Admitted to a ranking on documented work, outside the top three for every question it appears in. None of its 6 documented work claims comes from an independent source.
Best position #16 Local SEO in Chicago, of 23 · also in 38 more rankings
Why: Rated from the evidence on file (sources, independence, confirmed quotes), not by an editor.
Opens in your own account with a ready question and a link to the same data. Nothing about you is sent.
- Your business matches the client types on file (enterprises, small businesses, franchises) and the industries on file (ecommerce, real estate, legal).
- You need a published price before the first call: nothing is disclosed.
No documented work claim comes from an independent source yet.
- None of the 6 documented work claims comes from an independent source; all are the agency's own account or sources it controls.
- Several commercial terms are not published.
- Ask for the hourly rate, minimum term, setup fee: not published.
- Ask for a Local SEO case close to your business, with the result and the year it was measured.
- Ask for two client references you can call: no independent accounts of its work on file.
- #15 Kyle Eggleston SEO Consultant50Ranks above on this question#15#16 this oneScore5047Independent00Pricenot disclosednot disclosedModerate confidence · own published cases · Not verified
- #17 Digital Marketers Chicago47Ranks below on this question#17#16 this oneScore4747Independent00Pricenot disclosednot disclosedModerate confidence · own published cases · Not verified
All detailsEverything behind the summary above: the same data the machine feed serves for Chicago SEO Consultant.Open ↓Close ↑
Score by criterion#16 Local SEO in Chicago: 47/100
| Criterion | Weight | Points | Share | What it rests on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence for this query | 30 | 15 | 50% |
|
| Fit to this query | 25 | 19 | 76% |
|
| Capability depth | 15 | 15 | 100% |
|
| Reliability | 10 | 3 | 30% |
|
| Transparencyweakest | 10 | 0 | 0% |
|
| Reputation | 5 | 0 | 0% |
|
| Market credibility | 5 | 0 | 0% |
|
- -3 No independent source on file: Every claim on file is first-party or a Vendar profile field.
- -2 Profile below decision-ready status: the profile is collected but not reviewed yet.
All claims in the feed6 of 6 on file · 0 of 6 work claims from an independent source
Who says it, across all 6 claims on file: independent source 0 · linked to the agency 0 · listings the agency writes 0 · agency's own words 6. Independent share of work claims: 0%. 3 distinct source pages.
Claims per need in this feed: Local SEO 3 · SEO Consulting 5 · SEO Recovery 1 · SEO for High-Ticket Services 1 · AI search visibility 2 · Enterprise SEO 2. The full ledger of 6 is on the proof page.
Chicago SEO Consultant reports SEO work for Cipolla Law Group, with a #1 ranking for “Chicago immigration attorney,” a position 1-2 Google Maps local pack ranking, and 180% organic traffic growth. The page says the ranking held through every algorithm update.
Agency's own wordschicagoseoconsultant.netclaimed: Recorded as the source states it; not independently confirmed.quote confirmed, checked Nov 3, 2026describes workLocal SEOSEO ConsultingSEO RecoverySEO for High-Ticket ServicesQuote from the source page
From buried to #1, held through every algorithm update Read Full Case Study #1 Ranking for 'Chicago immigration attorney' Position 1-2 Google Maps local pack +180% Organic traffic growth
Chicago SEO Consultant reports SEO, video, and AI visibility work for Gold Leaf Designs. The page reports 3x organic consultation requests and qualified traffic from video.
Agency's own wordschicagoseoconsultant.netclaimed: Recorded as the source states it; not independently confirmed.quote confirmed, checked Nov 3, 2026describes workAI search visibilitySEO ConsultingQuote from the source page
SEO, video, and AI visibility for a premium home builder Read Full Case Study Cited in AI results AI answer engine visibility 3x Organic consultation requests Significant lift Qualified traffic from video
For one premium builder, video work helped triple organic consultation requests.
Agency's own wordschicagoseoconsultant.netclaimed: Recorded as the source states it; not independently confirmed.quote confirmed, checked Nov 3, 2026describes workQuote from the source page
For one premium builder, leaning into video helped triple their organic consultation requests.
Chicago SEO Consultant reports enterprise local SEO governance work for Walgreens, including a governance framework, standardized location data, and technical SEO auditing and remediation at scale.
