Skip to audit your firm
SearchScore Benchmark · UK Accountancy Series

The Greater London accountancy AI visibility benchmark.

We audited the AI search visibility of 150+ Greater London accountancy practices. Average GEO score: 52.8/100. Only four firms reached the Strong tier. The leaders, the laggards, and the credentials gap that separates them.

SearchScore audited 150+ Greater London accountancy firms across 250+ AI visibility signals in June 2026. The average GEO score was 52.8 out of 100. Only four firms scored above 70, placing them in the Strong tier for AI search visibility.

150+
Firms audited
Greater London SME practices, 250+ signals each
52.8
Average GEO score
Out of 100. Most firms invisible to AI search
79.2
Top score
Held by Acumen Accountants
5/151
Firms only
where AI can read partner credentials
No email required Same audit run on every firm in this report 850,000+ sites benchmarked

The score distribution across all 151 firms.

Sorted by GEO Score - that is, how well each firm's site is set up to be cited by AI engines (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Google AI Overviews). Higher is better. The leaders are named; the bottom group is anonymised to spare embarrassment.

GEO Score · Greater London Accountancy Practices · June 2026
Lower scores = invisible to AI search engines
Leaders (60+, top 10) Middle (38-59) Laggards (under 38)
Acumen Accountants
79
Golden Tree Accounting
74
FZCO Accountants
71
THP Sutton
71
MJ Support & Co
69
Mint Accountax
69
Q Accountants
68
Haggards Crowther
68
Taxaccolega
68
Wellden Turnbull
68
Firm 11 (anonymised)
66
Firm 12 (anonymised)
65
Firm 13 (anonymised)
65
Firm 14 (anonymised)
65
Firm 15 (anonymised)
65
Firm 16 (anonymised)
64
Firm 17 (anonymised)
64
Firm 18 (anonymised)
64
Firm 19 (anonymised)
64
Firm 20 (anonymised)
64
Firm 21 (anonymised)
63
Firm 22 (anonymised)
63
Firm 23 (anonymised)
63
Firm 24 (anonymised)
63
Firm 25 (anonymised)
62
Firm 26 (anonymised)
62
Firm 27 (anonymised)
62
Firm 28 (anonymised)
61
Firm 29 (anonymised)
61
Firm 30 (anonymised)
61
Firm 31 (anonymised)
61
Firm 32 (anonymised)
61
Firm 33 (anonymised)
61
Firm 34 (anonymised)
60
Firm 35 (anonymised)
60
Firm 36 (anonymised)
60
Firm 37 (anonymised)
60
Firm 38 (anonymised)
60
Firm 39 (anonymised)
60
Firm 40 (anonymised)
60
Firm 41 (anonymised)
60
Firm 42 (anonymised)
60
Firm 43 (anonymised)
59
Firm 44 (anonymised)
59
Firm 45 (anonymised)
59
Firm 46 (anonymised)
59
Firm 47 (anonymised)
59
Firm 48 (anonymised)
59
Firm 49 (anonymised)
59
Firm 50 (anonymised)
58
Firm 51 (anonymised)
58
Firm 52 (anonymised)
58
Firm 53 (anonymised)
58
Firm 54 (anonymised)
58
Firm 55 (anonymised)
58
Firm 56 (anonymised)
58
Firm 57 (anonymised)
57
Firm 58 (anonymised)
57
Firm 59 (anonymised)
57
Firm 60 (anonymised)
57
Firm 61 (anonymised)
57
Firm 62 (anonymised)
57
Firm 63 (anonymised)
57
Firm 64 (anonymised)
56
Firm 65 (anonymised)
56
Firm 66 (anonymised)
56
Firm 67 (anonymised)
56
Firm 68 (anonymised)
56
Firm 69 (anonymised)
56
Firm 70 (anonymised)
56
Firm 71 (anonymised)
56
Firm 72 (anonymised)
56
Firm 73 (anonymised)
55
Firm 74 (anonymised)
55
Firm 75 (anonymised)
55
Firm 76 (anonymised)
55
Firm 77 (anonymised)
55
Firm 78 (anonymised)
54
Firm 79 (anonymised)
54
Firm 80 (anonymised)
54
Firm 81 (anonymised)
54
Firm 82 (anonymised)
53
Firm 83 (anonymised)
53
Firm 84 (anonymised)
53
Firm 85 (anonymised)
53
Firm 86 (anonymised)
53
Firm 87 (anonymised)
52
Firm 88 (anonymised)
52
Firm 89 (anonymised)
52
Firm 90 (anonymised)
52
Firm 91 (anonymised)
52
Firm 92 (anonymised)
51
Firm 93 (anonymised)
51
Firm 94 (anonymised)
51
Firm 95 (anonymised)
51
Firm 96 (anonymised)
51
Firm 97 (anonymised)
50
Firm 98 (anonymised)
50
Firm 99 (anonymised)
50
Firm 100 (anonymised)
50
Firm 101 (anonymised)
50
Firm 102 (anonymised)
49
Firm 103 (anonymised)
49
Firm 104 (anonymised)
49
Firm 105 (anonymised)
49
Firm 106 (anonymised)
48
Firm 107 (anonymised)
48
Firm 108 (anonymised)
48
Firm 109 (anonymised)
47
Firm 110 (anonymised)
47
Firm 111 (anonymised)
46
Firm 112 (anonymised)
46
Firm 113 (anonymised)
46
Firm 114 (anonymised)
46
Firm 115 (anonymised)
45
Firm 116 (anonymised)
44
Firm 117 (anonymised)
44
Firm 118 (anonymised)
44
Firm 119 (anonymised)
44
Firm 120 (anonymised)
43
Firm 121 (anonymised)
43
Firm 122 (anonymised)
43
Firm 123 (anonymised)
42
Firm 124 (anonymised)
42
Firm 125 (anonymised)
41
Firm 126 (anonymised)
41
Firm 127 (anonymised)
40
Firm 128 (anonymised)
40
Firm 129 (anonymised)
40
Firm 130 (anonymised)
40
Firm 131 (anonymised)
40
Firm 132 (anonymised)
39
Firm 133 (anonymised)
39
Firm 134 (anonymised)
38
Firm 135 (anonymised)
38
Firm 136 (anonymised)
38
Firm 137 (anonymised)
38
Firm 138 (anonymised)
36
Firm 139 (anonymised)
36
Firm 140 (anonymised)
36
Firm 141 (anonymised)
36
Firm 142 (anonymised)
35
Firm 143 (anonymised)
35
Firm 144 (anonymised)
34
Firm 145 (anonymised)
34
Firm 146 (anonymised)
34
Firm 147 (anonymised)
33
Firm 148 (anonymised)
32
Firm 149 (anonymised)
30
Firm 150 (anonymised)
26
Firm 151 (anonymised)
24
Scores are out of 100. We measure 250+ signals across nine areas - including whether AI engines can read the site at all, whether the partners are visible to AI, whether services are clearly described, and how well the site loads. Top 10 named; all 10 were notified prior to publication. Remaining 141 anonymised. Full methodology below.[1]

