Which AI search agencies should a health brand shortlist?
Start with the four highest scores on our rubric; tap a card for the full entry.
- #175/100Omniscient DigitalBest for a funded health or wellness software brand that wants to be named in AI answers and can meet a published $120,000 a year floorRead the entry →
- #274/100VictoriousBest for a multi-location health brand that wants AEO run engine by engine, with a published minimum and a large review baseRead the entry →
- #369/100Siege MediaBest for a health publisher or consumer health brand that wants content and digital PR built to be cited, with named AI numbersRead the entry →
- #465/100iPullRankBest for a large health system or enterprise brand whose team wants the most complete published methodRead the entry →
How do the thirteen AI search agencies compare?
Omniscient Digital leads with 75 of 100, and the table shows every grade, with PELORA’s row shaded.
| # | Agency and base | Scoreof 100 | Best for | Starting priceas published | Researchof 25 | AI resultsof 20 | Specialismof 20 | Reviewsof 15 | Priceof 10 | Recognitionof 10 | Health work seen | Read on |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Omniscient DigitalAustin, TX | 75 | Funded health or wellness software brands | From $120,000 a year (its site) | 20 | 18 | 18 | 9 | 10 | 0 | None seen | Oct 10 / 11 |
| 2 | VictoriousSan Francisco, CA | 74 | Multi-location health brands | Recommended minimum $6,000 a month (its site) | 16 | 10 | 18 | 15 | 8 | 7 | None seen | Oct 10 / 11 |
| 3 | Siege MediaAustin, TX | 69 | Health publishers and consumer health brands | Not on its site; Clutch minimum $5,000+ | 14 | 18 | 18 | 14 | 3 | 2 | Healthline logo; Health listed | Oct 10 / 11 |
| 4 | iPullRankNew York, NY | 65 | Large health systems and enterprise brands | Not published; Clutch minimum $50,000+ | 22 | 12 | 20 | 0 | 3 | 8 | None seen | Oct 10 / 11 |
| 5 | Seer InteractivePhiladelphia, PA | 63 | Health organizations that want research | Not on its site; Clutch minimum $10,000+ | 25 | 8 | 18 | 5 | 3 | 4 | None seen | Oct 10 / 11 |
| 6 | Go Fish DigitalRaleigh, NC | 53 | Brands wanting a free AI audit | Not published; Clutch minimum $5,000+ | 12 | 10 | 15 | 11 | 3 | 2 | None seen | Oct 10 / 11 |
| 7 | Single GrainLos Angeles, CA | 48 | Healthcare services brands | Not published; Clutch minimum $10,000+ | 4 | 15 | 16 | 10 | 3 | 0 | Bierman Autism case | Oct 10 / 11 |
| 8 | NoGoodNew York, NY | 46 | Venture-backed health tech brands | Retainers average above $20,000 a month | 6 | 6 | 17 | 6 | 8 | 3 | Spring Health, J&J, Oura | Oct 10 / 11 |
| 9 | First Page SageBerkeley, CA | 37 | Brands wanting a GEO model up front | No price for its own work; Clutch minimum $10,000+ | 12 | 2 | 17 | 0 | 6 | 0 | Dignity Health logo | Oct 10 / 11 |
| 10 | Ignite VisibilitySan Diego, CA | 35 | Healthcare brands wanting full service | Not published; Clutch minimum $1,000+ | 2 | 2 | 8 | 15 | 3 | 5 | Healthcare listed | Oct 10 / 11 |
| 11 | PELORA Marketing This is usNewport Beach, CA | 35 | Licensed clinics and health brands | Published on our AI search page | 12 | 0 | 13 | 0 | 10 | 0 | Core: licensed clinics | Oct 11 |
| 12 | AmsiveNew York, NY | 32 | Health plans and health systems | Not published; Clutch minimum $25,000+ | 6 | 3 | 12 | 5 | 3 | 3 | Health division; health plan case | Oct 10 / 11 |
| 13 | DirectiveIrvine, CA | 25 | B2B health software companies | Not published; no Clutch minimum | 3 | 2 | 5 | 13 | 2 | 0 | None seen | Oct 10 / 11 |
Points per criterion out of its weight. Health work: what we saw on the pages read, not scored. Read on: agency site 10 Oct, Clutch 11 Oct. The shaded row is PELORA, scored by PELORA with the same rubric. Tap a column heading to sort; tap it again to reverse.
