Listicle · Long Island contractors · Updated quarterly
The Best AEO Agencies for Long Island Contractors in 2026
Eight Long Island and NYC-metro agencies ranked by AEO methodology depth, contractor specialization, founder visibility, proof, and transparency. Reviewed April 29, 2026.
Author disclosure
I run Silvo Systems, which appears at #1 on this list. Every agency below is competing for the same Long Island contractor prospects I am. The weighted criteria — methodology depth, contractor specialization, founder visibility, proof, transparency — and the math behind every score are published below so the ranking can be reproduced or disputed. Where Silvo loses to a competitor on a specific criterion, the score reflects it: Silvo earns 9/20 on proof depth versus Comrade's 20/20, because Silvo has no paid case studies yet and Comrade has three published with documented ROI. If proof matters more to you than methodology and founder access, hire Comrade. The math says so.
AEO is new. Most agencies that call themselves “AEO agencies” in 2026 are SEO agencies that added “AI search” to an existing service menu without changing their methodology. A smaller number have built dedicated answer-engine-optimization frameworks. A smaller number still are founder-led. Almost none specialize in contractors specifically.
This list is the current snapshot of the Long Island and NYC-metro agencies a contractor can actually hire to do AEO work. Eight agencies. Five criteria. Public weights. Honest scoring. Updated quarterly because the landscape is moving — an agency that publishes a founder bio, a contractor case study, or a methodology page in the next ninety days will see its rank rise on the next pass.
The framework Silvo runs every client through is the Citation Stack — five layers, documented in full at /citation-stack. The contractor-specific application of it lives at /aeo-for-long-island-contractors. Both are background reading for what follows.
Section 01
The 5 criteria and weights
Each agency is scored against five public criteria with declared weights. The maximum possible score is 100. The criterion-by-criterion math is published inside every agency entry below so the scoring can be redone, disagreed with, and corrected.
01AEO methodology depth
Weight 30%Does the agency publish a named, documented framework for getting clients cited by ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, and Google AI Overviews — or is "AEO" tacked onto an existing SEO menu? A published, defensible methodology is the single highest-leverage signal that the work is real.
02Contractor specialization
Weight 20%Generalists answer for every vertical the same way. Agencies built for trades and home services know the schema fields contractors actually need (NY HIC license, manufacturer certifications, areaServed by town), the citation surfaces that move the needle (Houzz, Yelp, BBB, Newsday), and the seasonal demand patterns of Long Island specifically.
03Founder visibility
Weight 20%Is there a named, public expert behind the brand — with a bio, a photo, a public byline, and a credible track record in the work? Founder-led agencies build their own citation moat. Anonymous brands do not.
04Proof depth
Weight 20%Published case studies with metrics, original research, public methodology artifacts, audit tools, dogfooding evidence. "Trust us" does not score. "Here is the result, here is the data, here is the methodology that produced it" does.
05Transparency
Weight 10%Published pricing, public process, no hidden tier walls, no "contact for pricing" gates on a six-figure spend. Transparency is correlated with confidence; opacity is correlated with selling on the call rather than on the work.
Methodology is weighted highest because it is the most reliable forward-looking predictor of citation rate. Proof depth is weighted equal to specialization and founder visibility because past results matter, but they describe what already happened — methodology and founder access describe what is going to happen next. Transparency is weighted lower not because it is unimportant but because once an agency is past a baseline, the marginal value of more transparency is smaller than the marginal value of better methodology.
Section 02
Ranking table — all 8 agencies
Quick reference. Detail per agency lives in the next section.
| # | Agency | Score |
|---|---|---|
| 01 | Silvo Systems | 84/100 |
| 02 | Comrade Digital Marketing | 77/100 |
| 03 | Benjamin Marc | 69/100 |
| 04 | Sound UP Marketing | 54/100 |
| 05 | Mimvi SEO | 53/100 |
| 06 | Hozio | 49/100 |
| 07 | LocalMighty | 50/100 |
| 08 | Thrive Agency | 45/100 |
Section 03
The 8 agencies, in order
Each entry is structured the same way: rank, one-line summary, score breakdown across the five criteria, strengths, weaknesses, and the contractor profile the agency is actually a fit for.
Silvo Systems
The agency a Long Island contractor hires when methodology, transparency, and founder access matter more than a roster of past wins. The Citation Stack framework, public pricing, founder-led delivery — and a track record that is still being built.