Three signals separated the leaders from everyone else.

The top 10 firms weren't bigger, older, or spending more on marketing than the other 141. They were doing three specific things the rest weren't. The gaps are dramatic.

Signal 01 · The author paradox
128 firms credit experts. Only 5 label those credentials for AI.
5/10
Leaders did
5/141
Others did
A byline says "John Smith, Partner." A human reader knows who wrote what. But AI engines reading the same page can't tell if John is a senior chartered accountant, a junior writer, or a client quoted in a testimonial - because there's no Author Person schema attached. 123 Greater London firms display partner names. AI doesn't know who any of them are. The same pattern appears across all three UK cities we've benchmarked.
Signal 02 · The concentrated top
Only four firms reached the Strong tier. Birmingham had five.
4
London firms 61+
5
Birmingham firms 61+
Greater London is roughly five times larger than Birmingham or Manchester by accountancy practice count. Yet it has fewer top-tier AI-visible firms than Birmingham. The market is bigger; the ceiling is the same. The structural barrier to AI visibility isn't competition or budget - it's specific technical work most firms haven't done.
Signal 03 · The LinkedIn effect
London firms are 2x more likely to be on LinkedIn. It doesn't move the score.
59%
London on LinkedIn
32%
Birmingham on LinkedIn
Roughly 59% of Greater London firms have an active LinkedIn presence - about twice the rate of Birmingham (32%) and Manchester (30%). London is more digitally established in general. But the average GEO score is only 6 points higher. The LinkedIn signal is the floor, not the ceiling. What separates leaders is the next layer of structural signals AI engines need.

