Choosing an SEO Partner
How to Compare SEO Proposals
The short answer
Compare SEO proposals by putting the scope, responsibilities and price on the same basis. The lowest fee is not always the lowest total cost, and the longest deliverables list is not necessarily the best plan.
On this page
Put proposals on the same scope
Copy the actual answers from each proposal into one sheet. Mark unanswered items as “unknown.” Do not interpret a broad term such as optimization as permission to assume implementation.
| Comparison field | What both proposals must identify |
|---|---|
| Business objective | The buyer and useful action the work supports |
| Website and markets | Sites, sections, languages and markets included |
| Page work | New pages, existing-page changes and selection method |
| Execution | Recommendations, production, publishing, development and verification |
| Content unit | Research, writing, factual review, editing and acceptance |
| Links | Counting unit, proposed methods, evidence and risks |
| Reporting | Work records, measures, comparison periods and decisions |
| Dependencies | Client information, approvals, access and third-party work |
| Commitment | Total fee, billing, term, change process and exit questions |
For SEO and SEM or Google Ads proposals, add separate rows for media spend, management fees, SEO production, developer implementation, account access, landing-page responsibility and conversion measurement. Record who approves spending and who supplies the facts. A shared lead-generation objective does not make advertising clicks and SEO deliverables comparable units. Also record timing assumptions without turning them into guaranteed lead dates.
Read the units behind the headline
Two quantities can look comparable while counting different things. Ten finished pages are not the same as ten briefs your team still has to write. A hundred links in a report do not necessarily come from a hundred domains. An audit with fifty findings is not evidence that fifty fixes will be made.
Ask what constitutes one accepted unit and what remains after delivery. In Stormy Increment’s annual plan, article and link figures are annual ceilings. They are not a recommendation to produce every possible unit, nor a statement that each link comes from a different website.
A worked comparison with missing information
The following figures are fictional and show a comparison method, not supplier prices or client work. Both proposals address the same small set of priority pages.
| Cost or responsibility | Proposal A: advice | Proposal B: specified implementation |
|---|---|---|
| Provider fee | US$1,200 | US$2,000 |
| Output | Recommendations and briefs | Recommendations plus agreed CMS edits |
| Client editing/development | Estimated internal cost US$900 | Estimated internal cost US$200 |
| Expert review | Estimated internal cost US$200 | Estimated internal cost US$200 |
| Comparable known cost | US$2,300 | US$2,400 |
| Unresolved question | Can the internal developer complete the work? | Does the price include changes to a shared template? |
A is not automatically better because the total is slightly lower. If the developer has no capacity, its output may remain unused. B is not automatically better because it includes implementation. If a required template change is excluded, additional work may change the comparison. Taxes, currency changes and other costs are excluded from this fictional illustration; they belong in a real budget where relevant.
Test evidence, access and risk
Three questions expose common ambiguities:
- Show one deliverable we could accept. A permitted sample should make its purpose, source facts and completion checks understandable. A dashboard screenshot alone does not show the work.
- Explain the proposed method. A vague authority-building label leaves unanswered where links may appear, how they are obtained and what risk you accept.
- Identify control and approval. Ask which account is used, what permission is required, who authorizes live changes and how access ends.
Also distinguish evidence of a reported outcome from evidence that the provider caused it. Google’s buyer guidance supports investigating recommendations rather than accepting a ranking guarantee. Contract wording, renewal and remedies need separate review; this comparison sheet is not legal advice.
Compare the whole cost of delivery
For each cost, record included, separately paid or unknown. Include the provider fee, development, product-expert review, content assets, software, advertising media, third-party charges and internal coordination. Record delays as dependencies and business risks rather than inventing a financial penalty.
For a combined campaign, keep the advertising media budget separate from the fee for managing it. For an annual SEO plan, keep the full annual price separate from its payment schedule. Dividing a yearly figure by twelve can help budgeting; it does not create a monthly contract.
Write down the decision and open questions
| Decision note | Illustrative completed entry |
|---|---|
| Priority task | Clarify suitability on the three pages sales uses most |
| Evidence reviewed | One relevant brief and an implementation handoff |
| Preferred scope | Advice with client implementation, if capacity is confirmed |
| Cost basis | Provider fee plus client implementation and expert review |
| Open question | Developer availability and shared-template work |
| Decision | Clarify before signing; do not treat the unknown as included |
Use the contract checklist to resolve the remaining commercial terms. If you have not yet established candidate fit, return to choosing an SEO agency. A proposal should make the purchase more understandable, not require you to guess what will happen.
For the wider selection process, use our guide to choosing an SEO agency.
Considering outside support? SEO Services for Companies Worldwide explains the available scope and its limits.
Need help with your next step?
Tell us about your website and the question you are trying to work through.