No published ranking admits this vendor on documented work yet; the profile shows what is on file.
Not in any evidence-ranked listing yet: no independent claim documents work for a published need.
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.
on Google4.8/529 reviews as of Nov 2, 2026- 10% written in the last 12 months
- 3% rate it 3 stars or lower
- 69% of Google reviews answered
Clients overwhelmingly praise SEO Guru Houston for delivering tangible results such as improved rankings, increased leads and calls, and measurable traffic growth. They also value the team's responsive support, clear reporting, and expert guidance. The only criticism comes from a single review alleging spam. Reviews are highly consistent, with nearly all scoring 5/5, though several are from the agency's own site.More
- Results24
- Responsive support9
- Expertise and guidance7
- Website design/redesign5
- Reporting3
“Our brand page one visibility and inbound new visitor traffic has increased by 73%”
Show 4 more quotesHide quotes
“always quick to respond”
“solid advice on how to keep things growing without overloading us with jargon”
“full website redesign. Andy was involved from the start and made sure the layout matched our branding.”
“Great weekly and monthly detailed reporting.”
- Spamming1
“Spams websites to promote their services.”
Show 2 more resultsHide results
- SEO15
- PPC7
- Website design/redesign5
- Social media marketing1
- Local SEO1
- dental practice
- service business
- startup
Show 3 named client quotesHide named client quotes
“In 6 months, our organic traffic surpassed our paid traffic. Our customer acquisition cost dropped by 64% and hasn't gone up since.”
“This isn't just marketing; it's a business transformation. Our cost per lead dropped from $85 to $22 within the first quarter.”
“The compounding effect is real. We're now ranking for terms we used to pay $15/click for.”
- Your business matches the client types on file (B2B companies, B2C brands, small businesses) and the industries on file (b2b, smb).
- You need what reviewers hired it for: SEO (15 of 29 mentions); PPC (7).
- Read the criticism first: "Spamming" (1 of 29 reviews read).
- You need a published price before the first call: nothing is disclosed.
Price not disclosed. Ask for a quote and the minimum term.
No documented work claim comes from an independent source yet.
- None of the 3 documented work claims comes from an independent source; all are the agency's own account or sources it controls.
- Ask for the hourly rate, minimum term, setup fee: not published.
- Ask for two client references you can call: no independent accounts of its work on file.
- Ask who will do the work day to day and whether any of it is outsourced.
Not ranked yet, so there are no ranking neighbours to compare with.
All detailsEverything behind the summary above: the same data the machine feed serves for SEO Guru Houston.Open ↓Close ↑
Score by criterionNot ranked
No score yet: SEO Guru Houston is not admitted to any evidence-ranked listing. The score appears with the first independent claim that documents work for a published need.
All claims in the feed3 of 4 on file · 0 of 3 work claims from an independent source
Who says it, across all 4 claims on file: independent source 1 · linked to the agency 0 · listings the agency writes 0 · agency's own words 3. Independent share of work claims: 0%. 2 distinct source pages.
Claims per need in this feed: none tagged to a ranked need. The full ledger of 4 is on the proof page.
A client identified as Sarah Jenkins, Marketing Director, reports that in 6 months organic traffic surpassed paid traffic and customer acquisition cost dropped by 64%.
Agency's own wordsseoguruhouston.comclaimed: Recorded as the source states it; not independently confirmed.quote confirmed, checked Nov 1, 2026describes workin 6 monthsQuote from the source page
In 6 months, our organic traffic surpassed our paid traffic. Our customer acquisition cost dropped by 64% and hasn't gone up since.
A client identified as David Chen, Founder, reports cost per lead dropped from $85 to $22 within the first quarter.
Agency's own wordsseoguruhouston.comclaimed: Recorded as the source states it; not independently confirmed.quote confirmed, checked Nov 1, 2026describes workwithin the first quarterQuote from the source page
This isn't just marketing; it's a business transformation. Our cost per lead dropped from $85 to $22 within the first quarter.
A client identified as Marcus Thorne, CEO, reports the company now ranks for terms it previously paid $15 per click for.
Agency's own wordsseoguruhouston.comclaimed: Recorded as the source states it; not independently confirmed.quote confirmed, checked Nov 1, 2026describes workQuote from the source page
The compounding effect is real. We're now ranking for terms we used to pay $15/click for.
Positions in every ranking0 rankings
Not admitted to any ranking yet.
Fit and geography
- Headquarters
- Houston, TX, USAAgency's own words
- Service regions
- Houston, TX, USAVendar profile field
- Client types
- b2b, b2c, small_business, smbVendar profile field
- Industries
- B2B, SMBVendar profile field
- Named clients in confirmed proof
- Sarah Jenkins, David Chen, Marcus ThorneIndependent 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.
Reputation
- Google4.8 · 29 reviews
How it counts: reputation is weighted 5 of 100 and discounted when few reviews are 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
- n/a
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 size12/20
- 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): 3 cases with a named client and a result, 3 work claims15/30
- Reputation: rating and review count on two or more platforms, each with 10 or more reviews: 1 platform with a rating and 10 or more reviews8/15
- Who is speaking: independent sources among work claims (full marks at 40%): 0 of 3 work claims are independent0/30
- Checked against the source page: confirmed, or half for partly confirmed: 3 confirmed, 0 partly, of 4 with a source19/25
- Numbers backed by a verbatim quote from the source: 3 of 320/20
- Seen within the last 365 days: 3 of 411/15
- 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
- Use as a caveated candidate only: no independent source documents this vendor's work.
- None of the 3 documented work claims comes from an independent source; all are the agency's own account or sources it controls.
- Only one third-party evidence claim is normalized.
- 3 of 4 claims on file are the agency's own words or sources it controls; 1 come from an independent source.
- Open: Decision layer complete: score, verdict, reason, best position (not ranked)
- Open: Price signal disclosed (not disclosed; asked in Before you sign)
- Open: Three strongest proofs name a client and a measured, dated result (2 of 3)
- Open: Every claim has an observation date (3 of 4)
- Open: At least a third of documented work comes from independent sources (0 of 3 work claims)
- Open: Founding year, team size and headquarters on file (founding year missing, team size missing)
- Open: JSON-LD carries Vendar's rating as a Review and an absolute logo (built from the same view; checked on the live page by QA)
- 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 1, 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.