1Digital Agency review

Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 25% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 8 · Adequate 7 · Weak 1. The typical agency here scores Strong, and none scores higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: What the firm actually does, described concretely enough to evaluate: content restructuring for extractability, entity and knowledge-graph work, schema, source and citation-footprint building, presence on the corpora assistants actually draw from, llms.txt and crawler access. Be sceptical of anything indistinguishable from ordinary SEO sold at a premium under a new name: if the described method is only 'good content and schema', say so plainly in the verdict rather than crediting the label.

Scores high — Named, specific techniques tied to how retrieval works score 4-5.

Scores low — 'We optimise for AI' with no described mechanism scores 1-2.

What we found — The AI service pages name specific, retrieval-level techniques rather than slogans: separating OpenAI's three crawlers (OAI-SearchBot, GPTBot, ChatGPT-User) and auditing robots access for each, server-log evidence of GPTBot/PerplexityBot/ClaudeBot/Google-Extended activity, entity disambiguation so a brand maps to one knowledge-graph node, an explicit schema graph (Organization, Product, Offer, Review, FAQPage, HowTo, Article), llms.txt authoring with quarterly upkeep, merchant-feed fidelity and GTIN/MPN hygiene, and the agentic-commerce protocols by name (Anthropic's MCP, OpenAI/Stripe's ACP, Google's AP2). It is not Excellent because a large share of the described work -- answer-first formatting, 40-80 word direct answers, question-style H2s, E-E-A-T bylines, topic clusters, schema -- is ordinary content and technical SEO under a new label. What is genuinely category-specific is the crawler-access layer, the feed/agent-checkout work and the measurement apparatus, not the content method. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Agentic commerce work is described at protocol level -- Anthropic's MCP, the OpenAI/Stripe Agentic Commerce Protocol, and Google's AP2 agent payments protocol -- alongside product feed fidelity, GTIN/MPN identifiers and agent checkout accessibility.” 1digitalagency.com ↗

On the record — “Crawler-level method is named specifically: OAI-SearchBot, GPTBot, ChatGPT-User, PerplexityBot, ClaudeBot and Google-Extended are treated as distinct, with robots access audited per crawler and server-log evidence of crawler activity used as a deliverable.” 1digitalagency.com ↗

Evidence: vendor stated — the agency’s own claim, recorded as theirs rather than ours.

Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 20% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 1 · Strong 5 · Adequate 9 · Weak 1. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 1 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: How the firm proposes to prove anything, in a setting where outputs are non-deterministic and vary by user, session and region. Look for a described tracking approach with its limits acknowledged: prompt sets, sampling frequency, variance handling, and how a citation is attributed.

Scores high — A stated method that names non-determinism as a limit scores 4-5.

Scores low — Vague 'we track your AI visibility' scores 2-3. A firm presenting single-prompt screenshots as measurement scores 1-2 — one answer on one day is an anecdote, and treating it as a metric is the characteristic error of this category.

What we found — They publish a standalone monitoring methodology page (/methodology/citation-share-monitoring/), which is unusual in this category and was read first-hand. It specifies a locked panel of 100-500 category prompts per engagement, three named prompt sources with a stated rule that 'Every prompt is reviewed; nothing auto-enters the panel', a weekly fixed-day cron run on the principle 'Same prompts, same engines, same time - the week-over-week diff is the signal', nine engines including ChatGPT with browsing on and off as separate modes, a five-stage parser that records entity_id, mention count, first_position, citation_index and parsed domain, alias handling for misspellings, and success/partial/error plus a 'no_ai_overview' status when a prompt did not trigger an Overview. It names Claude-with-web-search timeouts as a known operational variable logged separately, and refuses cross-engagement benchmarks because differing prompt sets would create 'false precision'. Held below Excellent for one real gap: a single weekly draw per prompt cannot separate model non-determinism from actual movement, no repeat sampling or variance band is described, and the underlying data sits in their own closed tool ('The WorkspaceCRM data is private'). That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “A standalone monitoring methodology is published: a locked panel of 100-500 category prompts per engagement, curated ('Every prompt is reviewed; nothing auto-enters the panel'), rerun weekly on a fixed day across nine engines, with a five-stage parser recording entity_id, mention count, first_position, citation_index and parsed domain, alias handling, success/partial/error statuses and a distinct 'no_ai_overview' status.” 1digitalagency.com ↗

On the record — “The methodology page declines to publish cross-client benchmarks: 'We don't publish category-aggregate or industry-benchmark numbers because the prompt sets vary by engagement', citing false precision.” 1digitalagency.com ↗

Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.

Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 20% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 4 · Adequate 8 · Weak 4. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and none scores higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Weighted unusually high because this category's defining risk is overclaim, not opacity. No vendor controls what an assistant says. Also flag results claims presented without the prompt set or timeframe that produced them, and any implication that the firm has privileged access to a model's ranking.

Scores high — A firm that states plainly what it cannot guarantee scores 4-5.

Scores low — Guaranteed rankings, guaranteed citations, guaranteed 'first result in ChatGPT', or claimed partnerships with model providers score 1-2 and must be named in red_flags.

What we found — No guarantee language appears anywhere on the AI pages, and the disclaimers are affirmative rather than buried. AEO page: 'No agency can guarantee a specific AI engine will cite you on a specific prompt - engines change weekly.' GEO page FAQ: 'No reputable agency can guarantee placement in generative answers.' AI SEO page FAQ: they 'set expectations clearly rather than promising guaranteed placement in any specific AI system.' The free scan page states it is 'an honest readiness score, not a guarantee of any specific AI result or proof that AI cites you by name'. No claimed partnership or privileged access with OpenAI, Anthropic, Perplexity or Google was found; the certifications named are Google Partner, BigCommerce and Shopify. No percentage results claims are attached to the AI service lines. The deduction from Excellent is a non-AI claim that is checkable and does not reconcile: see red_flags on the 941-review aggregate. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Explicit no-guarantee language on the AEO page: 'No agency can guarantee a specific AI engine will cite you on a specific prompt - engines change weekly.'” 1digitalagency.com ↗

On the record — “Explicit no-guarantee language in the GEO FAQ schema: 'No reputable agency can guarantee placement in generative answers.'” 1digitalagency.com ↗

Evidence: partly checkable — corroborated in part against the sources below; the remainder rests on the agency’s own account.

Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 15% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 9 · Adequate 7. The typical agency here scores Strong, and none scores higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Attributable client work. Be lenient on volume and strict on attribution: this category is young enough that a short roster is expected, but a long roster of unnamed logos is not evidence. Where a firm's OWN brand is demonstrably visible in AI answers, note it as a real if partial signal — it is at least a claim about themselves they cannot make privately.

Scores low — Named clients with described engagements score 4-5; anonymised or absent scores 2-3.

What we found — The case-study index names roughly 19 clients with described engagements -- MCS Gearup, BigBattery, White Mountain Knives, Dallas Golf Company, Oliver Inc., Stover & Company, Sarco, Divinity Clergy Wear, Perfectly Priscilla and others -- with platform, scope and in several cases directional results and timeframes. Three of the named client domains were checked and resolve to live businesses in the stated verticals. The gap that matters for this category: not one of those case studies is an AI-search engagement. Results are reported in classic SEO terms (average keyword position, impressions, organic traffic, revenue); the only AI touchpoint is a passing note that content was 'drafted to SEO and AEO best practices'. There is no published citation-share before/after for any named brand, so the attributable evidence is for an eCommerce SEO practice, not yet for the AEO/GEO line.

On the record — “Roughly 19 named client case studies are published (MCS Gearup, BigBattery, White Mountain Knives, Dallas Golf Company, Oliver Inc., Sarco, Divinity Clergy Wear and others) with platform and scope described; three of the named client domains were checked and resolve to live businesses in the stated verticals. None of the case studies reports an AI citation or AI-visibility outcome.” 1digitalagency.com ↗

attribution — working out which marketing touch actually caused a sale. Good practice names its model and its blind spots; bad practice quotes each ad platform’s self-graded numbers, which overlap and overclaim.

Evidence: partly checkable — corroborated in part against the sources below; the remainder rests on the agency’s own account.

Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 10% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 3 · Strong 3 · Adequate 3 · Weak 7. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 3 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Note contract length: long lock-ins are hard to justify in a category this young, where nobody can evidence a twelve-month outcome yet, and a firm offering short or month-to-month terms should be credited for it.

Scores low — Published prices, ranges or defined packages score 4-5; ranges on request score 2-3; bespoke-only scores 1-2.

