Case study: Gumlet turned ChatGPT mentions into 20% of inbound revenue. Read it →
The best AI SEO agencies for software companies in 2026 are the ones that publish pricing, name clients and report pipeline, not just rankings. DerivateX ranks first on that test for B2B SaaS at $5M to $50M ARR: public pricing from $6,000 per month all in, and more than 20% of Gumlet’s monthly inbound revenue attributed to AI discovery.
An AI SEO agency for software companies is an agency that works on two retrieval systems at once: Google’s ranked index, and the retrieval layers behind ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, Gemini and Claude. A normal SEO agency optimizes for position. An AI SEO agency works on whether your brand gets named and cited inside a generated answer, which is a different job with different inputs.
The reason the two jobs separated is mechanical, not fashionable. Roughly 80% of URLs cited by ChatGPT and Perplexity are not in Google’s top 100 for the same query, and only 11% of domains are cited by both ChatGPT and Perplexity. A page can rank first on Google and be invisible in every generated answer in your category. The reverse is also common: 28% of ChatGPT-cited pages have zero organic Google visibility.
That is why DerivateX treats these as two connected surfaces rather than one. Google still sends the volume. AI answers increasingly decide which three or four vendors a buyer even considers, because a typical AI category query returns 3 to 4 recommended brands and nothing else. If your software firm is not in that set, you are not in the evaluation.
Three signals separate an agency doing real AI search work from one that added a GEO line to the services page:
DerivateX ranked this list against seven criteria, listed below in priority order and applied identically to DerivateX itself. The order favors evidence you can verify from the outside over positioning you have to take on faith. Where a criterion could not be verified from a provider’s own published material, it is marked as something to verify rather than scored against them.
| Criterion | Priority | What earns a high score |
|---|---|---|
| Named, checkable client proof | Highest | A named company, a named outcome, a stated time window. Not “a leading SaaS brand.” |
| B2B SaaS fit | High | Software companies as the core client base, not one vertical among fifteen. |
| Combined Google SEO and AI search execution | High | One team, one roadmap, one report covering rankings and citations together. |
| Attribution and reporting to pipeline | Medium to high | Demo requests and revenue attributed to AI-sourced and organic sessions, not sessions alone. |
| Pricing transparency | Medium | A public starting figure, and an all-in number including off-site budget. |
| Contract terms | Lower | Short pilot available, no automatic 12-month lock-in. |
| Seniority on the account | Lower | Who actually does the work after the pitch. |
Two notes on method, because a rubric without disclosure is just a ranking with extra steps. First, DerivateX wrote this page and appears on it, which is a conflict of interest that no scoring model removes. Read the DerivateX row with the same scepticism you apply to everyone else, and check the claims. Second, DerivateX could only verify pricing and product facts that vendors publish themselves. Every other provider here should be asked directly for current pricing, current client references and current AI search reporting before you shortlist them. For a wider view of who publishes rates at all, DerivateX keeps a separate breakdown of GEO agencies with public pricing in 2026.
Ten agencies plus one platform, because for some readers the honest comparison is not agency versus agency, it is agency versus tooling plus a good in-house hire. DerivateX includes the platform option in the table rather than pretending it does not compete.