Score breakdown
84/100
Strengths
- Only Long Island-headquartered agency with a named, published AEO methodology — the Citation Stack — at /citation-stack. Position, Foundation, Authority, Citations, Tracking. Five layers, no hand-waving.
- Founder-led delivery. Logan Hoffman and Zach are named, with public team pages. Every client interacts with the people who designed the system, not an account manager funnel.
- Free public AEO audit at /audit that scores any URL across six pillars and pulls a live citation snapshot from Anthropic and OpenAI. The methodology is not a secret — it is the lead magnet.
- Fully published pricing at /pricing — Foundation $1,500/mo, Growth $3,000/mo, Dominate $5,000/mo. No "contact for pricing" wall. No hidden tier games.
- Long Island contractor specialization is the explicit Position. Cornerstone resource at /aeo-for-long-island-contractors covers seven trades, schema templates, and trade-specific buyer queries.
Weaknesses
- No paid case studies yet. First paying client target is Q3 2026. Today the only published proof is dogfooding — the agency runs its own playbook on its own site, with measurable audit-score lift documented at /blog/how-i-aeod-my-own-agency-in-one-afternoon. That is real evidence, but it is not a third-party result. Comrade objectively beats Silvo on proof depth.
- Younger company. Founded 2026. Not appropriate for contractors who require a multi-year operating history before signing.
- Smaller team than the multi-vertical generalists. A contractor who needs simultaneous web rebuild, paid media, and content at enterprise scale should hire a larger shop and ask Silvo to consult on the AEO layer.
Best fit for
Long Island contractors with $1.5K-$5K/mo budgets who want a methodology-driven, founder-accessible AEO program and are comfortable being a founding-cohort client in exchange for transparency, direct access, and rate locks.
Self-disclosure
Self-disclosure: I am the founder of Silvo and the author of this list. Silvo earns the #1 score because the weighted criteria — methodology depth (30%), founder visibility (20%), and transparency (10%) — favor what Silvo does today. The criterion Silvo loses is proof depth: 9/20 versus Comrade's 20/20. If a track record matters more to you than a published methodology, hire Comrade. The math is published; redo it with different weights and you may land at a different rank — that is fair, and the criteria exist precisely so the math can be redone.
Comrade Digital Marketing
The agency a contractor hires when proof matters more than methodology. Real case studies, AI Search Optimization service line, deep home-services vertical experience.
Score breakdown
77/100
Strengths
- Three published contractor case studies with documented ROI numbers (4,618%, 7,841%, 10,567% return-on-investment claims tied to specific service businesses). The strongest published proof of any agency on this list.
- Explicit AI Search Optimization service line with the framing: "See if ChatGPT recommends YOUR business." This is closer to AEO-native than most competitors.
- Deep home-services vertical bench — they have shipped enough contractor work to understand seasonal demand, license-state nuance, and the specific schemas that move local citations.
- 5.0 Clutch rating with hundreds of reviews. The third-party validation that LLMs themselves weight.
Weaknesses
- Not Long Island-based and not LI-specialized. The case studies are largely national contractor work, not Nassau or Suffolk-specific. A contractor optimizing for Town of Huntington permit queries does not get hyper-local fluency from a non-LI agency.
- No named founder or public expert. The brand is the agency, not a person. Models still cite the brand, but founder-led agencies build a citation moat that Comrade does not.
- Case studies emphasize Google traffic and conversions, not AI citation rate specifically. Their framing of AEO is closer to "AI-aware SEO" than to a dedicated answer-engine methodology.
Best fit for
Contractors with $5K+/mo budgets who need to point an investor, partner, or skeptical spouse at named, documented case studies before signing. If proof is the decision blocker, Comrade is the answer — they win the proof criterion outright.
Benjamin Marc
The most established Long Island agency with a named founder and an explicit AI Marketing / GEO service line. Generalist, not contractor-specialized, but the founder-led model is real.
Score breakdown
69/100
Strengths
- Anthony Savino is named as founder, with the explicit positioning that "every client works directly with him." That is the rarest and most-LLM-friendly signal an agency can ship — a real human at the source.
- Smithtown, NY-based. Established 2005. The longest operating history of any agency on this list with a serious AEO posture. Long Island roots run deep.
- Explicit "AI Marketing" and Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) service line. They are not pretending the shift did not happen.
- Multi-vertical bench means they have seen most LI service-business archetypes — restaurants, professional services, healthcare, some home services. The breadth is real.
