Percepture 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 GEO service page publishes a five-step workflow (intake and audit, topic and entity map, page restructuring, citation building, tracking) and names specific techniques: entity presence built across Wikipedia, Wikidata and structured databases; FAQ, HowTo, Product and Organization schema plus what they call JSON engineering; direct-answer content blocks and semantic keyword research; and digital PR aimed at 'securing placements in high-authority publications that AI models reference' to raise citation frequency. Named tools include BrandLight, Profound, SEMrush and Google Search Console, plus a proprietary system they call Prime AI Visibility. The insights hub goes further than the sales page: a Failure-Point Framework that separates engines rather than blending them, and a D-R-R-C-R model (Discoverability, Retrieval, Representation, Citation, Recommendation). Held back from Excellent because a substantial share of this is ordinary entity SEO and digital PR under a new label, and because crawler access, llms.txt and the question of which corpora each assistant actually retrieves from are never addressed. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “The GEO service page names concrete techniques - entity presence across Wikipedia, Wikidata and structured databases; FAQ, HowTo, Product and Organization schema; direct-answer formatting; digital PR citation building - and names BrandLight, Profound, SEMrush and Google Search Console as tracking tools. It contains no instance of the words guarantee, promise, llms.txt or crawler.” percepture.com ↗

On the record — “The statistics page publishes first-party Google Search Console data over a stated window (March 24 to June 22, 2026) and separates platform facts, internal search data, experimental findings, client outcomes and forecasts rather than presenting them as one list.” percepture.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 — The published KPI framework is unusually disciplined for this category. It states that 'Answers can also vary by platform, prompt wording, user context, geography, language, and test timing. One answer run is therefore an observation, not a stable market benchmark,' instructs 'Run priority prompts more than once and retain each valid observation. Report the range or volatility rather than averaging away instability,' and sets the bar that 'A visibility score without its prompt set, platform, geography, date, sample size, and formula is not a business KPI.' It includes an AI Attribution Evidence Ladder that grades confidence from directly attributable referral down to unattributed influence and says to 'Disclose the gap; do not assign the activity to AI revenue' when evidence is missing. A separate page states plainly that 'GEO is not one deterministic rank.' Not Excellent because the client-facing service page describes reporting only as monthly tracking of 'mentions, sentiment, and referral traffic' with no prompt-set discipline, so the two surfaces do not agree on what a buyer would actually receive. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “The published measurement framework names non-determinism as a limit: 'Answers can also vary by platform, prompt wording, user context, geography, language, and test timing. One answer run is therefore an observation, not a stable market benchmark,' and 'A visibility score without its prompt set, platform, geography, date, sample size, and formula is not a business KPI.'” percepture.com ↗

On the record — “Broadstaff Global is a named client with a described twelve-month engagement that explicitly included AI search visibility support, claiming 90% of tracked keywords on page one and 3x qualified leads, with a named quoted contact.” percepture.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: 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 20% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 5 · Adequate 7 · Weak 4. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 5 of them score 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 of any kind was found across the GEO service, pricing and insights pages: no guaranteed rankings, no guaranteed citations, no claimed partnership or privileged access with any model provider, and results are framed as taking '3-6 months.' Their own writing explicitly denies determinism. What pulls this to the middle is the sales page, which stacks headline percentages with no prompt set, no timeframe methodology and no named client behind them: '3000% increase in AI mentions in 3 months,' '212% increase in sales-qualified leads,' AI traffic converting '12.8x higher than traditional search,' and a comparison table asserting a '27% average' conversion rate for GEO against '2.1% average' for SEO as though it were a channel constant. The same 3000%-in-three-months figure appears on that one page attributed both to an unnamed 'tech client' and to an unnamed 'telecom company.' The page also forecasts that 'By 2027, 40% of all search queries will bypass traditional search results entirely' without sourcing it. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “Broadstaff Global is a named client with a described twelve-month engagement that explicitly included AI search visibility support, claiming 90% of tracked keywords on page one and 3x qualified leads, with a named quoted contact.” percepture.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 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 for Broadstaff Global is a named client with a described twelve-month engagement that explicitly includes AI search visibility support alongside search strategy, on-page work and authority building, with claimed results of 90 percent of tracked keywords on page one and 3x qualified leads, and a named quoted contact. Broadstaff Global and CEO Carrie Charles were confirmed independently as a real Tampa staffing firm in digital infrastructure, so the attribution is checkable even though the engagement outcomes are the vendor's account. Other named case studies cover Amazon, SKIFT, Visit Williamsburg and Broadstaff; Pfizer, Vodafone and Zevia appear as client marks on the homepage; OPTK Networks is named in the statistics post. Capped below Excellent because the GEO line specifically has no standalone named engagement: every AI-search result figure on the service page is anonymised, and within the Broadstaff case the GEO contribution is not separated from the SEO work.