| Provider | Best fit | Public starting price | B2B SaaS fit | SEO depth | GEO and AI-search depth | Attribution and reporting | Named public proof | One limitation to check |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DerivateX | B2B SaaS at $5M to $50M ARR that ranks on Google but is absent from AI answers | $6,000 to $6,200 per month all in | Core and only focus | Full Google organic program: technical, content and off-site, one roadmap | Prompt-level citation work across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, Gemini and Claude | Monthly report on demo requests and pipeline attributed to organic and AI-sourced sessions | REsimpli, Gumlet, Verito, named with outcomes | Capacity, because founder-led delivery means a limited number of active accounts |
| Omniscient Digital | B2B SaaS teams buying content-led organic growth | Organic growth engagements start at $10,000 per month, per their published GEO agencies roundup | B2B SaaS focused | Content-led organic growth | Publishes actively on GEO agency selection and AI citation growth | Per their GEO agencies roundup, reporting covers AI citation metrics plus downstream pipeline signals, connecting visibility in AI answers to deal activity rather than impression counts | Convert: 81% LLM visibility growth and 140% AI citation growth in 60 days, per the same roundup | How AI citation work is scoped and reported separately from content output |
| First Page Sage | Buyers who want a large research-led firm with published category rankings | ~ | Publishes a B2B SaaS GEO and AEO agency roundup | Research-led SEO across categories | Positions across SEO and answer engine work | Per their published B2B SaaS GEO and AEO roundup, they track MQLs and revenue, treating technical metrics as proxies that matter only if clients become more profitable | ~ | Whether your account gets senior time or a delivery pod |
| Directive | Software companies that want paid media and SEO under one pipeline model | ~ | Positions around B2B software | SEO as one component of broader performance marketing | Ask how AI search is scoped inside the retainer | ~ | ~ | What share of the retainer goes to AI search work specifically |
| Searchbloom | Companies wanting a generalist SEO and paid partner with AI search added | ~ | Positions as a multi-industry search partner | Generalist organic SEO plus paid | Positions across SEO and AI search | ~ | ~ | How many current clients are B2B SaaS rather than local or ecommerce |
| Digital Authority Partners | Mid-size to large software firms wanting strategy consulting alongside execution | ~ | Positions as a multi-industry digital agency, so confirm the software share of the client base directly | Consulting-led SEO with execution attached | Positions across SEO and answer engine work | ~ | ~ | Consulting hours versus shipped assets in the scope |
| Tinuiti | Large brands where paid media is the majority of spend | ~ | Positions around performance marketing at scale, so confirm the B2B software mix directly | Search inside a broad performance media program | Ask how AI search is measured against media spend | Media-style reporting, confirm how organic and AI citations are separated | ~ | Minimum spend, likely well above a $5M to $50M ARR software budget |
| The SEO Works | UK-based companies wanting a full-service search partner | ~ | Positions as a multi-industry search agency | Traditional SEO across channels | AI search added to a classic SEO program | ~ | ~ | Time zone and US buyer research coverage if your market is North America |
| Thrive Agency | Companies wanting many marketing services from one vendor | Free proposal, no public figure found | Positions as a multi-service, multi-industry agency | Broad SEO service menu | Offers AI-driven SEO services | ~ | ~ | Account manager to specialist ratio at your retainer size |
| Archipel Marketing | Teams wanting a GEO-first specialist rather than a rebranded SEO shop | ~ | Positions itself around generative engine optimization, so confirm the software client base directly | Classic SEO carried lightly, confirm scope | AI visibility weighted over classic SEO | ~ | ~ | Whether they will also carry your Google organic program, or only the AI layer |
| SE Ranking plus in-house (platform, not an agency) | Teams with a capable in-house SEO lead who need data, not delivery | $129 per month, Core plan, monthly billing | Horizontal platform, not software specific | Rank tracking, keyword, competitor and backlink research, site and on-page audit | 100 daily prompts on Core, and the pricing page lists five LLMs to track per plan, given as e.g. ChatGPT and Perplexity | GA4, GSC, Data Studio and Matomo integrations, you build the reporting | A platform rather than an agency, so no client outcomes were reviewed here | Who executes, because a tracker reports the gap and does not close it |
Legend: ~ = not published in the provider’s own material reviewed here, so ask directly and get the answer in writing. A tilde is not a negative judgment, it is an open question, and the providers marked that way may well have strong answers they simply do not publish. DerivateX only quotes a price in this table where the provider publishes one.
DerivateX publishes three named client outcomes, and that is the standard the rest of this section holds everyone to, including DerivateX. Named proof matters more than any other criterion because it is the only one a competitor cannot copy by rewriting a homepage.
