Skip to audit your firm
SearchScore Benchmark · UK Accountancy Series

The Manchester accountancy AI visibility benchmark.

We audited the AI search visibility of 100 Manchester accountancy practices. Average GEO score: 46.4/100. Only one firm scored above 70. The leaders, the laggards, and the signals that separate them.

SearchScore audited 100 Manchester accountancy firms across 250+ AI visibility signals in May 2026. The average GEO score was 46.4 out of 100. Only one firm scored above 70, and the author attribution gap was the widest of any UK city benchmarked.

100
Firms audited
Manchester-based SME practices, 250+ signals each
46.4
Average GEO score
Out of 100. Most firms invisible to AI search
75.5
Top score
Held by Intertax
5/100
Firms only
with Author Person schema AI can read
No email required Same audit run on every firm in this report 850,000+ sites benchmarked

The score distribution across all 100 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 · Manchester Accountancy Practices · May 2026
Lower scores = invisible to AI search engines
Leaders (60+, top 16) Middle (38-59) Laggards (under 38)
Intertax
75.5
Warr & Co
68.8
Accountancy Net
68.6
Clear Cut Accounting
68.0
Account-i
64.1
Jack Ross
63.5
YRF Accountants
63.1
VMM Services
62.2
PVG Accounting
62.0
COPA
61.3
Firm 11 (anonymised)
61.2
Firm 12 (anonymised)
61.0
Firm 13 (anonymised)
61.0
Firm 14 (anonymised)
61.0
Firm 15 (anonymised)
60.2
Firm 16 (anonymised)
60.1
Firm 17 (anonymised)
59.2
Firm 18 (anonymised)
58.8
Firm 19 (anonymised)
58.2
Firm 20 (anonymised)
57.8
Firm 21 (anonymised)
57.4
Firm 22 (anonymised)
56.9
Firm 23 (anonymised)
56.5
Firm 24 (anonymised)
56.3
Firm 25 (anonymised)
56.3
Firm 26 (anonymised)
55.5
Firm 27 (anonymised)
55.5
Firm 28 (anonymised)
55.5
Firm 29 (anonymised)
55.4
Firm 30 (anonymised)
54.7
Firm 31 (anonymised)
53.8
Firm 32 (anonymised)
53.3
Firm 33 (anonymised)
53.3
Firm 34 (anonymised)
52.8
Firm 35 (anonymised)
52.7
Firm 36 (anonymised)
52.5
Firm 37 (anonymised)
52.3
Firm 38 (anonymised)
52.0
Firm 39 (anonymised)
50.8
Firm 40 (anonymised)
50.4
Firm 41 (anonymised)
50.2
Firm 42 (anonymised)
49.9
Firm 43 (anonymised)
49.8
Firm 44 (anonymised)
47.3
Firm 45 (anonymised)
47.2
Firm 46 (anonymised)
46.6
Firm 47 (anonymised)
45.7
Firm 48 (anonymised)
45.6
Firm 49 (anonymised)
45.4
Firm 50 (anonymised)
45.4
Firm 51 (anonymised)
45.0
Firm 52 (anonymised)
44.7
Firm 53 (anonymised)
44.3
Firm 54 (anonymised)
44.2
Firm 55 (anonymised)
44.2
Firm 56 (anonymised)
44.1
Firm 57 (anonymised)
44.0
Firm 58 (anonymised)
43.7
Firm 59 (anonymised)
43.0
Firm 60 (anonymised)
43.0
Firm 61 (anonymised)
42.8
Firm 62 (anonymised)
41.9
Firm 63 (anonymised)
41.9
Firm 64 (anonymised)
41.8
Firm 65 (anonymised)
41.8
Firm 66 (anonymised)
41.7
Firm 67 (anonymised)
41.6
Firm 68 (anonymised)
41.5
Firm 69 (anonymised)
41.0
Firm 70 (anonymised)
41.0
Firm 71 (anonymised)
40.4
Firm 72 (anonymised)
39.6
Firm 73 (anonymised)
39.5
Firm 74 (anonymised)
39.1
Firm 75 (anonymised)
38.7
Firm 76 (anonymised)
38.6
Firm 77 (anonymised)
38.6
Firm 78 (anonymised)
37.1
Firm 79 (anonymised)
36.3
Firm 80 (anonymised)
36.0
Firm 81 (anonymised)
35.4
Firm 82 (anonymised)
34.3
Firm 83 (anonymised)
33.9
Firm 84 (anonymised)
33.7
Firm 85 (anonymised)
33.0
Firm 86 (anonymised)
32.1
Firm 87 (anonymised)
32.0
Firm 88 (anonymised)
31.5
Firm 89 (anonymised)
28.9
Firm 90 (anonymised)
28.3
Firm 91 (anonymised)
27.6
Firm 92 (anonymised)
27.0
Firm 93 (anonymised)
26.9
Firm 94 (anonymised)
26.8
Firm 95 (anonymised)
26.3
Firm 96 (anonymised)
25.7
Firm 97 (anonymised)
25.6
Firm 98 (anonymised)
25.5
Firm 99 (anonymised)
23.7
Firm 100 (anonymised)
23.7
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 90 anonymised. Full methodology below.[1]

Three signals separated the leader from everyone else.

The top firm wasn't bigger, older, or spending more on marketing than the other 99. It was doing three specific things the rest weren't. The gaps are dramatic.