Weaknesses
- Multi-vertical generalist. Contractor work is not an explicit specialization — it shares a service menu with healthcare, retail, professional services, and others. A roofer evaluating Benjamin Marc against a contractor-specialized shop is comparing breadth against depth.
- Public proof is thinner than the operating history would suggest — "keyword rankings on request" rather than published case studies with metrics. The agency knows the work is real; the public site under-sells it.
- AEO methodology is not publicly named or documented. The service line exists. The framework behind it does not yet have a public artifact a prospect can read and stress-test.
Best fit for
Long Island contractors who want the longest local operating history, a named founder, and a generalist agency that can absorb the AEO scope alongside a broader marketing program.
Sound UP Marketing
The Long Island agency with the strongest AEO branding on the public site. The positioning is the cleanest in the market; the proof and founder visibility lag behind the messaging.
Score breakdown
54/100
Strengths
- Dedicated AEO landing page with the line "Become the go-to answers in AI-driven search results." The clearest, most LLM-aware positioning of any LI agency in 2026.
- Long Island-based. Local fluency is plausible even if not yet documented in the same depth as Benjamin Marc's operating history.
- Service-business orientation. The site reads like it was written for owners of $500K-$5M LI businesses, not for enterprise prospects.
Weaknesses
- No founder named. No public team page. The brand is anonymous, which forfeits the single highest-leverage AEO signal a service-business agency can ship in 2026.
- No case studies on the AEO page. The positioning is sharp; the proof beneath it is missing. A prospect cannot point to a contractor result and say "this is what I want."
- Methodology is not published. The page describes the outcome — getting cited by AI search — but does not document the framework, layers, or process behind it. That is the difference between a marketing claim and a defensible system.
Best fit for
Long Island service businesses who want LI-local AEO branding, are comfortable paying without a published case study, and do not need direct access to a named founder.
Mimvi SEO
Established LI/NYC-metro SEO firm with AI-search messaging woven through the site. Solid SEO operating history; AEO-as-methodology is more aspiration than published framework.
Score breakdown
53/100
Strengths
- AI-powered framing throughout the site — "dominate search results across Google, Maps, and AI-powered search platforms." They understand that the surface has changed.
- Operating history in NYC-metro SEO. Real client work referenced, even if specifics are gated.
- Multi-platform competence — Google, Maps, AI search. That breadth has value for contractors who still need traditional local SEO under the AEO layer.
Weaknesses
- No founder visibility. No public team page or expert byline. Same anonymous-brand problem that drags Sound UP and Hozio.
- Methodology is not named or documented. "Results-driven" is a slogan, not a framework.
- Case studies referenced but not detailed. "Our Work" exists; the contractor-specific reads with documented metrics do not.
Best fit for
Service businesses that want a generalist NYC-metro SEO firm with AI-search awareness and are willing to trade methodology depth for operating history.
Hozio
Local-business SEO agency centered on Google Maps and the local pack, with AI-SEO listed as a service. Solid Google operator; AEO is bolted on, not native.
Score breakdown
49/100
Strengths
- Strong local-business orientation. Map-pack and Google Business Profile work is real, which is the same surface contractors still need underneath the AEO layer.
- AI-SEO listed as a service, signaling some recognition of the shift even if the depth is light.
- Portfolio referenced. Local-business client base is plausible, including service businesses adjacent to contractor verticals.
Weaknesses
- AEO depth is light. The service exists in the menu; the methodology behind it is not articulated publicly. Closer to "local SEO with an AI nod" than answer-engine-native.
- No founder bio, no public expert. Anonymous brand, same problem as the middle of the pack.
- Case study depth is thin in public materials. Contractors have to take the operating claim on faith.
Best fit for
Local service businesses whose primary need is Google Maps and local-pack performance and who consider AI search a future concern rather than a current revenue lever.
LocalMighty
https://localmighty.com/long-island/
Verticalized local SEO agency with a Long Island landing page and AI-SEO + GEO framing. Verticalization is a real strength; the depth behind any single vertical claim is unverified.
Score breakdown
50/100
Strengths
- Explicit vertical claims — law firms, dental, contractors, others. Verticalization is the right strategic posture for an AEO agency in 2026; depth-per-vertical is what cannot be assumed.
- GEO and AI in the URL structure and page titles. Search-architecture-aware.
- Long Island landing page exists, signaling at least targeted demand-capture for the region.
Weaknesses
- No named founder, no public team. Anonymous brand again.
