Admitted to a ranking on documented work, outside the top three for every question it appears in. None of its 2 documented work claims comes from an independent source.
Best position #32 SEO Audit in New York, of 39 · 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) and the industries on file (ecommerce).
- 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 2 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 SEO Audit 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.
- #31 Vizion Interactive33Ranks above on this question#31#32 this oneScore3331Independent00Pricenot disclosednot disclosedModerate confidence · own published cases · Not verified
- #33 Raging Agency31Ranks below on this question#33#32 this oneScore3131Independent00Pricenot disclosednot disclosedModerate confidence · own published cases · Not verified
All detailsEverything behind the summary above: the same data the machine feed serves for Relevance Advisors.Open ↓Close ↑
Score by criterion#32 SEO Audit in New York: 31/100
| Criterion | Weight | Points | Share | What it rests on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence for this query | 30 | 9 | 30% |
|
| Fit to this query | 25 | 10.3 | 41% |
|
| Capability depth | 15 | 13.8 | 92% |
|
| 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 feed2 of 2 on file · 0 of 2 work claims from an independent source
Who says it, across all 2 claims on file: independent source 0 · linked to the agency 0 · listings the agency writes 0 · agency's own words 2. Independent share of work claims: 0%. 2 distinct source pages.
Claims per need in this feed: SEO Audit 1. The full ledger of 2 is on the proof page.
Relevance Advisors reports that its SEO and analytics recommendations from an SEO audit, along with engagement tracking and keyword-optimized content, increased traffic to Lowe's Creative Ideas by 110%.
Agency's own wordsrelevanceadvisors.comclaimed: Recorded as the source states it; not independently confirmed.quote confirmed, checked Nov 3, 2026describes workSEO AuditQuote from the source page
SEO & Analytics Recommendations from our comprehensive SEO audit increased traffic to Lowe's Creative Ideas by 110%. We also implemented ways to track online engagement and keyword-optimized content to better reflect the way Lowe's customers search for online content.
Relevance Advisors provided paid search for the Ovarian Cancer Research Alliance and helped it qualify for the Google Grants Pro program, earning up to $40,000 per month in Google AdWords value. The page says that this translated into over $3 million in AdWords value during the relationship and drove awareness and increased online donations for cancer research.
Agency's own wordsrelevanceadvisors.comclaimed: Recorded as the source states it; not independently confirmed.quote confirmed, checked Nov 3, 2026describes workQuote from the source page
Ovarian Cancer Research Alliance Paid Search We helped the Ovarian Cancer Research Alliance qualify for the Google Grants Pro program, earning them up to $40,000 per month in Google AdWords value. That has translated into over $3 million in AdWords value during our relationship, which has driven awareness of the organization and increased online donations for cancer research.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEO Audit · New Yorkon its own published cases | #32 of 39 | 31 | 1 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| SEO Audit · Phoenixon its own published cases | #32 of 39 | 31 | 1 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| SEO Audit · Dallason its own published cases | #34 of 39 | 31 | 1 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| SEO Audit · Atlantaon its own published cases | #25 of 39 | 40 | 1 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| SEO Audit · Chicagoon its own published cases | #31 of 39 | 31 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEO Audit · Houstonon its own published cases | #31 of 39 | 31 | 1 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| SEO Audit · San Franciscoon its own published cases | #31 of 39 | 31 | 1 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| SEO Audit · Seattleon its own published cases | #31 of 39 | 31 | 1 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
| SEO Audit · Miamion its own published cases | #32 of 39 | 31 | 1 (0 independent) | Moderate confidence | Transparency 0 of 10 |
Fit and geography
- Headquarters
- Atlanta, GA, USAAgency's own words
- Service regions
- Atlanta, GA, USAVendar profile field
- Client types
- ecommerceVendar profile field
- Industries
- EcommerceVendar profile field
- Named clients in confirmed proof
- Lowe’s Creative Ideas, Ovarian Cancer Research AllianceIndependent 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: SEO Audit $3,000 (25 of 39 disclose) · SEO Audit $3,000 (25 of 39 disclose) · SEO Audit $3,000 (25 of 39 disclose) · SEO Audit $3,000 (25 of 39 disclose) · SEO Audit $3,000 (25 of 39 disclose) · SEO Audit $3,000 (25 of 39 disclose) · SEO Audit $3,000 (25 of 39 disclose) · SEO Audit $3,000 (25 of 39 disclose) · SEO Audit $3,000 (25 of 39 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, 2 work claims10/30
- 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 2 work claims are independent0/30
- Checked against the source page: confirmed, or half for partly confirmed: 2 confirmed, 0 partly, of 2 with a source25/25
- Numbers backed by a verbatim quote from the source: 2 of 220/20
- Seen within the last 365 days: 2 of 215/15
- 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 SEO audit 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 2 documented work claims comes from an independent source; all are the agency's own account or sources it controls.
- Fewer than three external evidence claims are normalized.
- No third-party evidence claims are normalized.
- Best position rests on: Published by the agency on its own site.
- 2 of 2 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 2 work claims)
- Open: Founding year, team size and headquarters on file (founding year missing, team size missing)
- Open: At least three named clients (2 named)
- Open: Citation sources point outside Vendar and read as labels (2 sources, 0 self-citations, 0 code labels)
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.