched to the deliverables a GEO consultant produces, plus the work no model can do.

A generative engine optimization consultant now hands a lot of drafting to AI models: roadmap write-ups, schema, content briefs and the landing pages AI answers end up citing.
The question is which models deserve that work.
This page uses only scores published on GoldieBench, each quoted with the page it comes from, and then covers the consulting judgment no model replaces.
For the human side, book a free strategy session with Julian's team.
What a GEO consultant hands to a model, and what they keep
A consultant's output is mostly documents and pages.
Models are useful for first drafts of roadmaps, client-facing reports, Organization JSON-LD, briefs and page layouts.
The consultant keeps the decisions: which findings matter, what the business can prove and which advice matches the platform docs.
Google's hiring page asks whether AEO and GEO advice is aligned with its official guidance, and no model answers that for you.
How GoldieBench scores models
The methodology page says every model gets the same fixed prompt, one shot, and must return a single self-contained HTML file.
It also says every score is Julian's own 0–10 number from his head-to-head guides, and that every demo was built inside his Agent OS.
So the bench measures building, especially pages and interfaces.
It doesn't score SEO writing, schema accuracy or strategy directly, which is why the page tasks below are the closest proxy.
The overall averages on the models page
The all-models page lists each model's average across the tasks it was scored on.
| Model | Average | Tasks scored | Source page |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fusion | 8.59 | 47 | /models/ |
| Claude Opus 5 | 8.27 | 50 | /models/ |
| Hermes MoA | 8.17 | 47 | /models/ |
| GPT-5.6 Sol | 8.16 | 50 | /models/ |
| Qwen 3.8 | 8.10 | 45 | /models/ |
| Grok | 8.09 | 47 | /models/ |
| Kimi K3 | 7.89 | 50 | /models/ |
| Gemini 3.6 Flash | 7.08 | 50 | /models/ |
Averages mix games, simulations and pages, so treat them as a general signal.
A model can sit high on the board thanks to strong game builds and still be ordinary at the clean, readable pages a consultant needs.
Task counts matter too: an average across 50 tasks is a steadier read than one across a handful.
For consultant work, the page tasks tell you more.
Landing Page task: the client-facing page test
The Landing Page task asks for a modern marketing landing page in one shot.
The task page lists it in the Page category, with 26 models tested, 21 of 26 scored, an average of 8.11/10 and Fugu Ultra as the winner.
| Model | Landing score | Source page |
|---|---|---|
| Fugu Ultra | 9.0/10 | /tasks/landing |
| Fusion | 9.0/10 | /tasks/landing |
| GLM-5.2 | 9.0/10 | /tasks/landing |
| Grok | 9.0/10 | /tasks/landing |
| GPT-5.6 Sol | 8.7/10 | /tasks/landing |
| Gemini 3.6 Flash | 8.6/10 | /tasks/landing |
| Kimi K3 | 8.6 | /models/kimik3 |
| Claude Opus 5 | 8.4 | /models/opus5 |
Service pages and comparison pages are where AI answers tend to cite a business, so this is the score to weigh for page drafts.
Webos task: the closest thing to a reporting dashboard
Consultants also build client dashboards and report views. The Webos task asks for a working web desktop with windows, a dock and Notes, Paint and Terminal apps, and sits in the Page category too.
Its task page lists 26 models tested, 21 of 26 scored, an average of 7.98/10 and Fusion as the winner.
| Model | Webos score | Source page |
|---|---|---|
| Fusion | 9.0/10 | /tasks/webos |
| Grok | 9.0/10 | /tasks/webos |
| Claude Opus 5 | 8.7 | /models/opus5 |
| Kimi K3 | 8.6 | /models/kimik3 |
| GPT-5.6 Sol | 8.4/10 | /tasks/webos |
| Gemini 3.6 Flash | 8.0/10 | /tasks/webos |
| Kimi K2.7 | 8.0/10 | /tasks/webos |
A model that handles layered interfaces well is a good bet for a report view that shows citations, AI impressions and the baseline side by side.
Three steady all-rounders across both page tasks
Some models stay strong on both page tests, according to their own model pages.
GPT-5.6 Sol lists 8.7 on Landing Page and 8.4 on Webos.
Claude Opus 5 lists 8.4 on Landing Page and 8.7 on Webos.
