Who writes the “best GEO agency” lists that AI engines cite?
Two of the most visible 2026 rankings put their own publisher at #1, and neither says so. In an AI answer, that conflict of interest drops out.
Last updated
Often, the agencies being ranked. We read two of the most visible 2026 “best generative engine optimization agencies” lists, published by LSEO and TripleDart. Each one ranks its own publisher first, and neither states that conflict of interest on the page. Answer engines retrieve exactly this kind of page when a buyer asks which agency to hire.
What we checked
On 28 October 2026 we searched for the best GEO agencies of 2026 and read the two highest-placed rankings published on agency websites. For each one we recorded the publisher, the agency ranked first, the stated method, and whether the page disclosed that the publisher was ranking itself.
| List | Ranked #1 | Stated method | Self-ranking disclosed? |
|---|---|---|---|
| LSEO, 10 agencies | LSEO | Five qualitative factors, with no weights or scores published | No |
| TripleDart, 18 agencies | TripleDart | Weighted scoring of 50+ agencies across five criteria, with no per-agency scores published | No |
This is a sample of two, chosen because they placed highest, not at random. It shows the pattern exists. It does not show how common it is. Pages change, so check the live versions.
Two smaller findings
- The method is not checkable in either list. TripleDart publishes weights (client work 25%, reviews 25%, thought leadership 20%, original research 20%, external references 10%) but no scores, so the order cannot be reproduced from them. LSEO publishes no weights at all.
- The lists do not agree with themselves. On TripleDart’s page, the summary’s “top seven” leaves out two agencies that the full list ranks at #2 and #7.
Why this matters more in AI search
In a Google results page, a self-published ranking sits next to nine other links, and the reader can see whose site it is. In an AI answer, the ranking may be summarised into one sentence, such as “top GEO agencies include…”. The source shrinks to a small citation or disappears altogether. The publisher’s conflict of interest drops out of the answer, while its conclusion stays in.
That is not a scandal, and it is not unique to these firms. “Best X” lists written by a vendor in category X are a standard content play, and they work because answer engines treat comparison pages as useful sources. But it is the same mechanism every brand in your category can use against you. If the comparison pages for your category are written by your competitors, they decide how AI answers describe you.
What to do about it
- Find the comparison pages your category’s answers actually cite. Ask the buyer question in ChatGPT, Perplexity and Google, and open every source listed.
- Note who wrote each one. A list written by a competitor is a different problem from a list written by an independent reviewer.
- Get onto independent lists, and correct inaccurate ones, rather than only publishing your own.
- If you publish a comparison yourself, disclose it. Our tool vs agency comparison says plainly that it was written by one of the options it compares.
Disclosure
We sell GEO services, so we are an interested party too. We have no relationship with LSEO or TripleDart, and neither list mentions us. We are a small 2026 firm and would not expect them to. Read the sources yourself; the links are above.
Which pages are shaping your category’s AI answers?
A free finding includes one real buyer prompt, the verbatim answer, and the sources it cited.