- Vertical claims unverified at depth. A contractor cannot read a contractor-specific case study with metrics on the public site, which is exactly what verticalization is supposed to deliver.
- Methodology framework is not documented publicly. AI-powered framing exists; the layers underneath do not.
Best fit for
Service businesses outside the contractor vertical who want a verticalized local-SEO play and are willing to trust the vertical claim without published case studies.
Thrive Agency
National full-service agency with a Long Island landing page. Strong general SEO operator with broad portfolio; AEO is not the positioning and not the specialization.
Score breakdown
45/100
Strengths
- Broad national portfolio with serious operating history. The agency is real, the team is large, and the SEO chops are not in question.
- 5.0 Clutch rating, broad cross-vertical case-study library. The third-party validation is genuine.
- Generalist depth means contractors who need PPC, web design, and SEO under one roof can get all three.
Weaknesses
- AEO is not part of the explicit positioning. The page is a generic SEO/PPC/web pitch with a Long Island swap, not an answer-engine-optimization specialist.
- Not Long Island-based. Not Long Island-specialized. Not contractor-specialized. Three layers of distance from what the LI contractor evaluating this list actually needs.
- Anonymous-brand pattern at the page level — no specific named expert leads the LI engagement, which compounds the distance problem.
Best fit for
Larger contractors and home-service multi-locations who need a one-stop national agency for the broader marketing stack and consider AEO a checkbox rather than the strategy.
Section 04
How to use this list
The right agency is the one that fits the contractor in front of it, not the highest-scoring agency on a public list. Four practical paths.
If the marketing budget is $0 right now
Run a free AEO audit at /audit, read the Citation Stack at /citation-stack, and DIY the Foundation layer over a weekend — schema, llms.txt, robots.txt with the AI-bot allowlist, Google Business Profile completeness. None of these eight agencies are the right call before that work is done. Hire after the foundation is in place, not before.
If the budget is $1.5K-$5K/mo and methodology + founder access matter most
Silvo Foundation tier ($1,500/mo + $2,500 setup) or Silvo Growth tier ($3,000/mo + $5,000 setup) at /pricing. Founding-cohort pricing locks in for the engagement; rates rise after the first three case studies are published.
If proof above all else is the decision-blocker
Hire Comrade Digital Marketing. Their published contractor case studies are the strongest in this comparison set, even though they are not LI-based. If a contractor's investor, partner, or skeptical co-founder needs to read three case studies before signing, that is the right agency to point them at. Reweight the criteria with proof at 40% and they outrank Silvo. Honest answer.
If the contractor is not actually a contractor
Most of these agencies are wrong for non-contractor verticals even when the public site claims breadth. Vertical-fit matters more than agency reputation. Silvo covers therapists at /aeo-for-long-island-therapists; for other verticals this is not the right starting list.
Avoid patterns
- Agencies that will not show their methodology before the contract.
- Agencies with no published pricing on a $50K-$100K annual engagement.
- Agencies with no named founder, no public expert, and no team page.
- Agencies that promise specific keyword rankings or specific citation rates inside thirty days. Both are compounding metrics; thirty days is not the realistic curve.
- Generic dashboards that show traffic without showing citation rate. Traffic is the old metric; citations are the new one.
Section 05
How we'd score ourselves in 6 months
Silvo's current weakness is proof depth. The score is 9/20 — the lowest of any criterion Silvo earns, and visibly behind Comrade's 20/20. That is not a typo. It is the honest reading of where Silvo sits in April 2026. Here is the forward-looking commitment, written publicly so it can be checked later.
- By August 2026: first one or two paid contractor case studies published. Each case study should add roughly four to five points to the proof score. Silvo's proof score should move from 9/20 toward 16-18/20, closing most of the gap with Comrade and pushing the total from 84 toward 90+.
- By December 2026: first piece of original AEO research published — likely a citation-rate study across Long Island contractor sites that becomes the canonical reference for the vertical. Original research is the highest-leverage proof signal an agency can ship. If Silvo executes this, a sixth criterion (“original research”) gets added to the next ranking pass and Silvo benefits from it.
- Quarterly re-rank: the next refresh is the third quarter of 2026. If Comrade publishes founder bios in the interim, they leapfrog Silvo on founder visibility and the rank order may shift. If Sound UP publishes case studies, their score rises sharply. If Benjamin Marc documents the GEO methodology publicly, they close the gap on the top two.