What should an AEO or GEO agency be able to show you?
A written method, a named result with its metric, a health reviewer, and a plain statement that nobody can guarantee a citation.
- No secret switchGoogle says AI Overviews and AI Mode need no special optimization beyond the same SEO best practices.Google AI features guide, updated 10 Dec 2025, read 11 Oct 2026
- Health is held higherGoogle gives more weight to content with strong E-E-A-T on health topics, and that content must be highly accurate and consistent with expert consensus.Google helpful content guidance, updated 5 Oct 2026, read 11 Oct 2026
- Volume can backfireMass-produced pages made to rank rather than to help count as spam, however they are made.Google spam policies, updated 28 Aug 2026, read 11 Oct 2026
- Ask for four thingsThe method, a named result with its metric, the health reviewer, and no promise of a citation.Our checklist, from the guidance above
Read Google’s guidance word for word, with the sources and dates
There is no ad policy for AI answers, which is exactly why this category attracts promises. What Google itself says, read 11 October 2026, is the baseline any honest agency should repeat to you.
There is no secret switch. Google’s AI features guide (last updated 10 December 2025): “There are no additional requirements to appear in AI Overviews or AI Mode, nor other special optimizations necessary.” and “You can apply the same foundational SEO best practices for AI features as you do for Google Search overall”. An agency selling a proprietary trick for Google’s AI answers is selling you something Google says does not exist. ChatGPT, Perplexity and Gemini are different systems, which is why measurement matters more than tricks.
Health is held to a higher bar. Google’s helpful content guidance (last updated 5 October 2026): “our systems give even more weight to content that aligns with strong E-E-A-T for topics that could significantly impact the health, financial stability, or safety of people”, and for those topics “the content must be highly accurate and consistent with established expert consensus.” A clinic’s AI search work needs a named clinical reviewer, not just volume.
Volume can be a liability. Google’s spam policies (last updated 28 August 2026) define scaled content abuse as “when many pages are generated for the primary purpose of manipulating search rankings and not helping users”, “no matter how it’s created.” Ask any agency that promises hundreds of AI-ready pages a month how each one adds something new.
So ask for four things. The method: which engines, which prompts, how often, and how a baseline is set before work starts. A named result with the metric labeled. Who reviews health claims before they publish. And a plain statement that nobody can guarantee a citation. Our AI search glossary defines the terms an agency will use on the call.
How many AI search agencies show named AI results?
Three of thirteen publish an AI-visibility result for a named client: Omniscient (Convert, OnBoard), Siege Media (Instacart, Zendesk, Zapier) and Single Grain (SmartRent, LS Building Products, Bierman Autism). NoGood names clients beside percentages that do not say what they measure, so it does not count. Victorious, the second-ranked agency, publishes only classic SEO results. Three publish a price on their own site besides PELORA: Omniscient’s $120,000 a year floor, Victorious’s $6,000 a month minimum and NoGood’s retainers averaging above $20,000 a month. One shows a named AI-search result for a healthcare provider: Single Grain’s Bierman Autism. For a clinic, that means the health half of the work, accuracy and clinical review, is the question to ask every one of them, because almost none has written it down.
Three charts: swipe sideways to see each one.
Source: the scorecard above; agency sites read 10 Oct 2026, Clutch re-read 11 Oct 2026. PELORA in purple. Download this chart (PNG).
Source: the AI results points on this page; a named client with an AI-specific metric scores highest. Pages read 10 Oct 2026. Download this chart (PNG).
Source: the unscored Health work column in the scorecard. Pages read 10 Oct 2026. Download this chart (PNG).
How did we choose and score these agencies?
We read each agency’s own site on 10 October 2026, re-read Clutch on 11 October, and scored all thirteen on six criteria worth 100 points in all.
What each score means, and how ties are broken
Six criteria, scored in points up to each weight, summed to 100. Research and named AI results carry the most weight, because they are the only evidence a reader can check before hiring.
| Criterion | Up to | Full points | Zero |
|---|---|---|---|
| Research: original research or published method on AI citations | 25 | Published studies with stated samples | Nothing published (a named method or framework sits in between; guides only score low) |
| AI results: published results on AI visibility | 20 | Named client and an AI-specific metric | None (classic SEO numbers and unlabeled percentages score in between) |
| Specialism: AI search specialization | 20 | A dedicated AEO or GEO service with platform depth or its own tooling | Not named (a listed line item scores low) |
| Reviews: Clutch | 15 | A high rating on a large review base | 0 reviews |
| Price: transparency | 10 | A public minimum or retainer on its own site | Nothing (a Clutch minimum scores 3; project bands only, 2; a published range or market survey sits between 3 and 10) |
| Recognition: verified at source | 10 | A third-party award checkable at the awarding body | None (agency-displayed badges score low) |
Ties go to the agency with the larger review score; if that ties too, PELORA sits below.