Agency's own wordschicagoseoconsultant.netclaimed: Recorded as the source states it; not independently confirmed.quote confirmed, checked Nov 3, 2026describes workLocal SEOSEO ConsultingEnterprise SEOQuote from the source page
Enterprise local SEO governance at national pharmacy scale Read Full Case Study Centralized model Governance framework Standardized at scale Location data consistency Audited and remediated Technical SEO at scale
Chicago SEO Consultant describes enterprise local SEO governance work for Walgreens, using a centralized model and governance framework.
Agency's own wordschicagoseoconsultant.netclaimed: Recorded as the source states it; not independently confirmed.quote confirmed, checked Nov 3, 2026describes workLocal SEOSEO ConsultingEnterprise SEOQuote from the source page
Walgreens Enterprise local SEO governance at national pharmacy scale Centralized model Governance framework
Chicago SEO Consultant describes SEO, video, and AI visibility work for Gold Leaf Designs, with the client cited in AI results and AI answer engine visibility noted.
Agency's own wordschicagoseoconsultant.netclaimed: Recorded as the source states it; not independently confirmed.quote confirmed, checked Nov 3, 2026describes workAI search visibilitySEO ConsultingQuote from the source page
Gold Leaf Designs SEO, video, and AI visibility for a premium home builder Cited in AI results AI answer engine visibility
Positions in every ranking39 rankings
39 positions: 39 where a claim on file names the need, 0 listed on offer only. The top 5 by evidence first; the rest open below.
| Ranking | Rank | Score | Claims for the need | Confidence | Weakest criterion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEO Consulting · Chicagoon its own published cases | #4 of 15 | 49 | 5 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| SEO Consulting · Atlantaon its own published cases | #8 of 15 | 40 | 5 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| SEO Consulting · Dallason its own published cases | #8 of 15 | 40 | 5 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| SEO Consulting · Houstonon its own published cases | #8 of 15 | 40 | 5 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| SEO Consulting · Los Angeleson its own published cases | #8 of 15 | 40 | 5 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
34 more positionsHide the other 34
| Ranking | Rank | Score | Claims for the need | Confidence | Weakest criterion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEO Consulting · Miamion its own published cases | #8 of 15 | 40 | 5 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| SEO Consulting · New Yorkon its own published cases | #8 of 15 | 40 | 5 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| SEO Consulting · San Franciscoon its own published cases | #8 of 15 | 40 | 5 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| SEO Consulting · Seattleon its own published cases | #8 of 15 | 40 | 5 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| SEO Consulting · Phoenixon its own published cases | #9 of 15 | 40 | 5 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| Local SEO · Chicagoon its own published cases | #16 of 23 | 47 | 3 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| AI search visibility · Chicagoon its own published cases | #27 of 51 | 42 | 2 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| Enterprise SEO · Chicagoon its own published cases | #31 of 53 | 39 | 2 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| AI search visibility · New Yorkon its own published cases | #37 of 51 | 33 | 2 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| AI search visibility · Dallason its own published cases | #39 of 51 | 33 | 2 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| Enterprise SEO · Miamion its own published cases | #48 of 53 | 30 | 2 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| Enterprise SEO · Phoenixon its own published cases | #48 of 53 | 30 | 2 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| AI search visibility · Houstonon its own published cases | #37 of 51 | 33 | 2 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| AI search visibility · Seattleon its own published cases | #37 of 51 | 33 | 2 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| AI search visibility · Phoenixon its own published cases | #38 of 51 | 33 | 2 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| AI search visibility · Atlantaon its own published cases | #39 of 51 | 33 | 2 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| AI search visibility · Miamion its own published cases | #39 of 51 | 33 | 2 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| AI search visibility · San Franciscoon its own published cases | #39 of 51 | 33 | 2 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| Enterprise SEO · Houstonon its own published cases | #47 of 53 | 30 | 