How to compare GEO proposals side by side

To compare GEO proposals fairly, rewrite each one into the same grid before you look at price. Put scope, deliverables, measurement, team, terms and total cost over the same period in matching rows, fill the gaps by asking each vendor, and only then score them against criteria you weighted in advance. The proposal with the lowest monthly fee may not be the cheapest once the scope is equal, and the one with the longest feature list may not be the one doing the most work.

GEO (generative engine optimization) is the work of making your business easy for AI answer tools such as ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity and Copilot to find, understand and cite. Proposals for it are hard to compare for a simple reason: vendors sell it in different shapes. One quotes a monthly plan priced by hours, another a fixed project, a third a software subscription with some consulting. The method below turns those shapes into something you can line up.

Why GEO proposals are hard to compare

There is no standard package and no authoritative public price benchmark for GEO services, so you can't check a quote against a market rate. You can only check it against the other quotes and against the work described. Four differences cause most of the confusion:

• Pricing model. Monthly hours, fixed project, audit only, or a tool subscription plus labor.
• What "GEO" includes. Some proposals include SEO, content writing and digital PR. Others assume you have those covered.
• Who implements. Some vendors edit your site. Others deliver recommendations for your developer.
• How results are measured. Engines tracked, number of prompts, tools used and how often you get a report.

If you issued an RFP that fixed the response format, much of this is already solved. Our GEO and AEO RFP template is built to make proposals comparable from the start. If you didn't, the steps below do the same job after the fact.

Step 1: build one comparison grid

Open a spreadsheet. Put the rows below down the side and one column per vendor across the top. Fill it in from the proposals, using the vendor's own words. Mark every empty cell. The empty cells are your follow-up questions.

Step 2: normalize the scope

Two proposals at the same price are not equal if one includes rewriting your key pages and the other only tells you what to rewrite. Choose a reference scope, which is the work you need, and mark each proposal against it: included, partly included, not included or unclear.

A workable reference scope for a first engagement has six parts: a baseline, an audit, technical fixes, content changes to priority pages, off-site work and reporting.

Then ask each vendor to price the missing pieces, or price them yourself. If a proposal leaves implementation to your developer, add your developer's time to that column. If it assumes you already have an SEO vendor, add that cost too. You are comparing the cost of getting the whole job done, not the cost of each vendor's slice.

Step 3: normalize the cost

Pick one comparison period and use it for every proposal. Six or twelve months both work. Add everything you would pay in that period: one-time fees, recurring fees and costs billed separately.

The table below is a hypothetical example with round numbers. It is not market data and does not describe any real vendor.

In this hypothetical case, proposal C has the lowest monthly fee and proposal A the highest, yet the six-month totals sit within $1,400 of each other. The decision then turns on scope and quality. Run the same sum for twelve months as well, because a project with a large first payment looks different over a longer period.

For context on pricing models and what drives cost, see our guide to how much GEO and AEO services cost. If you are weighing a project against ongoing work, the comparison of a GEO retainer vs. a one-time project covers who each suits.

Step 4: normalize hours and deliverables

Some proposals sell time and others sell outputs. Neither is better, but they can't be compared until you translate one into the other.

Proposals priced by hours

Ask what a typical month of those hours would produce for a business like yours in the first quarter, in writing. Ask how hours are logged, whether you see the log, and what happens to hours that aren't used. Read the wording closely. "Up to" a number of hours is a ceiling, not a count of hours delivered.

Resist dividing the fee by the hours to get a rate. Plans bundle strategy, reporting, tools and account management differently, so the result compares unlike things and tells you little about the work you will receive.

Proposals priced by deliverables

Ask what counts as done. "Ten optimized pages" can mean ten rewritten and published pages or ten sets of suggestions. Ask what happens when the audit finds something outside the list, and how a change of priorities is handled and priced.

A common unit

For both types, write down what you would be able to point to at the end of month three: the baseline, the audit task list, the pages changed, the profiles corrected, the reports received. That list is the common unit. Our overview of the first 90 days of a GEO engagement describes what a reasonable list looks like.

Step 5: compare measurement

Compare measurement on its own row, because a vague measurement plan is easy to miss. Check five things.

1. Is there a baseline before work starts? Without one, no later report can show change.
2. Which engines and how many prompts? AI answers vary between runs, so ask how many times each prompt is run and how results are summarized.
3. Does it use first-party data? As of October 2026, Search Console has a Generative AI performance report for Google's AI features, Bing Webmaster Tools has an AI Performance report, launched as a public preview in February 2026, and GA4 has an AI Assistant channel. A proposal that ignores all three and relies only on its own dashboard deserves a question.
4. What does the third-party tool claim? Google's guide to optimizing for generative AI says, "No third-party tool has access to our internal ranking or AI systems." A proprietary "AI score" is the vendor's own estimate.
5. Can you verify it? You should be able to open your own accounts and find the same numbers.

Our guide on how to measure GEO performance explains the metrics in more depth.

Step 6: compare terms

This section is general information, not legal advice. Ask your own attorney to review any agreement before you sign.

Terms rarely appear in full in a proposal, so ask each vendor for its standard agreement and add these rows to your grid:

• Term and renewal. How long the first term is, whether it renews automatically and how you stop it.
• Termination. The notice required and what you owe and receive on exit.
• Ownership. Who owns the content, structured data, reports, prompt list and tracking history.
• Accounts. Whether analytics, Search Console and tool accounts are in your name.
• Performance language. Whether results are promised. A statement that rankings and AI citations are not guaranteed is consistent with Google's own position and is a good sign, not a dodge.
• Subcontractors and AI tools. Whether work is outsourced or AI-generated, and who reviews it.

A vendor that promises placements in its proposal or contract is describing something it does not control. Our guide to GEO guarantees and red flags explains what can honestly be promised.

Step 7: score the proposals

Score each criterion from 1 to 5, multiply by the weight and divide by 5. The weighted points add up to a total out of 100. The weights and scores below are a hypothetical example for the three hypothetical proposals above. Set your own weights before you read the proposals.

Three rules keep the scoring honest:

• Define the scale. Write one line for what a 1, a 3 and a 5 mean for each criterion, so two reviewers mean the same thing.
• Score alone first. Each reviewer scores independently, then the group discusses the gaps.
• Score cost last. Rate scope, method and measurement before you look at the totals, so price doesn't color everything else.

The website-focused guide to RFP evaluation criteria and scoring rubrics has more on designing a rubric.

What a score can't tell you

A score organizes your judgment. It doesn't replace it. Before you decide, do three things the grid can't:

• Call references. Ask what the vendor was like when something went wrong.
• Meet the people doing the work. The person who presents is not always the person assigned to your account.
• Set pass or fail rules. Some findings should remove a proposal whatever it scores: a guaranteed placement, undisclosed paid reviews or mentions, a refusal to explain the method, or accounts held in the vendor's name. Google's hiring advice says, "Be careful if a company is secretive or won't clearly explain what they intend to do."

If two proposals finish close together, the score has done its job by removing the weak ones. Choose between the leaders on the conversation, the references and how clearly each explained its plan.

Conclusion

Comparing GEO proposals is mostly translation. Put every proposal into the same grid, bring each up to the same scope, add up the cost over the same period, turn hours and deliverables into a list of what you will hold at the end of month three, and check that results will be measured with data you can verify. Then score against weights you set in advance. eSEOspace publishes its monthly SEO, GEO and AEO plans on its pricing page if you want a published reference point for your grid. More guides are in our GEO and AEO Guide.

Frequently asked questions