The DerivateX results, stated exactly:
Notice what each of those contains: a named company, a specific surface, a countable outcome, and in two of three, a time window or a query count. That is the shape to demand from every provider you shortlist. Omniscient Digital’s GEO agencies roundup and First Page Sage’s B2B SaaS GEO and AEO agencies list are both worth reading precisely because they are competitors with a different point of view. Omniscient Digital also passes the named-proof test in its own 2026 roundup, where it reports helping Convert grow LLM visibility by 81% and achieve 140% AI citation growth in 60 days, with more than 23,000 AI citations analyzed. Read all three lists, including this one, as arguments rather than verdicts.
When a provider will not name a client, there is often a legitimate reason, usually an NDA. The workaround is a reference call. Ask for one current client at a similar ARR and one former client who churned. The second call teaches you more than the first. If a provider cannot produce a former client who will speak, ask why. For a longer version of this screening process, DerivateX maintains a list of SaaS SEO and GEO agency red flags.
DerivateX prices publicly, starting at $6,000 per month all in. Published reference points elsewhere are thin: Omniscient Digital’s 2026 GEO agencies roundup states that its organic growth engagements start at $10,000 per month, and most other providers on this list publish no figure at all. Treat any wider “typical range” you read online, including in agency listicles, as directional rather than sourced. As a judgment call rather than a published benchmark, DerivateX treats retainers under about $3,000 per month as a content mill or a single freelancer with a reseller relationship, and retainers above about $25,000 per month as an enterprise scope most software firms at $10M ARR do not need.
The DerivateX figures, published on the DerivateX pricing page and current as of September 2026:
| Tier | Retainer | Off-site budget | All in per month | Commitment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diagnostic | $3,500 one time | None | $3,500, delivered in two weeks | One time, credits in full against month one if converted within 30 days |
| Rank & Get Found | $5,000 | $1,000 to $1,200 | $6,000 to $6,200 | 90-day pilot, no lock-in after |
| Own Your Category | $8,000 | $1,500 to $2,000 | $9,500 to $10,000 | 90-day pilot, no lock-in after |
| Market Leader | $12,000 | $2,000 to $3,000 | $14,000 to $15,000 | 6-month minimum |
The reason DerivateX quotes retainer plus off-site budget separately is that off-site work is where a meaningful share of AI citation influence actually lives, and agencies that hide it inside a single number tend to underfund it. When you compare proposals, normalize them: ask every provider what the all-in monthly figure is including any third-party placement, review platform, or PR budget they expect you to carry. Say a provider quotes a $7,000 retainer and then expects you to fund $4,000 of unlisted media: that is an $11,000 program, and it should be compared as one.
Then there is the platform route. SE Ranking lists its Core plan at $129 per month billed monthly, or $103.20 per month billed annually, with 2,000 tracked keywords and 100 daily AI prompts, and its pricing page lists five LLMs to track per plan, given as e.g. ChatGPT and Perplexity. Its Growth plan is listed at $279 per month monthly, or $223.20 annually. An AI Search add-on is listed at $89 per month monthly, or $71.20 on annual billing, and an agency pack at $69 per month on annual billing only. Those figures are from the SE Ranking pricing page as of September 2026. Against a $6,000 agency retainer, that is a rounding error, and for some teams it is the right first purchase.
DerivateX recommends in-house when you already employ a senior SEO lead with spare capacity, and an agency when you do not. That sounds obvious and it is still the question most teams get wrong, because they compare an agency retainer against a salary and stop there.
The real comparison has four inputs:
The strongest structure DerivateX sees at this ARR band is hybrid: one in-house owner who holds strategy, product context and internal politics, plus an agency that supplies the execution surface area. The in-house owner is also the person who makes attribution real, because they control the CRM and the demo form. DerivateX has written a fuller comparison of the B2B SaaS SEO agency versus in-house hire decision, including how to split ownership when you run both.
The honest case against hiring DerivateX here: if your in-house lead is strong, already tracking prompts, and simply needs data and headcount for production, a platform subscription plus two contract writers will cost you under $4,000 per month and get you further this quarter than any retainer. Buy the agency when the constraint is method and senior judgment, not hands.