Kimi K3 lists 8.6 on both.
For a consultant who wants one model for pages and report views, those three are the consistent picks; the top scorers on a single task swing more between tasks.
Fugu Ultra shows the swing clearly: it lists 9.0/10 on Landing but 7.0/10 on the Webos task page.
Run your own brief through two of the steady models before you settle on one.
Matching models to consultant deliverables
| Deliverable | What good looks like | Bench signal |
|---|---|---|
| Service and comparison pages | Clear structure, fair copy, fast HTML | Landing Page scores |
| Client report or dashboard view | Readable layout for citations and impressions | Webos scores |
| Roadmap write-up | Follows instructions, no invented facts | Not scored; check by hand |
| Organization / LocalBusiness JSON-LD | Valid markup matching visible page text | Not scored; validate every draft |
| Content briefs | Demands first-hand material from the client | Not scored; review against the source notes |
Keep markup in perspective: per Google's AI features page, AI Overviews and AI Mode don't require any special schema.
A consultant's week with two models: a kitchen fitter client
- Monday: the consultant runs the client's buyer questions by hand in ChatGPT search and Copilot and logs who is cited.
- Tuesday: GPT-5.6 Sol and Kimi K3 each draft a "kitchen refit timeline" service page from the fitter's own job notes.
- Wednesday: the consultant strikes invented claims from both drafts, keeps the stronger one and sends it to the fitter to check.
- Thursday: Claude Opus 5 drafts a one-page report view comparing this month's citations with the baseline.
- Friday: the developer adds reviewed LocalBusiness markup, and the consultant logs every change.
The human part no model covers
Crawler access is a policy choice. OpenAI, Perplexity and Anthropic each document their search bots separately from training bots.
Links need judgment too: Google's spam policies treat links built mainly to manipulate rankings as spam, and paid placements need rel="sponsored".
And nobody can promise outcomes. Bing's Webmaster Guidelines say GEO does not guarantee grounding or citations, and Google says no one can guarantee a #1 ranking.
If you want people for that part, start with a free SEO strategy session. By his own count, Julian's channel has 425K+ YouTube subscribers, and his about page lists 240+ clients across 1,000+ campaigns.
The step-by-step view of a hands-on engagement is on our GEO specialist model guide.
How to check any model's GEO draft
- Compare every factual claim with the client's own records. Delete anything the model made up.
- Check advice against Google's AI optimization guide, which lists chunking, llms.txt files and inauthentic mentions as things Search lets you ignore.
- Validate JSON-LD and confirm each value appears on the visible page.
- Read the page aloud. If it sounds like any other business, add a first-hand detail.
- Track results in Search Console's Generative AI performance report rather than in a model's own claims.
Also On Our Network
- Agent Operatorsthe six-stage engagement a GEO consultant should run, with exact robots.txt lines
- AI Income Deskwhether a small business should hire a GEO consultant, with ten questions to ask
- AI Tool Verdictfive routes to GEO advice scored out of 10, from DIY to specialist agency
- agentos.guidefive Agent OS prompts that build an evidence pack before you hire a GEO consultant
Pick a page-strong model from the bench, check every draft against the docs, and book a free strategy session or join the AI Profit Boardroom for the judgment calls only a generative engine optimization consultant makes.
FAQ
Which AI model is best for a generative engine optimization consultant's page drafts?
On the GoldieBench Landing Page task, Fugu Ultra, Fusion, GLM-5.2 and Grok all list 9.0/10. GPT-5.6 Sol, Claude Opus 5 and Kimi K3 stay strong across both Landing Page and Webos on their model pages.
Does GoldieBench test schema or SEO writing?
No. Its methodology scores one-shot, single-file HTML builds, so page tasks are the closest signal and SEO drafts still need checking by hand.
Which model scored highest on the Webos task?
The Webos task page lists Fusion as the winner at 9.0/10, with Grok also at 9.0/10.
What is the top average on the GoldieBench models page?
Fusion, with an 8.59 average across 47 tasks, followed by Claude Opus 5 at 8.27 across 50 tasks.
Can an AI model replace a GEO consultant?
No. Models draft pages, reports and markup, but deciding priorities, checking advice against platform docs and running genuine outreach are human jobs.