Signal 01 · The Author Paradox
Firms name their experts. AI can't read who they are.
72/100
Display partner names
5/100
Labelled for AI
72 Manchester firms display partner names on their sites. But a byline says "John Smith, Partner" - a human reader knows who that is. AI engines reading the same page can't tell if John is a senior chartered accountant or a junior writer, because there's no Author Person schema attached. 67 Manchester firms have named experts that are completely invisible to AI engines. The same pattern appears in Birmingham: this isn't a Manchester problem, it's a UK accountancy industry pattern.
Signal 02 · The Lone Leader
Only one Manchester firm scored above 70.
1/100
In the Strong tier
7pts
Gap to rank 2
Intertax (75.5) is the only Manchester firm clearly visible to AI search. The drop from rank 1 to rank 2 is 7 points - bigger than any other gap in the top 30. Birmingham had five firms above 70; Manchester has one. The Manchester market for AI-discoverable accountants is unusually concentrated.
Signal 03 · The LinkedIn Gap
70 firms have no LinkedIn presence at all.
70/100
No LinkedIn
30/100
Active presence
AI engines use LinkedIn presence as a credibility signal - verified partners, active engagement, recent posts. 70% of Manchester accountancy firms have voluntarily made themselves invisible to that layer of authority. Birmingham shows the same pattern (68/100). The work isn't about being active on LinkedIn - it's about existing there at all.

The 10 Manchester firms winning at this.

These 10 firms scored 61 or above 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
Intertax
The only Manchester firm in the Strong tier. Full schema stack deployed: Person, Organisation, multiple schema types, llms.txt, content hub structure. Author bios labelled with Author Person schema - one of only five firms in the entire dataset doing this correctly. intertax.co.uk →
75.5/100
2
Warr & Co
Balanced performance across all three disciplines. Small business focus translates into clean, structured services pages that AI engines can extract cleanly. warr.co.uk →
68.8/100
3
Accountancy Net
Full top-to-bottom setup: Author Person schema deployed, llms.txt file in place, multiple schema types, content hub structure. One of three firms in the entire dataset with the complete AI-readability stack. accountancynet.co.uk →
68.6/100
4
Clear Cut Accounting
Strong SEO foundation translating cleanly to AI visibility. FAQ content deployed plus llms.txt - rare combination in the dataset. Content hub structure with consistent date markup. clearcutaccounting.co.uk →
68.0/100
5
Account-i
Person schema deployed across the partner team. Author bios with Author Person schema - one of only five Manchester firms with both signals in place. account-i.co.uk →
64.1/100
6
Jack Ross
75+ years established, with the structural signals to match. Multiple schema types deployed, content hub structure, LinkedIn presence - a complete top-to-bottom setup. jackross.com →
63.5/100
7
YRF Accountants
llms.txt deployed alongside Organisation schema and content hub structure. Strong AI-readiness despite a smaller SEO score than peers. yrfaccountants.com →
63.1/100
8
VMM Services
Person schema, author bios, llms.txt, and content hub all deployed. Highest CRO score in the top 10 - AI traffic that lands on the site actually converts. vmm-services.co.uk →
62.2/100
9
PVG Accounting Services
FAQ content deployed plus multiple schema types - one of only two firms in the dataset combining both. Structured services pages with consistent date markup. pvgaccountingservices.co.uk →
62.0/100
10
COPA
The inverse pattern: weaker Google ranking, stronger AI visibility. Full AI-readiness stack - Person schema, Author Person schema, llms.txt, multiple schema types. Built for the next discovery layer before the previous one. copa.org.uk →
61.3/100
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 →

Firms with strong Google SEO but no AI visibility.

Several Manchester firms have spent years getting their Google rankings right - and they're still essentially invisible to ChatGPT and Perplexity. SEO and GEO measure different things. A high SEO score doesn't carry over.

Firm
SEO score
GEO score
Firm A (anonymised)
Strong Google ranking · clean technical SEO
68
27
Firm B (anonymised)
Strong Google ranking · established firm
64
26
Firm C (anonymised)
Strong Google ranking · active site
61
24
Firm D (anonymised)
Decent Google ranking · content marketing
59
24
Firm E (anonymised)
Decent Google ranking · YMYL credentials shown
55
24
Firm F (anonymised)
Decent Google ranking · clean site
52
24
Intertax
Same city · benchmark leader
75
76

Reading the table: 91 of 100 Manchester firms display YMYL credentials on their sites, but only 5 have the schema markup that tells AI what those credentials are. Their Google traffic is fine. But their sites don't tell AI who the partners are, what the firm specialises in, or how to extract that information cleanly. Intertax - same city, same available technology - scores high on both. The difference 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 Manchester, an SME owner is asking ChatGPT for an accountant recommendation. It's about to name three firms. Ninety-nine 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.

Only one Manchester firm - Intertax - has what AI needs in order to recommend it with confidence. The rest are missing at least one of the three signals: visible partners with proper credentials, the labels that tell AI who's who, and clear descriptions of services. Warr & Co, Accountancy Net and Clear Cut Accounting lead the chasing pack. But the gap between rank 1 and rank 2 is 7 points.

The pattern is the same in Birmingham, where the average GEO score is 47.4 - within one point of Manchester's 46.4. Five Birmingham firms cleared 70; only one Manchester firm did. AI search invisibility isn't a regional quirk. It's a UK accountancy industry pattern.

The good news: this is fixable, and quickly. The work is in the labelling, not the content. Most Manchester firms are much closer to AI visibility than they think - but the gap between "having content" and "having content AI can extract" is a structural one. 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 100 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
113 Manchester accountancy practices identified from ICAEW directories, Companies House data, and local search results. 10 firms failed to complete the audit (sites blocked automated crawling or returned errors). 3 firms excluded as part of national or international networks. 100 firms published. Sole traders and Top-50 national firms excluded.
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 100 sites audited on 16 May 2026, within an 8-hour window, 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 90 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.