TripleDart 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 services page publishes a week-by-week eight-week plan with named techniques: AI-search audit and citation-gap map (wk 1), entity and knowledge-graph build, schema mapping and llms.txt configuration (wk 1-2), answer-ready content, comparison and alternative pages, direct-answer formats (wk 2-4), G2 and review-site presence, Reddit and Wikipedia signals, digital PR (wk 3-6), citation tracking and LLM rank checking (wk 4-8). The retrieval-side reasoning is stated explicitly ('Citations are earned, not ranked'). A live llms.txt exists at https://www.tripledart.com/llms.txt, so the technique they sell is at least visibly applied to their own domain. Capped below Excellent because a large share of the program - schema, comparison and alternative pages, digital PR, G2 presence, content restructuring - is ordinary B2B SaaS SEO that TripleDart already sold before the GEO label; the genuinely category-specific parts are the llms.txt/entity-graph work and the per-engine citation tracking. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “The GEO page publishes an eight-week delivery plan with dated stages: AI-search audit and citation-gap map (wk 1); entity and knowledge graph, schema mapping, llms.txt config (wk 1-2); answer-ready content, comparison/alternative pages, direct-answer formats (wk 2-4); third-party authority via G2, review sites, Reddit, Wikipedia and digital PR (wk 3-6); citation tracking, LLM rank checking, Slate dashboard (wk 4-8).” tripledart.com ↗

On the record — “A live llms.txt is served at https://www.tripledart.com/llms.txt listing ~31 service and case-study URLs with descriptions; robots.txt is fully permissive (Disallow blank) and links the sitemap. The site is not a soft-404 site: /this-page-cannot-possibly-exist-9f3k2 returns HTTP 404 and a nonsense .txt path also returns 404.” tripledart.com ↗

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.

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 — Their published GEO metrics guide states plainly that 'GEO visibility is probabilistic, not deterministic. Unlike SEO rankings, which are relatively stable, AI responses vary by session, user context, phrasing, and time of day,' warns that 'a single check that shows you are absent does not mean you have lost,' recommends a 50-100 query set, weekly sampling, and running each query ten times. The AEO page states 'Test 50+ buying scenarios weekly across ChatGPT, Gemini, etc.' Their Slate platform page names the reported quantities: mention rate, average position, sentiment and citation sources across ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Perplexity and Google AI Overviews, plus LLM-attributed sessions joined to CRM. Naming non-determinism as a limit is the 4-5 band. Held at Strong rather than Excellent because none of the published client numbers are accompanied by the prompt set or engine list that produced them, and the service page's own answer to 'How do you measure GEO performance?' reverts to 'citation share and pipeline' with no sampling detail. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Their published GEO metrics guide states 'GEO visibility is probabilistic, not deterministic. Unlike SEO rankings, which are relatively stable, AI responses vary by session, user context, phrasing, and time of day', warns that 'a single check that shows you're absent doesn't mean you've lost', and recommends a 50-100 query set, weekly checks, and running each query ten times.” tripledart.com ↗

On the record — “The Slate platform page names the tracked quantities - mention rate, average position, sentiment and citation sources across ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Perplexity and Google AI Overviews - and gives hedged timing ('Initial signals typically appear in four to six weeks of focused content work'; 'Meaningful share-of-voice movement on competitive queries usually takes 60 days or more') with no guarantee attached.” tripledart.com ↗

CRM — customer relationship management system: the database of record for contacts and deals — HubSpot, Salesforce and kin.

pipeline — the dollar value of open, qualified deals sales is working. “Pipeline created” ties marketing to money, where lead counts don’t.

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 guaranteed citation, guaranteed ranking or 'first result in ChatGPT' language was found on any page read, and no partnership with OpenAI, Anthropic, Google or Perplexity as model providers is claimed. Timing language is hedged rather than promised: 'Initial signals typically appear in four to six weeks,' 'meaningful share-of-voice movement on competitive queries usually takes 60 days or more.' The 'Premier Partner' badge in the hero sits inside a div classed experience_google next to a Google wordmark SVG, so it reads as Google Partners, not a model provider. Pulled down from Strong by three things: the headline stat '3650% LLM sessions lift (Signeasy)' carries no timeframe, engine or prompt set; '+134% AI CITATIONS' for Meegle names 'CHATGPT + AI OVERVIEWS' and nine months but no query set; and the pricing card lists 'AI Search Ads (ChatGPT - Early Access)' as a core program, which implies privileged access to an OpenAI ad product with nothing on the page to substantiate it. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “The hero 'Premier Partner' badge sits inside a div with class experience_google alongside a Google wordmark SVG, i.e. it denotes Google Partners status and not a partnership with any AI model provider.” tripledart.com ↗

