Cubitrek 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 AEO/GEO service page names techniques at a level of detail most of this category does not reach: nested JSON-LD with @id anchoring, sameAs arrays carrying Wikidata Q-codes, a machine-readable 'Brand Hub' with llms.txt and entity profiles, passage-first content written as extractable answer blocks, and information-gain audits scored by cosine similarity against the top-10 SERP. Free llms.txt and JSON-LD builder tools on /tools corroborate that this is their working vocabulary rather than a slogan. Held at Strong rather than Excellent for two reasons: none of it is independently corroborated, and the recurring paid deliverable in the AEO tiers is article volume (15/month at Scale, 100+ at Enterprise), which is ordinary content SEO. The entity and schema layer is genuinely retrieval-specific; the monthly work sold on top of it is not. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “The described method names specific retrieval-facing techniques: nested JSON-LD with @id anchoring, sameAs arrays including Wikidata Q-codes, an llms.txt and entity-profile 'Brand Hub', passage-first extractable content, and information-gain audits scored by cosine similarity against the top-10 SERP.” cubitrek.com ↗

On the record — “Separate SEO pricing is also published ($1,500 / $3,500 / $7,500 per month), with the AEO overlap stated explicitly: the entry tier includes schema, llms.txt and entity pages, and the two higher tiers add citation tracking and programmatic AEO content.” cubitrek.com ↗

deliverability — deliverability: whether cold email actually lands in the inbox rather than spam. The tell is infrastructure talk — warmed sending domains kept separate from your main domain — because a burned domain outlasts the engagement.

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 — A described tracking method exists with the parts that matter: 100+ tracked prompts per brand, refreshed daily, across a named surface list (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude, Bing Copilot, Google AI Overviews), reported as citation counts, citation share versus competitors, and a missed-prompt log. This is well clear of the single-prompt-screenshot failure mode. Non-determinism is named as a limit, but on the blog rather than the product page: /blog/how-to-choose-an-aeo-agency states 'No one controls model outputs', that 'Engine-to-engine variance is large', that engines re-crawl on their own schedule with 'weeks to months' the honest range, and warns against blended metrics that hide per-engine differences. The /aeo-platform page then sells a blended 0-100 'AI Visibility Score' combining answer mentions, output mentions and crawler fetches, and carries no variance disclaimer at all - the product contradicts the firm's own published advice. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “The /aeo-platform product page sells a blended 0-100 'AI Visibility Score' combining answer mentions, output mentions and crawler fetches, and carries no acknowledgment of variance or non-determinism - contradicting the firm's own published warning against blended metrics.” cubitrek.com ↗

On the record — “Tracking is described with a stated prompt-set size and cadence: 100+ tracked prompts per brand refreshed daily, weekly citation counts across 30+ AI surfaces, reported as an AI Visibility Score, citation share versus competitors, and a missed-prompt log.” cubitrek.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 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 — Across nine pages read first-hand I found no guaranteed citation, ranking or placement claim, and no claimed partnership or privileged access with any model provider - the platform page describes tracking capability only. Their own blog goes further and lists 'We guarantee you will be cited in ChatGPT' and 'We will get you into AI Overviews in 30 days' as claims that should end a sales conversation. Against that: the three headline case-study results ('0 to 41 AI citations in 3 months', '+340% AI-attributed organic traffic in 6 months' converting at '3.8x', '22% to 3% hallucination rate') carry timeframes but no client name and, for the first two, no prompt set or attribution method - so a buyer cannot check the number that is doing the persuading. Only the hallucination figure states its base (100 daily brand prompts). Not Excellent because of that gap. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “No guarantee of citation, ranking or placement, and no claimed partnership or privileged access with any model provider, appears on any of the nine pages read.” cubitrek.com ↗

On the record — “The firm publishes guidance telling buyers that 'No one controls model outputs', that engine-to-engine variance is large, that engines re-crawl on their own schedule with weeks-to-months the honest range, and that a vendor promising a guaranteed ChatGPT citation or AI Overviews placement in 30 days should end the conversation.” cubitrek.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.