2 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| Enterprise SEO · Seattleon its own published cases | #47 of 53 | 30 | 2 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| Enterprise SEO · Atlantaon its own published cases | #48 of 53 | 30 | 2 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| Enterprise SEO · Dallason its own published cases | #48 of 53 | 30 | 2 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| Enterprise SEO · San Franciscoon its own published cases | #49 of 54 | 30 | 2 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| SEO Recovery · Los Angeleson its own published cases | #23 of 24 | 23 | 1 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| SEO Recovery · New Yorkon its own published cases | #23 of 24 | 23 | 1 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| SEO for High-Ticket Services · Chicagoon its own published cases | #27 of 30 | 33 | 1 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| SEO Recovery · Chicagoon its own published cases | #21 of 24 | 32 | 1 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| SEO Recovery · Atlantaon its own published cases | #23 of 24 | 23 | 1 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| SEO Recovery · Dallason its own published cases | #23 of 24 | 23 | 1 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| SEO Recovery · Houstonon its own published cases | #23 of 24 | 23 | 1 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| SEO Recovery · Miamion its own published cases | #23 of 24 | 23 | 1 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| SEO Recovery · Phoenixon its own published cases | #23 of 24 | 23 | 1 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| SEO Recovery · San Franciscoon its own published cases | #23 of 24 | 23 | 1 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| SEO Recovery · Seattleon its own published cases | #23 of 24 | 23 | 1 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
Fit and geography
- Headquarters
- Chicago, IL, USAAgency's own words
- Service regions
- Chicago, IL, USAVendar profile field
- Client types
- enterprise, small_business, franchiseVendar profile field
- Industries
- Ecommerce, Real Estate, Legal, Home Services, Dental, Medical, RestaurantsVendar profile field
- Named clients in confirmed proof
- Cipolla Law Group, Gold Leaf Designs, WalgreensIndependent source or agency, see the claims list
Only rows marked “Verified by Vendar” were checked. Rankings place an agency in a city by headquarters or by documented work for clients there, never by a service region alone.
Pricing in fullNot disclosed
- Model
- not disclosed
- Minimum monthly budget
- not disclosed
- Project minimum
- not disclosed
- Hourly rate
- not disclosed
- Typical range
- not disclosed
- Minimum term
- not disclosed
- Setup fee
- not disclosed
- Engagement models
- not stated
Source: Not disclosed. Every figure above is the agency's published number; a row marked not disclosed has no published figure.
The Local SEO band tops out at $6,000/month; this vendor does not publish a monthly floor.
Median disclosed monthly floor in each ranking: Local SEO $1,000 (14 of 23 disclose) · SEO Recovery $2,550 (19 of 24 disclose) · SEO Recovery $2,550 (19 of 24 disclose) · AI search visibility $4,500 (28 of 51 disclose) · SEO for High-Ticket Services $2,500 (17 of 30 disclose) · Enterprise SEO $5,000 (33 of 53 disclose) · AI search visibility $4,500 (28 of 51 disclose) · AI search visibility $4,500 (28 of 51 disclose) · Enterprise SEO $5,000 (33 of 53 disclose) · Enterprise SEO $5,000 (33 of 53 disclose) · SEO Consulting $3,250 (7 of 15 disclose) · SEO Consulting $3,250 (7 of 15 disclose) · SEO Consulting $3,250 (7 of 15 disclose) · SEO Consulting $3,250 (7 of 15 disclose) · SEO Consulting $3,250 (7 of 15 disclose) · SEO Consulting $3,250 (7 of 15 disclose) · SEO Consulting $3,250 (7 of 15 disclose) · SEO Consulting $3,250 (7 of 15 disclose) · SEO Consulting $3,250 (7 of 15 disclose) · SEO Consulting $3,250 (7 of 15 disclose) · SEO Recovery $2,550 (19 of 24 disclose) · SEO Recovery $2,550 (19 of 24 disclose) · SEO Recovery $2,550 (19 of 24 disclose) · SEO Recovery $2,550 (19 of 24 disclose) · SEO Recovery $2,550 (19 of 24 disclose) · SEO Recovery $2,550 (19 of 24 disclose) · SEO Recovery $2,550 (19 of 24 disclose) · SEO Recovery $2,550 (19 of 24 disclose) · AI search visibility $4,500 (28 of 51 disclose) · AI search visibility $4,500 (28 of 51 disclose) · AI search visibility $4,500 (28 of 51 disclose) · AI search visibility $4,500 (28 of 51 disclose) · AI search visibility $4,500 (28 of 51 disclose) · AI search visibility $4,500 (28 of 51 disclose) · Enterprise SEO $5,000 (33 of 53 disclose) · Enterprise SEO $5,000 (33 of 53 disclose) · Enterprise SEO $5,000 (33 of 53 disclose) · Enterprise SEO $5,000 (33 of 53 disclose) · Enterprise SEO $5,000 (33 of 54 disclose)
Reputation
No review platforms on file.