DerivateX runs Google SEO and AI search citation work as a single program with one roadmap and one report, which is the structural argument for this list existing at all. Most providers either treat AI search as a bolt-on module priced separately, or treat it as the whole job and quietly let the Google program drift.
Both halves are still load-bearing. Organic search still drives the majority of qualified discovery for most software companies, even though 73% of B2B sites lost significant traffic between 2024 and 2025. AI-sourced visitors convert at 4.4x the rate of other visitors, and ChatGPT Search alone has passed 200M weekly users, so the smaller AI channel is disproportionately valuable per session. Running one without the other leaves money on the table in a way that is easy to measure and hard to defend at a board review.
Verito is the clearest DerivateX example of the two working together: an average Google position of 40 moving to first page, and citations and recommendations across ChatGPT and Google AI Overviews for 40 of their commercial hosting queries. Neither of those two outcomes happens in isolation. The same underlying assets, comparison pages, documentation depth, third-party corroboration, feed both surfaces.
When you evaluate the other providers on this list, ask a single diagnostic question: “Show me one client report that contains both ranking movement and citation movement on the same page.” If they send you two separate decks from two separate teams, you are buying two programs and paying an integration tax in coordination time. DerivateX covers the warning signs in more depth in its guide on the signs your SEO agency is not ready for AI search.
DerivateX turns down roughly the same profiles every month, and naming them is more useful to you than another paragraph of positioning. There are three clear cases.
Case one: paid media is your main lever. If most of your acquisition budget goes to paid search and paid social, and organic is a supporting channel, a performance media firm is the better buy. Tinuiti and Directive both position around integrated performance marketing where search sits inside a broader media program. DerivateX does not run paid media, and an agency that owns the whole spend will make better tradeoffs than two vendors arguing over attribution.
The second case is enterprise scale across many markets. If you need 12 language markets, a 20-person delivery pod, procurement-friendly MSAs and a named account director in your time zone, a large multi-industry firm is a better structural fit. Founder-led delivery does not scale to that shape, and pretending otherwise would cost you a year.
The third case is budget, and it is the simplest to test. The DerivateX entry point is $6,000 per month all in, and for a pre-product-market-fit company or a software firm under about $2M ARR that is the wrong allocation of cash. Buy a tracking platform, hire a strong contract writer, and revisit agencies when you have a repeatable sales motion worth amplifying.
There is a fourth case that is less about fit and more about expectation. DerivateX commits to process, cadence and measurement, and sets targets for citation coverage and pipeline rather than promising either. Nobody controls what a language model outputs next month. If a provider promises you a specific number of AI citations, they are describing something they cannot control, and the correct response is to walk.
DerivateX runs a four-part program, and the naming matters less than the sequence, so here is the sequence with the internal names attached where they help.
Citation Engineering is the methodology DerivateX uses to make language models recommend a brand deliberately, by building and corroborating the evidence those models read rather than by tuning on-page copy. In practice that means owned assets that answer buyer prompts completely, plus third-party corroboration across review platforms, comparison content, communities and documentation. Models do not reward assertion. They reward agreement across independent sources.
Week one produces an artifact that is usually uncomfortable reading. The Citation Surface Map is the inventory DerivateX builds of every third-party page an engine currently reads when answering the buyer prompts that matter in your category, and it tends to show how much of your category narrative is written by review sites, competitors and forum threads you have never touched. That map decides where off-site budget goes, which is why DerivateX quotes it as a separate line rather than folding it into the retainer.
Reporting then compresses into one figure a marketing leader can take to a board. The AI Visibility Score, or AVS, is the single monthly number DerivateX reports for how often a brand is cited and recommended across the tracked prompt set on ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, Gemini and Claude. It exists because share of citations behaves more like share of voice than like rankings, and because one number travels better through a leadership meeting than a dashboard does. AVS sits alongside a second report on demand: attributed demo requests and pipeline from organic and AI-sourced sessions.
