This page contains no traffic percentages, no aggregate multiples, and no case study screenshots. It contains things a stranger can verify without asking us for anything, which is a narrower claim and a more useful one.
Open the client sites. Search the terms. Read the pricing. Client domains are published in full.
Orange County buyers compare on presentation and reputation, and they notice when a site looks dated. That shapes what a Irvine SEO program prioritizes first.
Send the form and a human reviews your site, not a script. You get a prioritized SEO report within 48 hours naming the highest impact fixes, whether you hire us or not.
An earlier version of this page claimed that Portland Peak SEO had helped twenty plus businesses achieve number one rankings with an average traffic increase of three hundred and twelve percent.
Neither figure was verifiable by anyone reading it, and the client count did not match the actual roster. Both have been removed. This is disclosed rather than quietly corrected because the site's entire argument is that a buyer should be able to check what they are told.
The same review removed a fabricated income statistic that appeared on forty five city pages, several statistics attributed to sources that could not be located, and a claim of seventeen years of experience that belonged to a sister company rather than to this agency. All of it is described in the AI Search Statistics Audit.
An agency that publishes unverifiable numbers before you hire it will publish unverifiable numbers after. The reporting you receive tends to look exactly like the case studies you were sold with.
Five things, all confirmable without contacting us. That is the whole evidence standard, and it is deliberately smaller than a page of percentages would be.
| Claim type | How to verify | Time needed |
|---|---|---|
| Client work exists | Open the domains on the clients page | Thirty seconds each |
| A ranking position | Search the named term yourself | Ten seconds |
| Pricing | Read the pricing page, no form required | One minute |
| Site speed | Load a client site on your phone on cellular | Ten seconds |
| Who does the work | Ask, and ask again during delivery | One question |
No aggregate traffic figure. Any single number covering multiple clients across different industries and starting positions describes none of them accurately.
No client count used as a credential. The domains are published instead, which is a stronger claim because it can be checked and a count cannot.
No average result, no typical outcome, and no revenue attribution. Attribution in search is genuinely contested, and a firm claiming credit for a revenue figure is claiming credit for the market, the sales team, and the product alongside its own work.
No guarantee. Nobody controls a search engine, and a guarantee is an exclusion list the buyer has not read yet.
A baseline is recorded before any work ships, covering the terms and markets that matter to the client. It is the single document that turns every later claim from an assertion into something checkable, and it is written before anybody knows how the engagement will go.
Reporting then reads against that baseline every month rather than against the previous report. Position movement, what shipped, what did not, and what changes next. Flat months are published as flat months.
For AI search, the method is a fixed panel of buyer questions rather than spot checks, because the same question asked twice can return different sources. Fixed questions cannot be quietly swapped for easier ones, and the client can rerun the panel themselves.
None of that produces an impressive number for a marketing page, which is rather the point.
Does the agency rank for what it sells, in the market it claims. Their own site is the one project with unlimited creative control and every incentive to excel.
Is pricing published, or does a number only arrive after a call. Hidden pricing is a negotiation structure rather than a complexity problem.
Are clients linked live or shown as images. Screenshots prove ownership of a screenshot tool.
And will they record your baseline before starting. An agency that documents where you began has made every later claim checkable. One that never records a baseline can report anything, because there is nothing to check it against.
Run all four on us first. If we fail one, that is more useful to you than this page is.
A results page is the single easiest place on an agency site to mislead, because the reader has no access to any of the underlying data. Baselines are invisible, timeframes are selectable, and the best quarter of the best client can stand in for typical performance without anybody technically lying.
The standard devices are worth naming. An aggregate percentage across clients with different starting positions describes none of them. A case study without a start date and an end date can cover any window that flatters. A screenshot proves that a screenshot was taken.
None of those are illegal and most are not even deliberate. They are simply what happens when a page is written to persuade rather than to be checked.
The alternative costs something. It means publishing fewer claims, all of them smaller, and accepting that a page of verifiable facts reads less impressively than a page of percentages. That trade is the point.
A written report rather than a dashboard link. Position movement against the baseline, what shipped, what did not, and what changes next.
The artifacts themselves. Pages that exist and can be opened, technical fixes logged, entity corrections made, and links earned with sources named. Work that produces no artifact is difficult to distinguish from work that did not happen.
And the baseline alongside it every time, so the comparison runs against a document recorded before anyone had an incentive to exaggerate rather than against last month's version of the same report.
Clients get tracking access on request. It is not published here because a live search is a stronger proof than any screenshot, and it is available to anyone reading this page rather than only to us.
There is a single figure on this site that is safe to publish, and it is not a result. It is the price, because a price is checkable, fixed, and identical for every reader.
Everything else that gets published as a number in this industry, traffic multiples, ranking counts, revenue attribution, client totals, shares that quality by definition rather than by measurement. They vary by client, by window, and by how they were counted.
So the numbers here are prices and the evidence here is links. Monthly tiers at $199, $950, and $2,500, builds at $2,200, $5,500, and $8,500, and a client page listing every domain publicly.
That is a smaller claim than most agency results pages make. It is also one you can finish verifying in about two minutes.
Ask for a reference and we will ask the client. Nobody on the roster is obliged to take a call, and we do not publish contact details or imply endorsement that has not been offered.
Ask for tracking access and current clients get it. Prospective clients get the free audit instead, which documents your own baseline rather than showing you somebody else's.
Ask what we have failed at. Every practice has engagements that underperformed, and an agency that cannot name one has either not been running long or is not being straight with you.
And if any claim on this site turns out to be wrong, tell us. It gets corrected with the same prominence as the original, which is the standard we ask buyers to hold everyone to.
Live client sites you can open, and rankings you can verify by searching the terms yourself. What you will not find here is an aggregate traffic percentage, because a number like that cannot be checked by a stranger and an unverifiable number is decoration rather than evidence.
Because they are the currency of agency case studies and almost none of them can be verified by the person reading them. The reader has no access to the baseline, no way to separate the work from the market, and no way to confirm the number was not selected from a good quarter. We removed ours.
The client page lists every domain publicly rather than a count. Open them and judge for yourself. An earlier version of this page claimed twenty plus businesses ranked number one, which did not match the actual roster, and that claim has been removed.
Search the term. That is the entire method and it takes seconds. Any ranking claim on this site names the term and the market so it can be checked, and rankings move, so treat any single check as a snapshot rather than a permanent state.
Yes, and tracking is shown to clients rather than published as screenshots here. A screenshot proves ownership of a screenshot tool. A live search proves a position, which is why the verification method suggested on this page is the one you can run yourself.
It depends on competitive field and starting position, and any specific promise is a guess dressed as a commitment. The consistent shape is technical and local movement first, competitive terms later, compounding after that. The baseline recorded in month one is what makes progress judgeable against reality.
No, and neither can anyone. Nobody controls a search engine. What is committed to is the work, a documented baseline, and reporting that publishes flat months alongside good ones. Any firm guaranteeing a position should be asked for its failure clause in writing.
You should not have to. Every claim here is written so a stranger can check it without asking us for anything: live client domains, terms named so they can be searched, and pricing published in full. That is a deliberately lower ceiling on persuasion and a deliberately higher floor on honesty.
Tell us and it gets corrected with the same prominence as the original. That is the standard we ask buyers to hold every agency to, so it applies here first. Contact details are on this page and every other.
On the pricing page, which carries every figure Portland Peak SEO charges: $199, $950, and $2,500 monthly, and one time builds at $2,200, $5,500, and $8,500. Nothing on this page restates them, so the two can never disagree.