The 10 Greater London firms winning at this.

These 10 firms scored highest on GEO. The top 5 are detailed below; ranks 6-10 are listed beneath. All 10 had what AI engines need to be confident recommending them - named partners, labelled credentials, and clean structured information.

1
Acumen Accountants & Tax Advisers
Highest score in the entire three-city dataset. Balanced strength across GEO (79.2), SEO (77) and CRO (75). Strong author credentials stack, llms.txt deployed, multiple schema types. A complete top-to-bottom AI-readability setup. acumenagc.com →
79/100
2
Golden Tree Accounting & Business Consulting
All three scores in the Strong tier - GEO 74.5, SEO 73, CRO 75. Structured services pages, FAQ content deployed, llms.txt in place, named partner credentials properly labelled. goldentreeconsulting.co.uk →
74/100
3
FZCO Accountants
Rainham-based firm punching well above its profile. GEO 71.3, SEO 73, CRO 63. Strong technical foundations: Article schema, FAQ schema, llms.txt all deployed. Demonstrates that location and size don't determine AI visibility. fzcoltd.com →
71/100
4
THP Sutton Accountants
Surrey-based multi-office firm with strong London catchment. GEO 70.6, SEO 69, CRO 71. Mature website: comprehensive schema deployment, named partners with biographies, LinkedIn presence, content hub structure. thp.co.uk →
71/100
5
MJ Support & Co Certified Accountants
GEO 69.0, SEO 70, CRO 67. Author biographies with credentials visible to AI - one of only five firms in the entire Greater London dataset with this in place. Multiple schema types deployed. mjsupport.co.uk →
69/100
6
Mint Accountax
All three scores in the high 60s/low 70s. FAQ schema, Article schema, LinkedIn presence, llms.txt all deployed. mintaccountax.co.uk →
69/100
7
Q Accountants
Strong AI readability despite slightly weaker SEO base. Author biographies with credentials, Organisation schema, LinkedIn presence. qaccountants.com →
68/100
8
Haggards Crowther
Established Parsons Green firm with strong content infrastructure. Author bylines and biographies in place, Article schema deployed, content hub structure. haggards.co.uk →
68/100
9
Taxaccolega Chartered Accountants
CRO score of 76 - highest in the top 10. AI-driven traffic that lands on the site converts. Strong SEO foundation translating into AI visibility. taxaccolega.co.uk →
68/100
10
Wellden Turnbull Accountants London
Balanced performance across all three disciplines. Author Authority (E-E-A-T) deployed correctly, FAQ schema in place, content hub structure with consistent date markup. wtca.co.uk →
68/100
Want to see where your firm sits on this chart?

Run the same audit on your own site. 60 seconds, free, no email required. You'll get GEO, SEO and CRO scores plus a list of what's actually broken.

Get my free scores →

London firms have done the basics. The credentials layer is missing.

Compared to Birmingham and Manchester, London firms are markedly better at the foundational signals - About pages, organisation schema, LinkedIn presence, llms.txt deployment. But the credentials layer - the one AI engines need to verify expertise in regulated industries like accountancy - is just as missing.