How we built this list, in full, with the read log
We started from the agencies that recur across the six competing lists we read (iPullRank, Amsive, Omniscient Digital, Siege Media, NoGood and First Page Sage appear on several), added agencies that sell AEO or GEO by name and surfaced for the searches a clinic owner would run, and read each one’s homepage and its research, method or case-study pages on 10 October 2026 (Pacific). On 11 October we re-read every Clutch profile. Awards are marked per agency unless we reached the awarding body; we reached one (iPullRank’s founder, via search results for Search Engine Land’s winners page, which itself returned an error). We did not run prompts in AI engines to grade agencies, because one day’s answers are not a fair test; we graded what each agency publishes. Agencies we did not shortlist were not read; their absence is not a judgment.
Every result is the agency’s own claim, labeled “per agency”. The health column is not scored: it records the health or YMYL work we saw on the pages we read, because this list is written for clinics and health brands.
Read log: every page, every date
- 10 October 2026 (Pacific): each agency’s homepage plus the research, method and case-study pages named in its card.
- 11 October 2026: all twelve Clutch profiles re-read; Google’s AI features guide, helpful content guidance and spam policies read.
- Not opened: the individual Seer and Omniscient study pages (index pages only), so their sample sizes are quoted only where the index gives them.
What does each agency do well, and where may it not fit?
Each entry shows the rank, who it suits, the grades and a one-line verdict; open it for pricing, what we verified, where it may not fit and our sources.
1. Omniscient Digital · Austin, TX
Best for a funded health or wellness software brand that wants to be named in AI answers and can meet a published $120,000 a year floor
Price From $120,000 a year (its site)Highest grade: price transparency 10/10. Lowest grade: verified recognition 0/10.
Method and research: A research index with findings on AI citations, per agency: owned content is 23% of AI citations on branded queries; 57% of branded-query citations point to reviews and social proof; at least a third of LLM outputs recommend brands even on non-shopping prompts; only 15% of leads who say AI sent them are credited to AI in first-touch attribution. The index page shows no dates or sample sizes for these, so open each study before you rely on one.
AI results: Named AI results, per agency: Convert, +81% LLM visibility and +140% AI citations in 60 days; OnBoard, “#1 most visible brand in AI search” and +88% AI visibility. Classic SEO results too: Order.co, +2117% blog organic sessions.
Pricing: Published: full-service engagements start at $120,000 a year (its own site), the highest published floor on this list. Clutch adds a $5,000+ minimum and $100 to $149 an hour.
What we verified: Founded in 2019 (Clutch); offices listed in Austin, New York, San Francisco, Chicago and Boston. Clutch band 10 to 49 staff.
Health fit: No health or YMYL client shown on the pages we read. Ask how it would handle claims that need clinical review.
Independent reviews: 4.8 from 6 reviews.
Where it may not fit: The price floor rules out most single clinics, and its named AI wins are software brands.
What we checked: Site pages read 10 October 2026 (Pacific); Clutch profile re-read 11 October 2026. Sources: homepage, research index, Clutch.
2. Victorious · San Francisco, CA
Best for a multi-location health brand that wants AEO run engine by engine, with a published minimum and a large review base
Price Recommended minimum $6,000 a month (its site)Highest grade: Clutch reviews 15/15. Lowest grade: published AI results 10/20.
Method and research: Per-platform pages for ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, Gemini, Copilot and Claude, and recent method posts: “The Query Fan-Out Model: How AI Chooses What To Cite” (5 October 2026) and “How To Format Content for AI Retrieval” (29 September 2026). It mentions internal retrieval experiments without publishing them.
AI results: Named results, per agency, are classic SEO rather than AI citations: Agora +847% goal completions year over year; UNIONBAY +200% organic revenue; SoFi 11,900 page-one keywords; GE Digital (ServiceMax) +104% organic traffic.
Pricing: Published: it recommends a minimum of $6,000 a month and a 12-month start. Clutch lists a $50,000+ minimum project and $300+ an hour.
