iPullRank

Editorial take

iPullRank reads as the most technically serious operation in this group, and it's not a coincidence — founder Mike King has been publishing original research on retrieval and embeddings since before most competitors had a GEO page at all. The client roster (Target, Adidas, American Express) and the case study dollar figures back that reputation up convincingly. What it isn't is an easy on-ramp: pricing is entirely custom, and the whole practice is built for teams with real technical complexity to solve, not a quick content refresh.

Written by us from public record. It is not the agency's own copy, and the agency can’t edit it — claiming a profile adds a labelled right of reply, it does not replace this.

What they work with

Their tooling, and how we established each one. A tool a firm merely names is labelled as their statement; calling one a specialism is a capability claim and needs corroboration.

We haven’t established what iPullRank works with yet. That’s our backlog, not a finding about them — an empty stack here means we haven’t asked.

Services

• Relevance EngineeringNo public detail provided
• Technical SEONo public detail provided
• Content strategyNo public detail provided
• Content engineeringNo public detail provided
• Generative AI servicesNo public detail provided
• Enterprise / mid-marketNo public detail provided

Capabilities we established

• AI search visibility
• AI visibility measurement

Evidence

0 publicly verified · 0 confidentially reviewed · 12 self-reported · 0 outstanding

Self-reported

The agency's own statements, published as such. Not corroborated, and not presented as though they were.

• $2.4B — incremental revenue on one named financial-services case study

  Self-reportedSourceChecked 6 Aug 2026

• No review profile found on Clutch

  Self-reportedStated by the agencyChecked 6 Aug 2026

• No review profile found on G2

  Self-reportedStated by the agencyChecked 6 Aug 2026

• No review profile found on DesignRush

  Self-reportedStated by the agencyChecked 6 Aug 2026

• Relevance Engineering

  Self-reportedSourceChecked 8 Aug 2026

• Technical SEO

  Self-reportedSourceChecked 8 Aug 2026

• Content strategy

  Self-reportedSourceChecked 8 Aug 2026

• Content engineering

  Self-reportedSourceChecked 8 Aug 2026

• Generative AI services

  Self-reportedSourceChecked 8 Aug 2026

• Enterprise / mid-market

  Self-reportedSourceChecked 8 Aug 2026

• AI SEO / GEO — 35% of engagements

  Self-reportedSourceChecked 6 Aug 2026

• Other services — 65% of engagements

  Self-reportedSourceChecked 6 Aug 2026

Sources behind these statements

What the evidence actually is. “Publicly verified” reads very differently resting on a case study than on a pricing page, so we name the artefact.

• Public case study

  $2.4B — incremental revenue on one named financial-services case study

  Self-reportedOpen source6 Aug 2026

• Review profile

  No review profile found on Clutch

  Self-reportedNo public link6 Aug 2026

• Review profile

  No review profile found on G2

  Self-reportedNo public link6 Aug 2026

• Review profile

  No review profile found on DesignRush

  Self-reportedNo public link6 Aug 2026

• Service line

  Relevance Engineering

  Self-reportedOpen source8 Aug 2026

• Service line

  Technical SEO

  Self-reportedOpen source8 Aug 2026

• Service line

  Content strategy

  Self-reportedOpen source8 Aug 2026

• Service line

  Content engineering

  Self-reportedOpen source8 Aug 2026

• Service line

  Generative AI services

  Self-reportedOpen source8 Aug 2026

• Service line

  Enterprise / mid-market

  Self-reportedOpen source8 Aug 2026

• Service line

  AI SEO / GEO — 35% of engagements

  Self-reportedOpen source6 Aug 2026

• Service line

  Other services — 65% of engagements

  Self-reportedOpen source6 Aug 2026

What is still outstanding

• 11 of 20 ladder checks have not been run yet. That is our backlog, not a finding about this firm.
• Business legitimacy: 4 checks are still outstanding on our side.
• Track record: 2 checks did not pass: Team and presence consistency; Independent review presence. Direct contact and reference call is still outstanding on our side.
• AI SEO specialism: 2 checks did not pass: Stated pricing model; Discoverable contract length and exit terms. 6 checks are still outstanding on our side.

Verification record

Strongest on track record, weakest on business legitimacy

• Business legitimacy0 of 4

  Is this a real, trading, identifiable firm?
• Track record2 of 5

  Has anyone outside the firm confirmed the work?
• AI SEO specialism3 of 11

  Is AI SEO genuinely what they do?