How it counts: No third-party reviews on file. Ratings say nothing about work on a specific need and never count as evidence for it.
- Awards
- none on file
- Certifications
- none on file
Company and process
Founding year, team size and working process are not disclosed.
- Founded
- not disclosedNot disclosed
- Team size
- not disclosedNot disclosed
- Languages
- not statedVendar profile field
- Services
- SEOVendar profile field
- Technologies
- not statedVendar profile field
- Workflow
- not documentedAgency's own words
- Onboarding
- not documentedAgency's own words
- Reporting
- not documentedAgency's own words
Company fields come from the vendor profile; only fields with status verified were checked by Vendar.
How confidence is computedLower confidence
- Confidence
- Lower confidence, 62 of 100
- Evidence posture
- thin: No independent source documents this vendor's work; treat it as a candidate only.
- Capped by
- Rated from the evidence on file (sources, independence, confirmed quotes), not by an editor.
- Best position confidence
- Moderate confidence
It starts from the data completeness and source reliability of the profile, and is capped when independent proof of work is thin. The next level is Moderate confidence. One independent claim with a measured result for the best-ranked need is the fastest way up.
- Who the company is: website, headquarters, founding year, team size, logo, regions served: founding year, team size, logo10/20
- Fit: services, industries, client types15/15
- Commercial terms: model, entry price, hourly rate, minimum term, setup fee: model, entry price, hourly rate, minimum term, setup fee0/20
- Documented work: cases naming a client and a result (target 5) and work claims overall (target 10): 2 cases with a named client and a result, 6 work claims14/30
- Reputation: rating and review count on two or more platforms, each with 10 or more reviews: 0 platforms with a rating and 10 or more reviews0/15
- Who is speaking: independent sources among work claims (full marks at 40%): 0 of 6 work claims are independent0/30
- Checked against the source page: confirmed, or half for partly confirmed: 6 confirmed, 0 partly, of 6 with a source25/25
- Numbers backed by a verbatim quote from the source: 2 of 220/20
- Seen within the last 365 days: 6 of 615/15
- Not contradicted: claims their source no longer supports: 0 not supported by their page10/10
These two scores describe the profile itself and never change a position.
Limits and how to correct them
- No independent source names local SEO work; the evidence is first-party or editorial.
- Pricing not disclosed; budget fit cannot be checked before outreach.
- Never verified against official sources.
- No independent source on file: Every claim on file is first-party or a Vendar profile field.
- Profile below decision-ready status: the profile is collected but not reviewed yet.
- Use as a caveated candidate only: no independent source documents this vendor's work.
- None of the 6 documented work claims comes from an independent source; all are the agency's own account or sources it controls.
- No third-party evidence claims are normalized.
- Best position rests on: Published by the agency on its own site.
- 6 of 6 claims on file are the agency's own words or sources it controls; 0 come from an independent source.
- Open: Price signal disclosed (not disclosed; asked in Before you sign)
- Open: Three strongest proofs name a client and a measured, dated result (0 of 3)
- Open: At least a third of documented work comes from independent sources (0 of 6 work claims)
- Open: Founding year, team size and headquarters on file (founding year missing, team size missing)
Machine-readable version
This section carries the same data that AI assistants receive.
- Schema
- vendar.ai.vendor-summary.v1
- Model
- Evidence-weighted ranking 2026.11.7
- Data as of
- Nov 3, 2026
- Generated
- Verification
- Not verified
- Sources checked
- not yet
- Citation readiness
- Candidate only, with a caveat
- Do not infer headquarters from service-area coverage.
- Do not treat paid visibility as organic ranking proof.
- Do not present a source-thin profile as independently verified.
Describe what you need. The request is saved in Vendar first, then routed from there.