GreenBanana SEO 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 and GEO service pages describe a six-phase program with named techniques rather than slogans: answer-first content blocks with crisp definitions and comparison tables for 'best/vs/cost' queries, query fan-out expansion, schema markup by type (FAQPage, HowTo, Organization, Service, Person, Article, and DefinedTerm/ScholarlyArticle in their schema guide), entity clarity and sameAs alignment to the knowledge graph, indexability and rendering checks, reduction of JavaScript bloat that blocks extraction, and digital PR into industry publications, directories and podcasts to build a third-party citation footprint. The published 'Schema Mountain' guide is a real artifact with JSON-LD examples (hosted in linked Google Docs rather than on the page) and is not gated. Credit is also due for treating llms.txt as a 'supporting asset' and explicitly 'not a magic ranking switch' rather than selling it as a lever. Held below Excellent for two reasons: most of the stack is ordinary technical and content SEO under a new label, with prompt-set construction and citation-source tracking as the genuinely category-specific additions; and the advertised 'platform-specific optimization' tailored separately to ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Perplexity, Copilot and Grok is asserted with no described mechanism for how work differs per engine. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “The GEO page describes llms.txt as a supporting asset and explicitly 'not a magic ranking switch', rather than selling it as a ranking lever.” greenbananaseo.com ↗

On the record — “The 'Schema Mountain' guide is ungated and organizes schema types by difficulty with JSON-LD code examples, though the code itself lives in linked external Google Docs rather than on the page.” greenbananaseo.com ↗

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 20% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 1 · Strong 6 · Adequate 8 · Weak 1. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 7 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 tracking approach is described and it is prompt-set based, which is the right shape: the AI visibility tracking page lists 'Build the Prompt Set' as step one, organized by business priority, search intent, service category and buyer stage, then tracks brand visibility and citation sources across six engines, compares competitors, and monitors over time, reported as 'Share of Answer' and share of voice by engine. One case study discloses a real prompt count (37 core prompts, 120+ variations). What is missing is everything that would make the numbers checkable: no sampling frequency beyond 'monthly monitoring', no sample size behind any reported percentage, no named tracking tool, no description of how a citation is attributed, and no handling of variance. Non-determinism is acknowledged only in passing -- 'Each platform works differently, so results can vary' and 'AI answers can shift' -- without stating what that does to a reported figure. Reporting '72% visibility rate when testing target prompts' and 'cited in 84% of relevant AI responses' without the sample behind them is the characteristic weakness here, though it is a step above presenting single screenshots as evidence. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “The AI visibility tracking service is prompt-set based -- step one is 'Build the Prompt Set', organized by business priority, search intent, service category and buyer stage, tracked across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude, Copilot and Google AI Overviews -- but no sampling frequency, sample size, tracking tool or citation-attribution method is published.” greenbananaseo.com ↗

On the record — “All three AI search case studies are anonymized to a category ('B2B Marketing Agency', 'SaaS Platform', 'Professional Services Firm') and report precise outcomes including '$1.2M in closed-won revenue attributed to AI sources in first 120 days', '$4.8M in new AUM from AI referrals', '415% ROI in first 120 days' and 'Cited in 84% of relevant AI responses', with no prompt set, sample size or tracking tool disclosed.” greenbananaseo.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 — Unusually explicit disclaimers, read first-hand on the AEO service page: 'We can't guarantee citations -- our work increases the likelihood through clarity, authority, and machine-readable structure', 'No one can control third-party AI outputs', and 'We're not affiliated with OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, Microsoft, or Perplexity'. They also name what they do not sell: guaranteed citations in ChatGPT/Gemini/Perplexity, instant AI rankings, and one-time optimization permanence. Service copy is consistently conditional ('increase citation probability', 'more likely to appear'). Kept off Excellent by the AEO case studies, which attribute precise financial outcomes to AI referrals -- '$1.2M in closed-won revenue', '$4.8M in new AUM', '415% ROI in first 120 days', '25X higher conversion rate compared to traditional organic search' -- for three unnamed clients, with timeframes given but no prompt set, sample size or attribution methodology. Separately, the traditional SEO line is headlined 'Page one or you don't pay', a ranking promise on a surface the firm also does not control; the same page then states they do not guarantee page-one rankings in a specific position or timeframe, which is a tension the buyer has to resolve themselves. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “The AEO service page states in writing: 'We can't guarantee citations -- our work increases the likelihood through clarity, authority, and machine-readable structure', and 'No one can control third-party AI outputs'.” greenbananaseo.com ↗