Adequate — 3 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 10 · Adequate 6. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 10 of them score 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 — Named clients exist on the homepage - Property Finder, Allied Bank, Dewan Cement, Karachi Water and Sewerage Corporation, Keyper, Hulii, MindKeepr, PhiFinds - but they are attached to web, app and digital work, not to AI-search engagements. Every AEO/GEO case study is anonymised ('mid-market B2B SaaS in marketing automation', 'B2B SaaS with a brand-name collision'). The four Clutch reviews are for a videography and photography company, a watch retailer's Shopify build, a personal-training video and social engagement, and a marketing coordinator - none is an AEO engagement. So there is a real client base, and separately there are AEO results claims, and the two do not overlap anywhere a buyer can verify. Capped at Adequate under the anonymised-work guidance.

On the record — “All three advertised AEO results are from unnamed clients ('mid-market B2B SaaS in marketing automation'; 'B2B SaaS with a brand-name collision'). Named clients on the homepage - Property Finder, Allied Bank, Dewan Cement, Karachi Water and Sewerage Corporation, Keyper, Hulii, MindKeepr, PhiFinds - are attached to web, app and digital work, not AI search.” cubitrek.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.

B2B — business-to-business: selling to companies rather than consumers — longer deals, more decision-makers.

SaaS — software as a service: subscription software; as a client type it brings recurring revenue and metrics like churn and lifetime value.

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

Excellent — 5 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 2 · Strong 4 · Adequate 3 · Weak 7. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and none scores 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 — Prices are published on the page, not gated behind a call. AEO/GEO: Brand Hub $500/month, Scale $1,500/month (15 articles, 50-prompt tracking), Enterprise $3,000/month (100+ articles, multi-brand). SEO is separately published at $1,500 / $3,500 / $7,500 per month with the AEO overlap spelled out (Growth carries the foundational schema, llms.txt and entity pages; Scale and Enterprise add active citation tracking). Terms are month-to-month with no setup fee, cancel or change with one month's notice, and the page says plainly 'you're never locked in' while stating that most clients run 12+ months. Short terms in a category this young are exactly what the rubric credits. One inconsistency: their Clutch profile lists a $10,000+ minimum project size and a $100-149 hourly rate, which does not square with a $500/month entry tier.

On the record — “Cubitrek's Clutch profile lists a $10,000+ minimum project size and a $100-149 hourly rate, which does not reconcile with the $500/month AEO entry tier published on their own site.” clutch.co ↗

On the record — “AEO/GEO pricing is published on-site in three month-to-month tiers: Brand Hub $500/month, Scale $1,500/month (15 articles, 50-prompt tracking), Enterprise $3,000/month (100+ articles, multi-brand). No setup fees; upgrade, downgrade or cancel on one month's notice.” cubitrek.com ↗

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

Adequate — 3 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 7 · Adequate 9. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 7 of them score 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 — The surfaces-move problem is acknowledged in writing - engines re-crawl on their own schedule, variance between engines is large, and tracking is described as refreshed daily against a prompt list that is itself refreshed. The blog is current, with AEO-specific posts dated June and August 2026, and two free tools ship the method. What is missing is original testing: no published benchmark, no comparative run across engines, no dated methodology revision. The AEO posts are advisory and SERP-shaped ('How to Choose an AEO Agency', 'How to Choose an AEO Tool', 'The AEO Audit Checklist') - useful, but marketing content on their own domain, not research. Adequate rather than Strong. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “Two free, no-signup tools ship the stated method: an llms.txt generator and a schema JSON-LD builder. No published original research, benchmark or comparative engine testing was found anywhere on the domain.” cubitrek.com ↗

On the record — “Tracking is described with a stated prompt-set size and cadence: 100+ tracked prompts per brand refreshed daily, weekly citation counts across 30+ AI surfaces, reported as an AI Visibility Score, citation share versus competitors, and a missed-prompt log.” cubitrek.com ↗

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

Adequate — 3 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 6 · Adequate 5 · Weak 3. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 8 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 — Read first-hand on clutch.co: 4.6 out of 5 across 4 verified reviews, reviewers identified by role and company (a wedding videography director, a personal training business, a media solutions employee, a marketing coordinator). The site quotes these same reviews accurately and labels the rating correctly as 4.6/5 across 4 Clutch reviews rather than rounding it up - a small honesty signal. A handful of reviews scores Adequate under the rubric, and none of the four covers AI-search work. Note that the Techreviewer directory listing shows stale and contradictory figures for the same firm (5.0 rating, under $20/hour, under $5,000 minimum); the Clutch profile is the one I read directly.

On the record — “Cubitrek's Clutch profile lists a $10,000+ minimum project size and a $100-149 hourly rate, which does not reconcile with the $500/month AEO entry tier published on their own site.” clutch.co ↗

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