Scorpion 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 — Nine home-services clients are named on the testimonials page - Faith Electric Group, Hembree Heating & Air, ServiceOne, Molberg Plumbing among them - as video thumbnails with no written engagement and no figure of any kind. What is quantified is unattributed: 'driven $3B+ in attributed revenue for clients', returns 'ranging from 8x to 25x', revenue up '25% to 78% year-over-year'. The sitemap contains no case studies at all. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “Nine home-services clients are named on the testimonials page with no written engagement and no quantified outcome.” scorpion.co ↗

On the record — “The quantified claims are unattributed: 'driven $3B+ in attributed revenue for clients', with returns 'ranging from 8x to 25x'.” scorpion.co ↗

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 and the map pack are not described on the home-services overview, the homepage or the Local Services Ads solutions page. SEO is sold as 'SEO and AI search ranking'. The only Google Business Profile material on the site is published as articles, not as a described service. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “The Google Business Profile and map pack are not described as a service on the overview, the homepage or the Local Services Ads page.” scorpion.co ↗

On the record — “The dedicated Local Services Ads page publishes nothing on account ownership, lead disputes or Google Screened handling; budget is described only as 'a budget that works toward your revenue goal'.” scorpion.co ↗

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.

Weak — 2 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 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 — 'Review and reputation management' is sold as a service line, and no process for obtaining reviews - who is asked, how they are selected, any position on gating or incentives - appears on any page read. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

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 Strong on the same dimension.

Weak — 2 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 2 · Weak 7 · Poor 1. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 8 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 — No page read states who owns the website, the Google Business Profile or the tracking numbers at the end of an engagement, and the sitemap contains no terms of service or service agreement of any kind. /legal/ is the law-firm marketing page, not a legal document. That is a firm requiring 12-month contracts and publishing no contract. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “Contract terms are stated as '12-month contracts typically required for marketing technology and SEO; digital advertising generally month-to-month'.” scorpion.co ↗

On the record — “The site's sitemap contains no case-study, pricing or terms-of-service pages.” scorpion.co ↗

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 Strong on the same dimension.

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 have a dedicated solutions page that publishes nothing operational: not who holds the account, not how unqualified leads are disputed or refunded, not how Google Screened status is handled. Budget is described only as 'a budget that works toward your revenue goal'. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “The dedicated Local Services Ads page publishes nothing on account ownership, lead disputes or Google Screened handling; budget is described only as 'a budget that works toward your revenue goal'.” scorpion.co ↗

On the record — “The Google Business Profile and map pack are not described as a service on the overview, the homepage or the Local Services Ads page.” scorpion.co ↗

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.

Adequate — 3 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 1 · Strong 3 · Adequate 5 · Weak 7. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 4 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 — Segments are stated - 'Single-location operators, established brands, and franchise/PE-backed platforms' - without a described approach to location pages, service-area rules or citation consistency at scale. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

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 10% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 6 · Adequate 4 · Weak 6. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 6 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 appears anywhere and the sitemap has no pricing page. The term is published: '12-month contracts typically required for marketing technology and SEO; digital advertising generally month-to-month.' That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “Contract terms are stated as '12-month contracts typically required for marketing technology and SEO; digital advertising generally month-to-month'.” scorpion.co ↗

On the record — “The site's sitemap contains no case-study, pricing or terms-of-service pages.” scorpion.co ↗

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