Admitted to a ranking on documented work, outside the top three for every question it appears in. None of its 9 documented work claims comes from an independent source.
Best position #49 AI search visibility in Chicago, of 51 · also in 8 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 (ecommerce brands, enterprises, small businesses) and the industries on file (ecommerce, healthcare, small business).
- You need proof of AI search visibility work in Chicago: documented cases are in Seattle (for example Mold Solutions NW), not Chicago.
- 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 9 documented work claims comes from an independent source; all are the agency's own account or sources it controls.
- 7 of 7 results with a number do not say what year they were measured.
- Several commercial terms are not published.
- Ask for the hourly rate, minimum term, setup fee: not published.
- Ask for an AI search visibility 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.
- #48 Fast Hippo Media24Ranks above on this question#48#49 this oneScore2424Independent00Pricenot disclosednot disclosedModerate confidence · own published cases · Not verified
- #50 Colibri Digital Marketing22Ranks below on this question#50#49 this oneScore2224Independent00Pricenot disclosednot disclosedModerate confidence · own published cases · Not verified
All detailsEverything behind the summary above: the same data the machine feed serves for Logic Inbound.Open ↓Close ↑
Score by criterion#49 AI search visibility in Chicago: 24/100
| Criterion | Weight | Points | Share | What it rests on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence for this query | 30 | 6 | 20% |
|
| Fit to this query | 25 | 10.3 | 41% |
|
| Capability depth | 15 | 9.4 | 63% |
|
| 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 feed9 of 9 on file · 0 of 9 work claims from an independent source
Who says it, across all 9 claims on file: independent source 0 · linked to the agency 0 · listings the agency writes 0 · agency's own words 9. Independent share of work claims: 0%. 4 distinct source pages.
Claims per need in this feed: AI search visibility 1. The full ledger of 9 is on the proof page.
The 99 Junk Removal case study reports a 1,140% increase in organic traffic.
Agency's own wordslogicinbound.comclaimed: Recorded as the source states it; not independently confirmed.quote confirmed, checked Nov 3, 2026describes workQuote from the source page
1,140% Organic Traffic Increase (99 Junk Removal Case Study)
Logic Inbound’s SEO work for Ski Monster was associated with a 300% increase in commercial organic traffic.
Agency's own wordslogicinbound.comclaimed: Recorded as the source states it; not independently confirmed.quote confirmed, checked Nov 3, 2026describes workQuote from the source page
SEO Boom! 300% Increase In Commercial Organic Traffic, Ski Monster Case Study
Logic Inbound reports that its client Mold Solutions NW now appears in Google's AI Overview for Seattle mold search terms.
Agency's own wordslogicinbound.comclaimed: Recorded as the source states it; not independently confirmed.quote confirmed, checked Nov 3, 2026describes workAI search visibilityQuote from the source page
Our client Mold Solutions NW now appears in Google’s AI Overview for Seattle mold search terms.
The Artificial Grass case study reports a 658% increase in conversions.
Agency's own wordslogicinbound.comclaimed: Recorded as the source states it; not independently confirmed.quote confirmed, checked Nov 3, 2026describes workQuote from the source page
658% Conversion Increase (Artificial Grass Case Study)
Service Pro Water Damage increased conversion value by 346% while spending less on ads.
Agency's own wordslogicinbound.comclaimed: Recorded as the source states it; not independently confirmed.quote confirmed, checked Nov 3, 2026describes workQuote from the source page
How Service Pro Water Damage Increased Conversion Value 346% While Spending Less on Ads
Argosy Cruises achieved a 515% increase in paid conversions through an integrated search strategy.
Agency's own wordslogicinbound.comclaimed: Recorded as the source states it; not independently confirmed.quote confirmed, checked Nov 3, 2026describes workQuote from the source page
How Argosy Cruises Achieved a 515% Increase in Paid Conversions Through an Integrated Search Strategy
Logic Inbound redesigned Ski Monster’s Meta ad campaign, and purchases increased 223%.
Agency's own wordslogicinbound.comclaimed: Recorded as the source states it; not independently confirmed.quote confirmed, checked Nov 3, 2026describes workQuote from the source page
Redesigned Meta Ad Campaign Driving Purchases Up 223%, Ski Monster Case Study
Service Pro Water Damage increased conversion value 346% while spending less on ads.
Agency's own wordslogicinbound.comclaimed: Recorded as the source states it; not independently confirmed.quote confirmed, checked Nov 3, 2026describes workQuote from the source page
How Service Pro Water Damage Increased Conversion Value 346% While Spending Less on Ads
Logic Inbound’s Google Ads and Merchant Center optimizations for Ski Monster were associated with double the clicks.
Agency's own wordslogicinbound.comclaimed: Recorded as the source states it; not independently confirmed.quote confirmed, checked Nov 3, 2026describes workQuote from the source page
Google Ads + Merchant Center Optimizations = Double The Clicks!
Positions in every ranking9 rankings
9 positions: 9 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AI search visibility · Chicagoon its own published cases | #49 of 51 | 24 | 1 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| AI search visibility · Dallason its own published cases | #49 of 51 | 24 | 1 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| AI search visibility · New Yorkon its own published cases | #49 of 51 | 24 | 1 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| AI search visibility · Seattleon its own published cases | #39 of 51 | 32 | 1 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| AI search visibility · Atlantaon its own published cases | #49 of 51 | 24 | 1 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
4 more positionsHide the other 4
| Ranking | Rank | Score | Claims for the need | Confidence | Weakest criterion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AI search visibility · Houstonon its own published cases | #49 of 51 | 24 | 1 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| AI search visibility · Miamion its own published cases | #49 of 51 | 24 | 1 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| AI search visibility · Phoenixon its own published cases | #49 of 51 | 24 | 1 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| AI search visibility · San Franciscoon its own published cases | #51 of 51 | 24 | 1 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
Fit and geography
- Headquarters
- Seattle, WA, USAAgency's own words
- Service regions
- Seattle, WA, USAVendar profile field
- Client types
- ecommerce_brand, enterprise, small_business, healthcareVendar profile field
- Industries
- Ecommerce, Healthcare, Small Business, EnterpriseVendar profile field
- Named clients in confirmed proof
- 99 Junk Removal, Ski Monster, Mold Solutions NW, Artificial Grass, Service Pro Water Damage, Argosy CruisesIndependent 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.
Median disclosed monthly floor in each ranking: 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) · 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)
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): 7 cases with a named client and a result, 9 work claims29/30
- 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 9 work claims are independent0/30
- Checked against the source page: confirmed, or half for partly confirmed: 9 confirmed, 0 partly, of 9 with a source25/25
- Numbers backed by a verbatim quote from the source: 7 of 720/20
- Seen within the last 365 days: 9 of 915/15
- 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 AI search visibility 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 9 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.
- 9 of 9 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 9 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.