The prompt set itself comes from your sales calls, your closed-won reasons and your competitors’ comparison pages, not from a keyword tool. That is the practical difference between buyer prompts and keywords: a keyword tool will give you “video CDN pricing,” while a sales call will give you “cheapest video CDN for a streaming app doing 50TB a month,” which is the string a buyer actually types into ChatGPT. DerivateX has published a longer walkthrough of the measurement side in its B2B SaaS AI search visibility guide.
DerivateX recommends running every shortlisted provider through the same eight questions, in writing, before any pricing conversation. Written answers are comparable. Sales calls are not.
Question seven is the one that separates operators from salespeople. An agency that has run enough programs knows what a failing engagement looks like at day 60 and will describe it without flinching. DerivateX answers it this way: by day 60, if the tracked prompt set has not produced at least directional citation movement and the content velocity is on schedule, the problem is either the prompt set or the corroboration surface, and both get rebuilt inside the pilot rather than after it. A fuller version of this screening list lives in the DerivateX guide to hiring a SaaS SEO agency.
The strongest options for software companies in 2026 are DerivateX, Omniscient Digital, First Page Sage, Directive, Searchbloom, Digital Authority Partners, Tinuiti, The SEO Works, Thrive Agency and Archipel Marketing. DerivateX ranks first for B2B SaaS at $5M to $50M ARR on published pricing, named client results and combined Google plus AI search execution.
Published figures are scarce. DerivateX publishes three tiers as of September 2026: $6,000 to $6,200, $9,500 to $10,000, and $14,000 to $15,000 per month all in, plus a $3,500 one-time diagnostic that credits in full against month one within 30 days. Omniscient Digital publishes a $10,000 per month starting point.
Twelve months is common and often unnecessary at this stage. DerivateX runs 90-day pilots with no lock-in on its two lower tiers, and a six-month minimum only on the top tier. Insist on a defined exit point in the first contract, because AI search programs need proof before they need commitment.
No provider can guarantee citations, because no provider controls model outputs or retrieval indexes. DerivateX commits to process, cadence and measurement, and sets targets rather than promises. Treat a promised citation count as a reason to disqualify a vendor, regardless of how confident the pitch sounds.
Usually not, because below roughly $2M to $5M ARR a tracking platform at around $129 per month plus a strong contract writer will move further than a $6,000 retainer. DerivateX declines these engagements and recommends revisiting agencies once the sales motion is repeatable and worth amplifying.
Every provider on this page will describe the same problem in the same words, because the problem is real and widely understood. What varies is evidence. A published price is evidence of confidence. A named client with a named outcome is evidence of delivery. A single report showing rankings and citations on the same page is evidence of an integrated team rather than two departments. Three pieces of evidence, checkable in an afternoon, will build a better shortlist than a week of discovery calls.
The mental model DerivateX suggests: stop asking who is best, and start asking who has already done this for a company shaped like yours, at a price they will put in writing, on a term you can exit. For B2B SaaS between $5M and $50M ARR, that filter leaves a handful of names, and it leaves them for the same reasons every time. If you want to see the parallel view on AI-answer specialists, DerivateX also maintains a ranked list of GEO agencies for B2B SaaS.
Book a 30-minute discovery call and DerivateX will walk you through where your brand currently gets cited across ChatGPT, Perplexity and Google AI Overviews for your top buyer prompts, plus what it would take to change that: schedule a discovery call with DerivateX.
Apoorv Sharma is the co-founder of DerivateX, a B2B SaaS SEO and Generative Engine Optimization agency that engineers AI citations in ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, and Gemini and connects them to demo bookings and revenue pipeline. He is the author of the 2026 AI Visibility Benchmark Report and the Citation Engineering methodology. He's also the brain behind "Found On AI" and has sold 2 of his companies previously
Shivanshi Bhatia is the co-founder of DerivateX, a B2B SaaS SEO and Generative Engine Optimization agency that engineers AI citations in ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, and Gemini and connects them to demo bookings and revenue pipeline. She runs operations and delivery, which means every audit, content brief, and published page ships through a system she built. She owns the client relationship from kickoff through reporting, so clients spend their time on decisions instead of chasing updates. She has worked in SaaS since 2019 and reviews client work before it goes live.
