Rival Digital review

Weak — 2 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 9 · Adequate 3 · Weak 3. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 13 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Named clients with described local outcomes — calls, booked jobs, form fills, store visits — and a stated period. Treat any conversion or revenue figure as vendor-stated unless a client is named or a third-party review corroborates it.

Scores high — A named business with a described engagement and a real number scores 4-5.

Scores low — Ranking screenshots, 'page 1' claims and traffic charts with no downstream metric score 2-3, because a map-pack position is an input the buyer cannot bank. Anonymised case studies score 2.

What we found — Four pages read - homepage, about, the SEO service page and the Local Services Ads service page - and not one names a client with an outcome figure. The homepage carries logos and testimonials; the about page has neither case studies nor metrics. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “Four pages were read first-hand and none names a client with an outcome figure.” rivaldigital.com ↗

On the record — “No price, range, minimum or contract term appears on any of the four pages read.” rivaldigital.com ↗

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

Stronger here: Valve+Meter Performance Marketing scores Excellent on the same dimension.

Weak — 2 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 18% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 1 · Strong 5 · Adequate 5 · Weak 5. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 11 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Published, specific method for the surface that decides local visibility: profile optimisation, categories and services, posts, Q&A, spam fighting and redressal, multi-location management at stated scale.

Scores high — Concrete described practice scores 4-5.

Scores low — A page that lists 'GBP optimisation' as a service line and says nothing about how scores 2-3. An agency that never mentions the profile at all, while selling local SEO, scores 1-2 — that is the core asset of this discipline.

What we found — The Google Business Profile, Google Maps and the map pack are not mentioned on any of the four pages, including the SEO service page written for HVAC contractors. That is the surface local search is decided on. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “The Google Business Profile, Google Maps and the map pack are not mentioned on the SEO service page written for HVAC contractors.” rivaldigital.com ↗

On the record — “No price, range, minimum or contract term appears on any of the four pages read.” rivaldigital.com ↗

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

Stronger here: Whitespark scores Excellent on the same dimension.

Not disclosed — 2 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). Nothing was published about this, so it scores at the bottom of the scale — that is a finding about what the agency discloses, not about the quality of its work. This dimension carries 15% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 2 · Adequate 7 · Weak 7. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 9 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Reviews are the heaviest local ranking and conversion factor, and the ways of getting them include practices that violate Google's policies and, in regulated trades, the law. Look for a stated review process and an explicit position against gating, incentivising or writing reviews. Any published offer to write, buy, filter by rating, or suppress negative reviews is a 1 and a red flag on the record, not a score to be averaged away.

Scores high — A published policy scores 4-5.

Scores low — Silence scores 2-3.

What we found — No review process or policy appears on any page read. That is what the low band describes, and nothing published resolves it.

On the record — “No price, range, minimum or contract term appears on any of the four pages read.” rivaldigital.com ↗

Evidence: unknown

Stronger here: Whitespark scores Strong on the same dimension.

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 6 · Adequate 1 · Weak 8 · Poor 1. The typical agency here scores Weak, and 6 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Who owns the Google Business Profile, the website, the tracking numbers, the review history and the ad accounts when the engagement ends. Local SEO concentrates value in assets a client can lose entirely: a profile owned by the agency, or a call-tracking number that stops routing, takes the accrued ranking and history with it.

Scores high — A written ownership and transfer term scores 4-5.

Scores low — Silence scores 2 — a measured absence of disclosure, not a finding about the work. An agency that retains the profile or the primary number by default scores 1.

What we found — 'You Own Everything' is listed as a differentiator on the about page. No contract term, transfer process or definition of 'everything' is published, and no terms page was found. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “'You Own Everything' is listed as a differentiator on the about page with no contractual detail.” rivaldigital.com ↗

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 12% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 2 · Adequate 13 · Weak 1. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 15 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Where LSA or local paid search is sold, the checkable questions are budget transparency, who holds the account, dispute handling for bad leads, and whether Google Screened or Guaranteed status is managed or merely claimed. Not offering LSA at all is not a penalty — score this only where it is sold, and say so in the note.

Scores high — Described process with stated ownership scores 4-5.

Scores low — 'We manage LSA' with no further detail scores 2-3.

What we found — Local Services Ads management is sold with a dedicated page that gives no operational detail: nothing on who holds the account, how unqualified leads are disputed or refunded, or how Google Screened status is handled. The page discusses cost variability without publishing a figure. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “The Local Services Ads page publishes no detail on account ownership, lead disputes or Google Screened handling, and discusses cost variability without a figure.” rivaldigital.com ↗

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

Stronger here: Roofing Webmasters scores Strong on the same dimension.

Not disclosed — 2 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). Nothing was published about this, so it scores at the bottom of the scale — that is a finding about what the agency discloses, not about the quality of its work. This dimension carries 10% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 1 · Strong 3 · Adequate 6 · Weak 6. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 10 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: How the agency handles more than one location or a service area without a storefront: location page structure, avoiding doorway pages, service-area business rules, and citation and NAP consistency at scale.

Scores high — A described approach, with stated limits, scores 4-5.

Scores low — Mass-generated city pages presented as strategy score 1-2 — that is the failure mode of the discipline and Google names it.

What we found — Service-area, multi-location and city-page practice is not addressed on any page read. That is what the low band describes, and nothing published resolves it.

Evidence: unknown

Stronger here: Whitespark scores Excellent on the same dimension.

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 6 · Adequate 5 · Weak 5. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 11 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: A published price, range or starting point, plus contract term and notice. A figure recoverable from an independent profile but not the agency's own site scores 3, and the note must say where it came from. Long minimum terms are not automatically a low score, but an undisclosed one is.

Scores high — A published figure scores 4-5.

Scores low — Nothing published anywhere scores 2.

What we found — No price, range, minimum or contract term appears on any of the four pages. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “No price, range, minimum or contract term appears on any of the four pages read.” rivaldigital.com ↗

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

Stronger here: Whitespark scores Excellent on the same dimension.