What we verified: Founded in 2013 (Clutch; its site says “since 2013”). Clutch band 50 to 249. Awards, per agency and not verified at the awarding bodies: “5x Search Agency of the Year” and “183+ awards”.
Health fit: No health client named on the pages we read; it treats AEO and GEO as one discipline.
Independent reviews: 4.8 from 119 reviews, the largest base on this list after Ignite.
Where it may not fit: A 12-month start and no AI-citation result for a named client.
What we checked: Site pages read 10 October 2026 (Pacific); Clutch profile re-read 11 October 2026. Sources: homepage, Clutch.
3. Siege Media · Austin, TX
Best for a health publisher or consumer health brand that wants content and digital PR built to be cited, with named AI numbers
Price Not on its site; Clutch minimum $5,000+Highest grade: Clutch reviews 14/15. Lowest grade: verified recognition 2/10.
Method and research: A GEO book (in preorder; update post 3 October 2026) and podcasts, including “How Zapier Became the 5th Most Cited Site in AI”. No standalone citation study on the pages we read.
AI results: The strongest named AI-visibility figures here, per agency: Instacart, 46.5k citations in LLMs and +356% traffic value; Zendesk, 98% LLM visibility; Zapier, 96% LLM visibility and +$6.1M traffic value.
Pricing: Not published on its site. Clutch lists a $5,000+ minimum and $100 to $149 an hour.
What we verified: Founded in 2012 (Clutch). Clutch says Austin, TX; its about page places its headquarters in San Diego, CA, so the two disagree. Founder and CEO Ross Hudgens. Client logos include Healthline, Instacart, Zendesk and Zillow.
Health fit: Lists Health among its industries and shows Healthline as a client, the clearest health signal among the top five.
Independent reviews: 4.9 from 48 reviews.
Where it may not fit: No price on its site, and its method lives in a book and podcasts rather than published studies.
What we checked: Site pages read 10 October 2026 (Pacific); Clutch profile re-read 11 October 2026. Sources: homepage, Clutch.
4. iPullRank · New York, NY
Best for a large health system or enterprise brand whose team wants the most complete published method
Price Not published; Clutch minimum $50,000+Highest grade: AI search specialism 20/20. Lowest grade: Clutch reviews 0/15.
Method and research: The AI Search Manual, 24 chapters covering query fan-out, GEO, measurement and simulation, with appendices of prompt recipes for GEO testing and a citation tracker; and Qforia, a free query fan-out tool. No original dataset on the manual page.
AI results: Per agency, for clients unnamed under NDA: a large bank, $2.4B incremental revenue; a global ecommerce marketplace, $290M from AI-generated category content; a car publisher, 130% traffic recovery.
Pricing: Not published (“productized service”, no figures). Clutch lists a $50,000+ minimum.
What we verified: Founded in 2014 (Clutch); founder Mike King; its about page lists 34 people. iPullRank states that Mike King was named Search Engine Land’s 2025 Search Marketer of the Year, and search results for Search Engine Land’s own winners page name him; that page returned an error to our reader, and the award is to the founder, not the agency.
Health fit: No health client named; clients are under NDA.
Independent reviews: 0 reviews, so the floor.
Where it may not fit: No independent reviews, unnamed clients and an enterprise minimum.
What we checked: Site pages read 10 October 2026 (Pacific); Clutch profile re-read 11 October 2026. Sources: AI Search Manual, award post, Clutch.
5. Seer Interactive · Philadelphia, PA
Best for a health organization that wants decisions grounded in published AI-citation research
Price Not on its site; Clutch minimum $10,000+Highest grade: published research 25/25. Lowest grade: price transparency 3/10.
Method and research: The most rigorous published AI-citation research on this list, per agency: a 2026 study finding a 67% decline in organic click-through when a brand is not cited in AI Overviews; an analysis of 231,347 LLM responses finding 7.8x more AI visibility for brands with strong digital signals; a “ghost citations” study; and an experiment on one negative review shaping an AI answer. Publishing AI studies since January 2023.
AI results: “130+ enterprise clients, 92% retention”, per agency; case studies mention AI Overview citation wins without figures on the pages we read.
Pricing: Not published on its site. Clutch lists a $10,000+ minimum and $200 to $300 an hour.
What we verified: Founded in 2002 (Clutch); a Certified B Corporation, per agency. Clutch band 50 to 249.