On the record — “Broadstaff Global is a named client with a described twelve-month engagement that explicitly included AI search visibility support, claiming 90% of tracked keywords on page one and 3x qualified leads, with a named quoted contact.” percepture.com ↗

On the record — “Broadstaff Global and its CEO Carrie Charles were confirmed independently as a real Tampa-based digital infrastructure staffing firm founded in 2015, so the client attribution is checkable.” broadstaffglobal.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 — Actual dollar figures are published on a dedicated AI search and GEO pricing page, read first-hand: Launch $3,500/mo, Growth $6,000/mo, Authority $8,500/mo, Enterprise $10k+/mo, with deliverables defined per tier (2, 4, 6-8 and 8+ AI-ready content pieces monthly, escalating citation work, monthly then bi-weekly strategy calls). Add-ons are priced too: AI link and mention building at $1,000-$1,600/mo depending on tier, digital PR activation starting at $4,500/mo. This is well ahead of the category norm of quote-on-request. Not Excellent because no contract length, minimum term or cancellation policy is stated anywhere, so a buyer cannot tell whether the entry tier is month-to-month or a twelve-month lock-in, and the general pricing hub still routes to 'let's have a quick chat.'

On the record — “Actual GEO prices are published: Launch $3,500/mo, Growth $6,000/mo, Authority $8,500/mo, Enterprise $10k+/mo, with per-tier deliverables, plus AI link and mention building at $1,000-$1,600/mo and digital PR activation from $4,500/mo. No contract length or minimum term is stated.” percepture.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: 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 — The GEO insights hub holds 27 posts, all dated between June and August 2026 per the site's own sitemap, so the method is being actively revised rather than presented as settled. The statistics page publishes first-party Google Search Console data over a stated window (March 24 to June 22, 2026) and, notably, sorts its own claims into platform facts, internal search data, experimental findings, client outcomes and forecasts rather than presenting them as one undifferentiated list. The Failure-Point and D-R-R-C-R frameworks treat engine behaviour as something that moves. Short of Excellent because the first-party data published is their own search console output rather than results of prompt-set testing they ran, and there is no changelog or dated record of how the method changed when a surface changed. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “The statistics page publishes first-party Google Search Console data over a stated window (March 24 to June 22, 2026) and separates platform facts, internal search data, experimental findings, client outcomes and forecasts rather than presenting them as one list.” percepture.com ↗

On the record — “The GEO insights hub contains 27 posts, all last-modified between June and August 2026 per the site's own post sitemap, indicating an actively maintained rather than static method.” percepture.com ↗

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

Weak — 2 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 6 · Weak 2. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 14 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 — A Clutch profile exists at clutch.co/profile/percepture and was read first-hand: it shows 0.0 overall with 0 reviews and zeroes across quality, schedule, cost and willingness to refer, meaning the profile is unclaimed or simply never reviewed. No G2 profile was located. A FeaturedCustomers listing exists but aggregates vendor-supplied references, which is not an independent review base. A competitor-authored comparison page ranks for the firm's name and is not independent either. This is a measured absence, not a retrieval failure. Worth noting that the category's usual excuse does not apply here: the firm has operated since 2004, so an empty review profile is not explained by youth.

On the record — “The Clutch profile shows 0.0 overall with 0 reviews and zeroes across all four sub-scores.” clutch.co ↗

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

Stronger here: Intero Digital scores Excellent on the same dimension.