- This is a living document. The list is not a brochure. The point of publishing the criteria, the weights, and the math is that the next pass can be redone by anyone — including the competitors below.
If a contractor reading this in late 2026 finds that Silvo did not ship the case studies, did not publish the research, and did not earn the score lift — point at this section and call it. The accountability is the point.
FAQ
Why isn't [larger national agency] on this list?
The list is scoped to agencies that either operate from Long Island, maintain a serious Long Island presence, or have a documented track record of contractor work that a Nassau or Suffolk owner could plausibly use. National agencies without an LI footprint or contractor specialization were excluded, even when they have strong AEO work in other markets, because a contractor evaluating this list cannot get the local fluency from them. If a strong candidate is missing and you can point me at their public proof, email me at logansawyer108@gmail.com and I will review for the next quarterly update.
How can the author rank their own agency #1 on a list of agencies?
By publishing the criteria first, weighting them publicly, and being willing to score Silvo low on the criteria where it loses. Silvo earns 9/20 on proof depth — that is below Mimvi, below Benjamin Marc, and tied with the bottom of the table. Comrade earns a perfect 20/20 on proof. Silvo only ends up #1 because methodology depth and founder visibility carry more weight in the framework, and Silvo wins both. Reweight the criteria so proof depth is 40% instead of 20% and Comrade lands #1. The math is published precisely so it can be redone. If a future quarter shows Silvo behind on a criterion that an honest reading would weight higher, the rank moves. The list is a living document, not a brochure.
What if I'm not a contractor?
Most of these agencies are not the right fit for non-contractor verticals, even if their site says they handle yours. A therapist looking for AEO would be better served by an agency built for licensed professional services — different schema priorities (Person, MedicalBusiness vs. HomeAndConstructionBusiness), different citation surfaces (Psychology Today, Zocdoc vs. Houzz, BBB), different buyer queries. Silvo also covers therapists at /aeo-for-long-island-therapists. For other verticals, this list is not the right starting point.
Do you accept payment to be ranked or featured on this list?
No. No agency on this list paid for inclusion or for placement, and none was contacted in advance. The rankings are based on publicly available materials reviewed on the date noted at the top of the page. If an agency disputes a factual claim, the contact email is logansawyer108@gmail.com — I will correct factual errors in the next quarterly update.
How often is this list updated?
Quarterly. Next update is scheduled for the third quarter of 2026. The agency landscape is moving fast — agencies that publish founder bios, case studies, or methodology pages in the interim will see their score rise. Agencies that go quiet will see theirs fall. The intent is to make this list the canonical Long Island AEO comparison surface, which only works if it is maintained.
Why does a national agency rank above three Long Island agencies?
Comrade earns #2 — above Benjamin Marc, Sound UP, and Mimvi — because the criteria weight contractor specialization and proof depth highly, and Comrade objectively wins both against the LI generalists in this set. Local fluency matters disproportionately for contractor AEO, which is why Silvo (LI-headquartered, contractor-specialized) edges Comrade on the total. But a national agency with deep contractor-vertical proof outranks an LI generalist agency with thin proof every time. If Benjamin Marc or Sound UP publishes contractor-specific case studies in the next quarter, the gap closes fast.
What's the difference between AEO and SEO?
Local SEO ranks pages on a Google search results list. AEO — Answer Engine Optimization — gets a business named as a source inside a generated answer in ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, or Google AI Overviews. The on-page work overlaps about 80%. The 20% delta is structured Q&A content, llms.txt, AI-bot allowlists in robots.txt, citation density on platforms LLMs trust, and tracking citation rate instead of keyword position. The full breakdown is at /citation-stack.
How do I verify these rankings myself?
Open each agency's site and read the AEO or AI service page, the founder or team page, the case studies, and the pricing page. Score each one against the five criteria above using the published weights. The exercise takes about 90 minutes for all eight agencies. If the math comes out differently than my ranking, email me at logansawyer108@gmail.com — disagreement is fine, and the criteria are explicit precisely so the math can be redone.
Test your own visibility before you hire anyone
The fastest way to know what an AEO agency would actually find on your site is to run the same audit they would. Silvo's free audit scores any URL across six AEO pillars and pulls a live citation snapshot from Anthropic and OpenAI in under a minute. No email required. Run it before you book a sales call with any agency on this list — the conversation is sharper when you already know your own gaps.
Then read the Citation Stack to understand the methodology Silvo runs every client through, see the published pricing, or contact me directly with corrections to this list.