Health fit: No health client named on the pages we read.
Independent reviews: 3.8 from 4 reviews.
Where it may not fit: Research-strong but results-light on the pages we read, with a thin, lower Clutch rating.
What we checked: Site pages read 10 October 2026 (Pacific); Clutch profile re-read 11 October 2026. Sources: GEO research hub, Clutch.
6. Go Fish Digital · Raleigh, NC
Best for a brand that wants a free AI audit and an agency with its own AI visibility tool
Price Not published; Clutch minimum $5,000+Highest grade: AI search specialism 15/20. Lowest grade: verified recognition 2/10.
Method and research: A whitepaper, “Winning with GEO”, and its own AI tool, Barracuda. No citation-rate study found.
AI results: Per agency: MoneyGeek clicks +74.8% (67.5K to 118K); SimpleTexting +500% organic sales-qualified leads year over year; a blog case study on “3X’ing leads” with GEO.
Pricing: Not published. Clutch lists a $5,000+ minimum.
What we verified: Founded in 2005 (Clutch). Clutch band 250 to 999 staff.
Health fit: No health client named on the pages we read.
Independent reviews: 5.0 from 13 reviews.
Where it may not fit: Few AI-specific results; the GEO numbers are mostly classic search metrics.
What we checked: Site pages read 10 October 2026 (Pacific); Clutch profile re-read 11 October 2026. Sources: homepage, GEO whitepaper, Clutch.
7. Single Grain · Los Angeles, CA
Best for a healthcare services brand that wants named AI visibility case studies over published research
Price Not published; Clutch minimum $10,000+Highest grade: AI search specialism 16/20. Lowest grade: verified recognition 0/10.
Method and research: No research published; case studies and podcasts only.
AI results: Per agency: SmartRent +345% referral traffic from LLMs; LS Building Products 400+ AI citations; Bierman Autism +75% AI Overview capture and +100% new Gemini visibility.
Pricing: Not published (“tailored”). Clutch lists a $10,000+ minimum.
What we verified: Founded in 2009 (Clutch). Clutch says Los Angeles; its site’s structured data gives a Miami, FL address.
Health fit: The Bierman Autism case is the only named AI-search result for a healthcare services provider on this list.
Independent reviews: 4.8 from 12 reviews.
Where it may not fit: No published method, so you are buying on case studies alone.
What we checked: Site pages read 10 October 2026 (Pacific); Clutch profile re-read 11 October 2026. Sources: homepage, Clutch.
8. NoGood · New York, NY
Best for a venture-backed health tech brand that wants AEO paired with digital PR
Price Retainers average above $20,000 a monthHighest grade: AI search specialism 17/20. Lowest grade: published research 6/25.
Method and research: AEO guides only; its featured research report is on social media.
AI results: Per agency: ByteDance 879%, SteelSeries 75%, Spring Health 149%, with the metric not labeled; 84% client retention.
Pricing: Published as a range: custom retainers averaging above $20,000 a month (its own site).
What we verified: Founded in 2016 (Clutch). Named clients, per agency: AWS, MongoDB, Oura, L’Oreal, Nike, TikTok, Johnson & Johnson and Spring Health. Partner platform Goodie AI.
Health fit: Names health brands (Spring Health, Johnson & Johnson, Oura), the most health names of any agency here.
Independent reviews: 5.0 from 3 reviews.
Where it may not fit: Its headline percentages do not say what they measure.
What we checked: Site pages read 10 October 2026 (Pacific); Clutch profile re-read 11 October 2026. Sources: homepage, Clutch.
9. First Page Sage · Berkeley, CA
Best for a brand that wants a GEO model it can read in advance, from a firm that says it launched GEO first
Price No price for its own work; Clutch minimum $10,000+Highest grade: AI search specialism 17/20. Lowest grade: Clutch reviews 0/15, verified recognition 0/10.
Method and research: A six-factor GEO model, per agency, with placement in highly ranked list articles named as the largest factor, then database inclusion, Google and Bing authority, review scores, publicized achievements and social sentiment. Also a “GEO Cost Breakdown” survey. No sample sizes shown.
AI results: None on the pages we read.
Pricing: No price for its own work, but it publishes a GEO market cost breakdown. Clutch lists a $10,000+ minimum.
What we verified: Founded in 2009 (Clutch). It says it launched “the first ever GEO service offering” on 9 May 2023, per agency. Client logos on its homepage include Salesforce, Logitech, Verizon and Dignity Health.