What we found — A full price ladder is published on /ai-seo-pricing/ and was read first-hand: Local SEO Launch $899/mo, Essential $1,599, Pro $2,499, Plus $3,299, Premium $4,499; National Launch $1,499 through Premium $5,999; fixed-price one-time onsite blocks at $1,699 / $3,199 / $4,399; custom and out-of-scope work at $185/hour. Contract terms are stated rather than hidden: 'Six-month initial term, then month-to-month'. Two things keep it off Excellent. The AEO/GEO scope itself is not separately priced -- the AEO audit is 'quoted after discovery call' and the AI layer is described as riding inside the standard retainer -- so a buyer cannot see what the AI work alone costs. And the minimum term is stated inconsistently across pages: the AI SEO page says '$185/hour with a 3-month minimum' while the pricing page says a six-month initial term.

On the record — “Full published price ladder: Local SEO $899 / $1,599 / $2,499 / $3,299 / $4,499 per month; National $1,499 to $5,999 per month; one-time onsite blocks at $1,699 / $3,199 / $4,399; custom work at $185/hour; 'Six-month initial term, then month-to-month'.” 1digitalagency.com ↗

retainer — a fixed monthly fee regardless of hours or output — predictable, but worth tying to a defined scope.

Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.

Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 5% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 6 · Adequate 10. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and none scores higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Whether the firm acknowledges that the surfaces move, and describes how it adapts: monitoring for model and interface changes, revisiting method, published research or original testing.

Scores high — Evidence of ongoing testing and updated method scores 4-5.

Scores low — A static playbook presented as settled practice scores 2, since nothing in this category has been stable long enough to be settled.

What we found — There is real evidence of tracking a moving surface rather than a frozen playbook: a dated original study (/reports/state-of-ai-shopping-citations-2026/, published May 17 2026) reporting an 86-point spread in brand-mention rate between the highest and lowest engine, Perplexity at 86% and Google AI Overviews at 0%, and a 63% Claude error rate from web-search timeouts -- with its own limits stated up front ('28 successful provider responses', 'a baseline reading from the WorkspaceCRM's first reporting week'). Alongside it sit a weekly monitoring cadence, a maintained glossary of crawler and surface terms, per-engine pages including Grok and Claude, and coverage of MCP, ACP and AP2 as they emerged. Below Excellent because the published research is a single small-N pilot (28 parsed responses) and the raw data is private, so the adaptation is evidenced by cadence and coverage more than by replicable results. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Original dated research published May 17 2026 on AI shopping citations: 28 successful provider responses across five engines in a Q2 2026 pilot window, reporting an 86-percentage-point spread in brand-mention rate, Perplexity at 86% and Google AI Overviews at 0%, and a 63% Claude error rate from web-search timeouts, with the small sample and private underlying data stated in the report.” 1digitalagency.com ↗

On the record — “AI search is a real named service line, not a tagline: dedicated pages exist for AI SEO, AEO, GEO, ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Grok and Claude optimization, Google AI Overviews, ChatGPT and Perplexity Shopping, agentic commerce, an AEO audit, a free AI visibility check, and a crawler/surface glossary.” 1digitalagency.com ↗

Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.

Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 5% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 2 · Strong 5 · Adequate 6 · Weak 3. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 2 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Independent, verified reviews. Low weight and low expectations: most firms here are under two years old, so an absent review base is a fact about the category's age rather than a finding about the vendor.

Scores low — A substantial verified base scores 4-5; a handful scores 2-3; none located scores 2.

What we found — Three independent surfaces were read first-hand. Clutch: 4.8 of 5 from 7 reviews, minimum project size $1,000+, hourly rate $150-$199. Trustpilot: 4.2 of 5 from 7 reviews. A Birdeye-hosted profile aggregating their Google reviews shows 4.8 from 142 reviews, all sourced from Google. That is roughly 156 readable third-party reviews at a consistent 4.2-4.8, which is a substantial base by this category's standards. Two qualifications: the reviews concern eCommerce SEO, PPC and development going back years, not the AI search line, and the firm also operates its own review site (1digitalreviews.com, showing 4.9 from 32 reviews, footer '(c)2026 1Digital Agency'), which is self-published and not independent evidence.

On the record — “Independent review base read first-hand: Clutch 4.8 of 5 from 7 reviews (minimum project size $1,000+, rate $150-$199/hr); Trustpilot 4.2 of 5 from 7 reviews; a Birdeye-hosted profile showing 4.8 from 142 reviews, all sourced from Google.” clutch.co ↗

On the record — “1digitalreviews.com is operated by the agency itself (footer '(c)2026 1Digital Agency') and displays 4.9 from 32 reviews described as 'company-authenticated', with no links out to independent platforms.” 1digitalreviews.com ↗

Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.