Signal
Foundational
Credentials
Author byline (named partner)
Partner name visible on the site
128/151
5/151
Author biography (AI-readable)
Labelled with Person schema for AI extraction
112/151
5/151
About page present
Firm has a dedicated about or team page
112/151
-
LinkedIn presence
Active company page or partner profiles
90/151
-
Organisation schema
Structured data labelling the firm entity
79/151
-
Article / BlogPosting schema
Content labelled for AI extraction
-
11/151
FAQPage schema
Q&A content structured for AI citations
-
13/151
llms.txt deployed
Guide telling AI engines which content to read first
43/151
-
Q&A schema
Specific question/answer markup
-
0/151
Acumen Accountants (benchmark leader)
Same city · same available technology · full stack deployed
Yes
Yes

Reading the table: London firms aren't behind on the basics. They're behind on the labelling that AI engines use to verify who is qualified to give financial advice. 128 firms name their partners. Only 5 have labelled those credentials so AI can read them. Zero firms in the dataset have Q&A schema deployed. The difference between Acumen Accountants at 79.2 and everyone else isn't size or budget. It's whether the technical foundations for AI search have been built.

Your next client is already asking AI.

Right now, somewhere in Greater London, an SME founder is asking ChatGPT for an accountant recommendation. It's about to name three firms. 141 of the firms in this benchmark won't be one of them.

Forty-seven percent of professional services queries on Google now return AI Overviews above the traditional search results.[2] The first thing prospects see is no longer a list of links - it's an AI's summary, naming a few firms it considers credible.

The firms with high GEO scores have what AI needs in order to recommend them - visible partners with proper credentials, the labels that tell AI who's who, and clear descriptions of their services. Acumen Accountants, Golden Tree Accounting and FZCO Accountants lead the dataset. The other 141 firms are missing at least one of those - even the ones with strong Google rankings and decades of trading.

Word-of-mouth is also affected. A client who's been referred to a firm by a friend will often check with AI before calling. If AI can't find the firm or describe what it does, that referral converts less reliably than it used to. You'll never see this loss in Google Analytics. There's no dashboard for the calls that didn't come.

The good news: this is fixable, and quickly. The signals separating leaders from laggards are technical website changes, not authority or reputation work. A well-resourced firm can close the gap in 4-6 weeks. Most firms don't know there's a gap to close.

"73% of B2B buyers now use AI during their research stage before making contact."
Forrester B2B Buying Survey, 2025
Cross-industry · UK + US respondents

How we measured every firm.

Each of the 151 firms received the same audit, on the same day, with no manual intervention. The methodology is open - you can run the same audit on your own site for free.

Selection
233 Greater London accountancy practices identified from Google Places listings, ICAEW directories and local search results. 78 firms returned incomplete audits (bot protection, site availability, timeouts). 4 firms excluded as national networks or duplicates. 151 firms published.
What was measured
250+ signals across three disciplines - GEO (AI search readiness), SEO (traditional search), CRO (conversion). Each score on a 0-100 percentage scale.
When
All sites audited in June 2026, using the same automated audit pipeline available at searchscore.io.
AI search readiness scoring
250+ signals across 9 areas - including whether AI crawlers can access the site, whether each piece of information has a label that tells AI what it represents (a system called schema markup: partner bios labelled as people, services labelled as services, FAQs labelled as questions and answers), whether the site loads cleanly, and whether content is structured for AI extraction. Combined into a single GEO Score showing how ready a site is to be cited by AI.
Naming protocol
Top 10 firms named; all 10 were notified prior to publication. Remaining 141 firms anonymised. We do not publish individual scores below the top 10.
Reproducibility
Anyone can run the same audit on any URL at searchscore.io. Free, no email required, results in 60 seconds.

Footnotes

  1. Full signal weighting documented in the SearchScore methodology page at searchscore.io/methodology. Public, versioned, reproducible.
  2. Forrester B2B Buying Survey 2025; cross-industry, UK + US respondents (n=2,341).
RH
Ronnie Huss
Founder, SearchScore · London, UK
Builds AI search visibility tools and works with UK SMEs on getting found by ChatGPT, Perplexity and Google AI. Publishes the quarterly SAVI Report and a series of city-level benchmarks for professional services. LinkedIn · X / Twitter · [email protected]

Where does your firm sit on this chart?

Run the same audit we ran on every firm in this benchmark. 60 seconds, no email needed. You'll get all three scores - GEO, SEO, CRO - and a specific list of what's broken on your site.

Check your firm's score →

If your scores need work and you'd rather we fix it for you: we have a small founding programme for accountancy practices at a founding discount, in exchange for becoming a published case study. Five spots only.