How the TF Score is built

• Business legitimacy0 / 12

  Is this a real, trading, identifiable company — registered, contactable and continuously operating?

• Evidence quality and delivery record5 / 16

  Can the work be corroborated by someone other than the firm — named clients, reachable references, published results?

• Independent validation0 / 10

  Does anything outside the firm's own website confirm what it says about itself?

• Transparency0 / 10

  Does the firm publish what it charges, how long you are committed, and what it is actually doing for the money?

• Evidence freshness3 / 6

  How recently was any of this last checked? In AI search a two-year-old finding is about a different product.

• Review integrity0 / 6

  Are the reviews that exist relevant to this work and plausibly independent, rather than a wall of five-star ratings about something else?

• Measurable AI-search outcomes3 / 10

  Can the firm say how it knows whether AI visibility moved — a named measurement stack, a defined KPI, and a result reported against it?

• Technical AI SEO depthNot yet scored

  Needs a ladder check. Excluded from the denominator until it has one.

• Defined AI SEO practice5 / 8

  Is AI search a named service with a named person behind it and a history, or a page added last quarter?

• Editorial and content governanceNot yet scored

  Needs a ladder check. Excluded from the denominator until it has one.

• Ongoing delivery and maintenance0 / 6

  Is there capacity to keep doing the work, and terms that describe an ongoing engagement rather than a one-off?

Total 20 / 100. This measures how complete our evidence is — not how good the agency is. A low number means we have less to show you, which is not the same as a firm being worse.

Clients

Who they work with

• ○Startup / seed — does not
• ○SMB — does not
• ○Mid-market — does not
• ○Enterprise — does not

Client-size focus

Not disclosed

Industry focus

Not disclosed

Named clients we corroborated

None corroborated yet. A logo wall is not evidence — this lists only clients we confirmed independently of the firm.

Pricing

Model

Not disclosed

Published rate

Not disclosed

Commitment

Not disclosed

Typical project size

Not disclosed

What that means: This firm does not publish how it charges. That is common, and it is also the single most useful thing you can ask on a first call.

Reviews

• ClutchNo profile found
• G2No profile found
• DesignRushNo profile found

What the reviews actually say

No aggregated third-party review-platform score (Clutch, G2) found — a Clutch profile exists, but no visible review count.

We publish no rating of our own, and reviews never affect this firm's position on any page or any badge it carries. We also do not reprint ratings from platforms that collected them for themselves — Clutch, G2 and the rest own that work, so we tell you a profile exists and send you there to read it.

Relevance matters more than the average here: no independent reviews found.

How they say they work

• Named "Relevance Engineering" framework
• Query fan-out and passage retrieval analysis
• Embeddings-based content structuring
• Combines IR, content strategy, UX, digital PR

source: agency's own published framework and technical blog content.

What we could see them ship

• Named case studies with dollar figures: $2.4B, $290M, 130% traffic recovery
• Named enterprise clients: Target, Adidas, Amex, Nordstrom, CVS, SAP
• Named testimonial: Sr. Manager, Digital Strategy, American Express OPEN

source: agency's own published case studies (named clients, verifiable claims) plus third-party agency reviews.

Recorded from the firm’s own published material and named third-party sources. Stated, not verified — the difference is on every line of the evidence section.

Where they came from

Founded by Michael King (Search Engine Land Marketer of the Year). The "Relevance Engineering" framework was formally published in 2025, though AI Overviews content on their blog dates back to late 2023.

Published research

Published "AI Search Manual" — a full guide covering Relevance Engineering with a glossary, reporting templates, and prompt recipes for GEO testing. Founder Mike King is a frequent Search Engine Land contributor and organizes the "SEO Week" industry event. source: agency's own published research and public speaking record.

source: agency's own published research and public speaking record.

Record

Evidence last reviewed

3 Aug 2026

Checks run

9 of 20

Statements on record

12

Profile operated by

TrustedFirms — unclaimed

Change history

Nothing has been superseded yet. When a statement changes we keep the old one here rather than overwriting it — that’s what makes a review date mean something.

Something wrong on this page? Factual corrections are free and open to anyone, whether or not the firm is a customer. Tell us what is wrong.