Health fit: A Dignity Health logo on its homepage; no health case study on the pages we read.
Independent reviews: 0 reviews.
Where it may not fit: Its own model names placement in highly ranked list articles as the largest factor, and its own list of top US SEO agencies (updated 7 October 2026, read 11 October 2026) ranks First Page Sage first; weigh that.
What we checked: Site pages read 10 October 2026 (Pacific); Clutch profile re-read 11 October 2026. Its top SEO agencies list read 11 October 2026. Sources: homepage, GEO services page, its top SEO agencies list, Clutch.
10. Ignite Visibility · San Diego, CA
Best for a healthcare brand that wants GEO as one line inside a full-service program with a deep review base
Price Not published; Clutch minimum $1,000+Highest grade: Clutch reviews 15/15. Lowest grade: published research 2/25.
Method and research: Not published on the pages we read; GEO is listed under Earned Media.
AI results: None on its homepage.
Pricing: Not published. Clutch lists a $1,000+ minimum and $100 to $149 an hour.
What we verified: Founded in 2013 (Clutch). Awards, per agency, not verified at source: W3, OMMA Best SEO Campaign, Netty “Most Innovative AI Marketing Campaign”.
Health fit: Healthcare is listed among its industries.
Independent reviews: 4.8 from 175 reviews, the largest base on this list.
Where it may not fit: AI search is a line item here, not a specialism.
What we checked: Site pages read 10 October 2026 (Pacific); Clutch profile re-read 11 October 2026. Sources: homepage, Clutch.
11. PELORA Marketing · Newport Beach, CA This is us
Best for a licensed clinic or health brand that wants AI search work priced on the page and tied to the health ad rules
Price Published on our AI search pageHighest grade: price transparency 10/10. Lowest grade: published AI results 0/20, Clutch reviews 0/15, verified recognition 0/10.
This is us PELORA wrote this page and scored itself with the same rubric, using only facts we already publish on our own site (our about page and homepage). Where we publish nothing a reader could check, we gave ourselves the floor score.
Method and research: We publish original research with a stated sample, our supplement brand AI visibility study of how 30 supplement brands mark up their sites and handle AI crawlers, and a guide on getting a clinic named in ChatGPT. That study measures AI-search readiness, not AI citations, so we scored it 12, level with Go Fish’s whitepaper and First Page Sage’s model.
AI results: None published for a named client, so 0.
AI search specialism: A dedicated AEO, GEO and SEO service page, but no tooling of our own and no engine-by-engine pages, so 13 of 20: above Amsive’s named line item (12), below Go Fish’s service plus its own tool (15).
Pricing: Published on our AI search page; we link to it rather than restate it. Scored 10, as Omniscient’s published floor is.
What we verified: From our own site, company-reported because it is us: Preston Durnford is the founder (homepage); headquartered in Newport Beach, California, working with clients nationwide, a 5.0 Google rating and a core team that has worked together for 10 years (about page). Our AI search page says plainly that no agency controls what a model says.
Health fit: Health is our core client base: licensed medical clinics (concierge, functional, regenerative, hormone and longevity), behavioral health and wellness brands, which is why this list carries a health column at all.
Independent reviews: We publish no Clutch rating, so 0, as for iPullRank and First Page Sage.
Where it may not fit: If you need proof of citations won for a brand like yours, Siege Media, Omniscient and Single Grain publish it and we do not yet.
What we checked: Scored 11 October 2026 from what PELORA publishes on its homepage and about page, and the pages linked in this card.
12. Amsive · New York, NY
Best for a health plan or health system that wants AEO from an agency with a dedicated health division
Price Not published; Clutch minimum $25,000+Highest grade: AI search specialism 12/20. Lowest grade: published AI results 3/20.
Method and research: An AEO guide on the pages we read; no study.
AI results: Per agency, none AI-specific: Emergient and Vermont Blue Advantage +163% against an enrollment goal; Commerce Bank 4x deposit growth; 134% ROI over three years in a commissioned Forrester study.
Pricing: Not published. Clutch lists a $25,000+ minimum.
What we verified: Founded in 1995 (Clutch). “SEO + AEO” is a named service; its healthcare section lives at health.amsive.com.
Health fit: A dedicated health division and a health plan enrollment case, the most structured health offer on this list.
Independent reviews: 4.8 from 3 reviews.