On the record — “The pricing card on the GEO page lists 'AI Search Ads (ChatGPT - Early Access)' and 'New Google AI Mode Placements' among core programs, with no explanation, partner attribution or evidence for the claimed early access.” tripledart.com ↗

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 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-studies index carries 100+ named engagements with individual detail pages, of which the AI-search-specific set is Signeasy ('LLM Visibility to 800 Monthly Sessions'), FlowForma ('7x Growth in AI Search Visibility in Just Six Months'), SurveySensum ('Boosted Their AI Search Visibility by 150% in Just 6 Months') and Meegle (+134% AI citations, 14x blog clicks, 9 months). Named clients with described engagements is the 4-5 band and the roster is real and attributable. Held at Strong because the one AI-headlined case study read in full - Signeasy - describes classic SEO work on the detail page (page refreshes, competitor comparison pages, 25+ interactive demos, legal/compliance content across 50+ countries) and reports traffic 33K to 40K and pipeline against a $100K Q1 goal, with no AI-visibility measurement of any kind. The AI framing on the index does not survive contact with the detail page.

On the record — “The Signeasy engagement is headlined on the case-studies index as 'Took Signeasy's LLM Visibility to 800 Monthly Sessions', but the case study detail page describes conventional SEO work (revitalising underperforming pages, competitor comparison pages, compliance content across 50+ countries, 25+ interactive demos) and reports traffic from 33K to 40K, 70% of a $100K Q1 pipeline goal and 3,000+ clicks in Q1 2025, with no AI-visibility measurement disclosed.” tripledart.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.

pipeline — the dollar value of open, qualified deals sales is working. “Pipeline created” ties marketing to money, where lead counts don’t.

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 — A price is on the page, not behind a call: 'Organic growth Starting at $5,000 /month ... billed monthly with no long-term commitment,' repeated in the FAQ as 'Plans start at $5,000 a month and scale with scope. We confirm the exact figure after your audit.' The card itemises what is included (dedicated account strategist, weekly calls, dedicated dashboards, up to 25 ad creatives/month, quarterly business reviews, 5 AI agents on the account). Month-to-month terms deserve credit in a category where nobody can evidence a twelve-month outcome. Not Excellent because the single pricing card mixes paid-media programs into what is labelled the organic-growth plan, so there is no GEO-only tier and a buyer cannot tell what $5,000 buys in AI visibility specifically.

On the record — “The GEO services page publishes a starting price on the page rather than behind a call: 'Organic growth Starting at $5,000 /month ... billed monthly with no long-term commitment', restated in the FAQ as 'Plans start at $5,000 a month and scale with scope.'” tripledart.com ↗

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 — They treat the surfaces as moving and publish accordingly: a Google algorithm update tracker page, an original AI-detector study of 652 articles ranking for bottom-of-funnel terms, and current explainers on Claude web retrieval, Claude vs ChatGPT SEO, GEO metrics and how to rank on Perplexity. The AEO process ends in 'Monitoring & Continuous Improvement - Track visibility and optimize weekly,' and the platform page frames tracking as continuous rather than a one-time audit. Not Excellent because most of the published output is explainer content aimed at search demand rather than repeated original testing of the engines themselves; the 652-article study is the one piece of first-party research located. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

funnel — the path from stranger to customer — awareness at the top, purchase at the bottom. “Full-funnel” means owning the whole path, not one stage.

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 — Both bases were read first-hand. Clutch shows 4.9 from 8 verified reviews, with themes of execution across SEO, paid media and content, and named outcomes (80% traffic increase, 16x pipeline influence, 70% cost-per-deal reduction). Trustpilot shows a 4.8 TrustScore from 56 reviews, 91% five-star, marked unprompted rather than invited. Consistent and positive, but the base that actually verifies a client relationship is 8 reviews, which is a handful. None of the located reviews speak to AI-search or GEO work specifically - they describe SEO, paid and RevOps engagements.

pipeline — the dollar value of open, qualified deals sales is working. “Pipeline created” ties marketing to money, where lead counts don’t.

RevOps — revenue operations: the plumbing that connects marketing, sales and the CRM so revenue can be traced to what caused it.

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