On the record — “The same page carries an explicit non-affiliation disclaimer: 'We're not affiliated with OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, Microsoft, or Perplexity', and lists guaranteed citations, instant AI rankings and one-time optimization permanence as things they do not offer.” greenbananaseo.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: 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 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 — The firm is not short of attributable work in general: the homepage names Raytheon, HP Inc. and Clear Channel Outdoor, and the case studies index names Orthopedics Plus, Preserve Services, Boston Sports Med, Revise Energy and Tropical Products with described engagements. But every one of those is a traditional SEO or paid media engagement. All three AI search case studies are anonymized to a category -- 'B2B Marketing Agency', 'SaaS Platform', 'Professional Services Firm' -- so there is no named client for the service being evaluated here, and the named logos are self-published and were not independently corroborated, which caps this dimension at Adequate under either reading.

On the record — “Named client work is published for the general SEO practice (Raytheon, HP Inc., Clear Channel Outdoor on the homepage; Orthopedics Plus, Preserve Services, Boston Sports Med, Revise Energy and Tropical Products in the case study index), but no AI search client is named.” greenbananaseo.com ↗

On the record — “All three AI search case studies are anonymized to a category ('B2B Marketing Agency', 'SaaS Platform', 'Professional Services Firm') and report precise outcomes including '$1.2M in closed-won revenue attributed to AI sources in first 120 days', '$4.8M in new AUM from AI referrals', '415% ROI in first 120 days' and 'Cited in 84% of relevant AI responses', with no prompt set, sample size or tracking tool disclosed.” greenbananaseo.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: vendor stated — the agency’s own claim, recorded as theirs rather than ours.

Weak — 2 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 4 · Adequate 3 · Weak 6. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 10 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 — Nothing priced on their own site. The AEO page states only that 'Pricing varies based on your business size, goals, and complexity' with 'customized AEO packages'; the GEO page says scope 'depends on scope' with an audit and roadmap leading into monthly execution. No package tiers, no ranges, and no contract length or cancellation terms anywhere on the domain -- which matters in a category where nobody can yet evidence a twelve-month outcome. The only figures a buyer can find are third-party: the Clutch profile lists a $5,000+ minimum project size and a $200-$300 hourly rate. Timelines are at least stated: '60-90 days' for measurable visibility and '3-6 months' for sustained results.

On the record — “No pricing, package tier, contract length or cancellation term is published anywhere on the domain; the AEO page states only that 'Pricing varies based on your business size, goals, and complexity'.” greenbananaseo.com ↗

On the record — “The Clutch profile lists a $5,000+ minimum project size and a $200-$300 hourly rate, with 4.8 out of 5 from 2 Clutch-verified reviews, most recent 23 Jan 2026.” clutch.co ↗

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

Stronger here: Cubitrek scores Excellent on the same dimension.

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 — The firm clearly does not treat this as settled practice. The blog publishes every three to seven days, most recently 20 Aug 2026, and the recent run is specifically about surfaces moving rather than evergreen explainer filler: 'Did Reddit Just Break One of the Biggest AI SEO Shortcuts?', 'Ranking Blind Spots: Why AI May Choose a Weaker Competitor', 'How AI Uses Reviews and Listings to Recommend Local Businesses', 'Query Fan Out: How to Build Content AI Search Can Actually Use'. The service copy reinforces it, disclaiming one-time optimization permanence and noting AI answers shift. Not Excellent because I read post titles and cadence but located no original controlled testing -- no published experiment, sample or dataset behind the observations. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “The blog publishes roughly every three to seven days, most recently 20 Aug 2026, with a recent run specifically tracking changes in AI search behaviour ('Did Reddit Just Break One of the Biggest AI SEO Shortcuts?', 'Ranking Blind Spots: Why AI May Choose a Weaker Competitor', 'Query Fan Out').” greenbananaseo.com ↗

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 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 — Clutch profile read first-hand: 4.8 out of 5 from 2 Clutch-verified client reviews, the most recent dated 23 Jan 2026, both positive on technical expertise, responsiveness and project management, neither citing an area for improvement. Two reviews is a handful, not a base, and neither review is specific to AI search work. The firm also appears on DesignRush and as a Semrush agency partner, which are listings rather than verified review bases. Low weight by design -- a thin review base in this category is mostly a fact about its age.

On the record — “The Clutch profile lists a $5,000+ minimum project size and a $200-$300 hourly rate, with 4.8 out of 5 from 2 Clutch-verified reviews, most recent 23 Jan 2026.” clutch.co ↗

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