Compare SEO proposals by the work included before comparing monthly fees. Put technical reviews, content, implementation and reporting into the same table. The key distinction is whether a provider delivers recommendations or also makes the changes to your website.
Write down the problem you need to solve
Describe the service or product range you want to grow, the customers you want to reach, the markets you serve and the problem you see today. “We need SEO” leaves a lot open to interpretation. “We want relevant manufacturers to request quotes through our industrial product pages” establishes a useful direction.
It describes a business objective without pretending that a particular outcome is guaranteed.
Include your operating constraints. Can an internal developer make changes? Who can approve technical product information? Is a redesign already underway? Do different country teams own different pages? These details affect what an agency can deliver. A proposal that assumes weekly access to a developer is a poor fit for a company whose engineering team cannot take on website work.
Compare the same deliverables
An entry called “technical SEO” does not explain what you will receive. Ask which parts of the site will be reviewed, how issues will be prioritised, what instructions developers will receive and how fixes will be checked. Apply the same discipline to content. Research, expert interviews, drafting, editing, visual production and publication are different jobs.
A provider may cover some or all of them.
Do not use volume as a substitute for usefulness. Reworking a service page around the questions buyers actually ask can be a better choice than publishing another article on a similar topic. Ask each provider to explain its initial priorities and what would cause those priorities to change. This reveals more about its judgement than a fixed monthly output count.
| Proposal item | Clarification to request | Ownership question |
|---|---|---|
| Technical audit | Prioritised findings with actionable implementation notes | Who diagnoses, implements and verifies the fix? |
| Content production | Buyer question, page purpose and editorial process | Who supplies expertise, approves and publishes? |
| Page optimisation | The page groups involved and the reason for selecting them | Are copy and design changes included? |
| Reporting | Completed work, observed changes and next decisions | Who interprets the data and agrees the next step? |
Separate an audit from implementation
Example: two proposals both include a “technical SEO audit”. One team reports the findings; the other also fixes redirects, updates page templates and retests the changes. These are different deliverables. Ask both teams to explain their work on the same sample URL.
If a change depends on a theme developer or ecommerce provider, ask whether their work is included. Describing something as “SEO work” does not automatically include another supplier’s development fee.
- Choose one real issue and its affected URL.
- List diagnosis, implementation and retesting separately.
- Mark each item as included, additional work or another supplier’s task.
- Compare fees after these differences are clear.
What will the report tell you?
Rankings and organic visits can help explain progress, but they do not tell the whole story. A service business may need valid enquiries, suitable prospects and sales feedback. An online retailer will need a different conversation around product demand, purchases and commercial performance. Ask how reporting will connect the work to the type of customer action your business values.
Agree how the starting position will be recorded. Keep track of the pages changed, the work released and other campaigns running during the same period. An observed increase can have several causes. A useful report separates what the data shows from what remains uncertain, then identifies the next decision.
It should also show delays caused by missing content or implementation capacity.
Question ranking guarantees
Google Search Central warns against guarantees of a number-one ranking and recommends understanding the changes an SEO provider intends to make. Its hiring guidance is a useful reference when assessing claims. Ask for an explanation you can follow rather than treating confidence as proof.
When discussing previous work, look beyond the headline result. Ask about the starting conditions, the provider's contribution, the client's responsibilities and the obstacles encountered. Confidentiality may prevent a provider from naming a client; anonymised deliverables and a clear account of the process can still be informative.
Reviewing one of your real service pages together can also reveal how well the team understands your market.
Questions for the final meeting
Give shortlisted teams the same example problem. Notice the questions they ask, the information they flag as missing and their ability to describe a sensible first step. Then document scope, named responsibilities, communication arrangements, approval requirements, treatment of additional work and what will be handed over when the engagement ends.
Now the fee has context. You can see why a cheaper option costs less and what additional capacity a more expensive option provides. Do not bury an unanswered critical question inside an average score. Keep it visible until it is resolved. The aim is to select a working relationship in which research, implementation and review can continue reliably.
- Have we agreed the priority audience and page groups?
- Are advisory work, content and development clearly separated?
- Are implementation and approval owners named?
- Will reporting help us make a specific business decision?
- Are additional work, account access and handover arrangements documented?