Where it may not fit: No AI-search results or research on the pages we read.
What we checked: Site pages read 10 October 2026 (Pacific); Clutch profile re-read 11 October 2026. Sources: homepage, Clutch.
13. Directive · Irvine, CA
Best for a B2B health software company that wants buyer-research visibility from a B2B specialist
Price Not published; no Clutch minimumHighest grade: Clutch reviews 13/15. Lowest grade: verified recognition 0/10.
Method and research: Not published.
AI results: Agency-wide only, per agency: “420+ brands”, “$1B+ revenue generated”.
Pricing: Not published; Clutch shows no minimum, only project bands.
What we verified: Founded in 2013 (site and Clutch). “100+” strategists, per agency. Its “DiscoverabilityOS” and Stratos AI platform target buyer research; GEO and AEO are not named on its homepage.
Health fit: No health client named on the pages we read.
Independent reviews: 4.8 from 56 reviews.
Where it may not fit: Not a GEO or AEO shop by its own homepage; included because it recurs on competing lists.
What we checked: Site pages read 10 October 2026 (Pacific); Clutch profile re-read 11 October 2026. Sources: homepage, Clutch.
How should a clinic choose an AI search agency?
Ignore the rankings, including this one, and run four checks.
Ask for the measurement method in writing.
Which engines, which prompts, how many, how often, and the baseline before any work. Agencies here that publish a method (iPullRank, Seer, Victorious) make this easy to compare.
Ask who reviews health content.
Google weights expertise more heavily for health topics, and a wrong dosage or outcome claim in an AI-ready page is worse than no page. Ask for the reviewer’s name and credentials.
Ask for the number first.
Three agencies besides PELORA publish one, from $6,000 a month to $120,000 a year. Ask the rest in the first email.
Ask for a citation result with the metric labeled.
“+149%” is not a result until you know what was measured. Then ask what happens to your content and structured data if you leave; it should be yours. Our guide to getting found on AI search covers what you can check yourself first.
Questions clinics and health brands ask about AI search agencies
How much does an AI search (AEO or GEO) agency cost? Four of the thirteen publish a figure on their own sites: Omniscient Digital’s full-service engagements start at $120,000 a year; Victorious recommends a minimum of $6,000 a month with a 12-month start; NoGood says its retainers average above $20,000 a month; and PELORA’s price is on our AI search page.
Others list a Clutch minimum, from $1,000+ (Ignite Visibility) to $50,000+ (Victorious and iPullRank). First Page Sage publishes a market cost breakdown rather than its own price.
Can an agency guarantee my clinic gets named in ChatGPT or Google AI Overviews? No. Google’s AI features guide, read 11 October 2026, says “There are no additional requirements to appear in AI Overviews or AI Mode, nor other special optimizations necessary”, and no agency controls what a model says.
What an agency can control is the evidence engines draw on: your content, structured data, reviews and mentions elsewhere.
What is the difference between AEO and GEO? Answer engine optimization (AEO) aims to have your sentence quoted as the answer; generative engine optimization (GEO) aims to have your brand recommended by name when a tool like ChatGPT, Perplexity or Google AI Mode answers a question.
Victorious treats them as the same discipline; most agencies here sell both together.
Is AI search different for a clinic than for other businesses? Yes, in one way that matters.
Google says its systems give even more weight to expertise and trust for topics that could significantly affect people’s health, and that such content must be highly accurate and consistent with expert consensus. A clinic needs clinical review behind every page an agency publishes.
Why is PELORA on its own list? Because we sell AI search work to clinics and health brands, and hiding that would be worse than declaring it.
We scored ourselves with the same rubric, using only facts we already publish on our own site, and set one rule in advance: never first. The note at the top of this page says where that put us.
Which AI search agencies show health or healthcare work? On the pages we read: Amsive (a dedicated health division and a health plan enrollment case), NoGood (Spring Health, Johnson & Johnson, Oura), Siege Media (Healthline, and Health as a listed industry), Single Grain (an AI-search case for Bierman Autism), First Page Sage (a Dignity Health logo), Ignite Visibility (healthcare listed) and PELORA (clinics and health brands are our core clients).
The rest named no health work on the pages we read.
How do I know these rankings are trustworthy? Check them.
Every fact links to its source with the date we read it, results are labeled per agency, and the rubric is published. We ranked ourselves, which is a conflict of interest; the disclosure at the top and our own card say so.