Most rankings of SaaS link building experts are the same recycled paragraphs in a different order. This one publishes the agencies' own numbers instead: real Domain Rating, real organic traffic, real pricing where it exists, and an honest blank where it does not.
Every colour on this page is a Domain Rating. Card edges, dots and sparklines all read from this scale.
Ranks 1–4 · the full field is below, sortable
SEO & Lead Generation for SaaS Brands
Placed at #1 by the publisher. On score alone it ranks #11.
The Link Building Agency Companies Hire When ROI is Priority #1
Results-Driven Digital PR & Link Building Services
Placed at #3 by the publisher. On score alone it ranks #24.
High Authority Backlinks, Optimized Content, and SEO
Entry price per link × Domain Rating
Twelve agencies publish enough to place on this chart. Thirteen publish nothing at all — they are stacked in the left rail, at their real authority. Note where they sit: withholding pricing is not a budget signal.
Hollow rings are derived prices, not published ones — a monthly package divided by the links it includes. Rock the Rankings is shown separately because its retainer bundles strategy and content, so dividing it would not produce a link price.
All 26 · sort any column · sorting by score is how you audit the pins
| 12-mo | Shortlist | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Inbound Blogging | 50.6 | 64 | 542 | Not published | 70+ | ||
| 2 | uSERP | 73.6 | 75 | 5,174 | $5,500/mo | 20+ | ||
| 3 | SerpsGrowth | 32.0 | 48 | 452 | Not published | 10+ | ||
| 4 | The HOTH | 71.0 | 75 | 56,901 | $175/link | 20+ | ||
| 5 | LinkBuilder | 69.7 | 68 | 33,407 | $2,999/mo | 50+ | ||
| 6 | Vazoola | 64.8 | 62 | 4,202 | $50/link | 20+ | ||
| 7 | Stan Ventures | 64.6 | 73 | 8,507 | $37/link | 30+ | ||
| 8 | Loganix | 61.7 | 74 | 34,487 | $99/link | — | ||
| 9 | Outreach Monks | 60.4 | 74 | 454 | $99/link | 20+ | ||
| 10 | Fatjoe | 60.3 | 72 | 20,698 | $83/link | 10+ | ||
| 11 | Siege Media | 59.5 | 79 | 41,493 | Not published | — | ||
| 12 | Page One Power | 53.8 | 66 | 11,132 | Not published | — | ||
| 13 | Stellar SEO | 50.3 | 63 | 233 | $2,500/mo | 30+ | ||
| 14 | Rock the Rankings | 49.8 | 52 | 550 | $4,500/mo | 50+ | ||
| 15 | Click Intelligence | 48.5 | 61 | 3,544 | Not published | — | ||
| 16 | Powered by Search | 48.3 | 71 | 3,248 | Not published | — | ||
| 17 | Outreach Labs | 47.8 | 44 | 1,365 | $850/mo | — | ||
| 18 | RhinoRank | 45.8 | 49 | 19,438 | $60/link | — | ||
| 19 | Sure Oak | 44.3 | 70 | 8,716 | Not published | — | ||
| 20 | Digital Gratified | 43.9 | 57 | 20 | Not published | 50+ | ||
| 21 | Smash Digital | 40.4 | 56 | 471 | Not published | 68+ | ||
| 22 | LinksThatRank | 39.7 | 47 | 563 | $697/mo | 20+ | ||
| 23 | LinkDoctor | 33.7 | 58 | 1,425 | Not published | — | ||
| 24 | Growfusely | 33.4 | 56 | 1,339 | Not published | — | ||
| 25 | Green Flag Digital | 21.9 | 44 | 2,466 | Not published | — | ||
| 26 | Digital Olympus | 13.9 | 62 | 1 | Not published | — |
Same data, different filters and weights
An agency that sells authority ought to have some. It is the least generous test available, and it is striking how many struggle with it. Across the 26 agencies tracked here the median Domain Rating is 63, which is respectable. Their own organic traffic is another matter: 17 of 26 lost search traffic over the last twelve months, and the median change was -50%.
That is not automatically disqualifying. An agency can be excellent at client work while neglecting its own blog, and several here are demonstrably both. But it reframes the sales call. When someone tells you they can grow your search visibility, it is fair to ask what happened to theirs, and fairer still to ask before you have spent an hour on a call.
Published per-link prices in this set run from $37 to $528, and monthly packages from $697 to $19,999. The tiers are real and they mean fairly consistent things.
Below $100 a link you are buying placement volume on sites with modest authority, usually through an established publisher network rather than fresh outreach. It works for building a baseline and it is where most white-label fulfilment sits. Between $100 and $250 you are paying for a higher authority floor and content someone actually edited. Between $250 and $400, which is where most retainers land once you divide the monthly fee by the links it includes, you are buying genuine outreach and a named person who answers email. Above $600 a link you are buying editorial placements on sites with real editors, and the cost is mostly the pitching, not the publishing.
The one thing worth internalising: within this dataset there is no reliable relationship between what an agency charges and how much authority it has itself. The cheapest published price in the set belongs to an agency with a Domain Rating of 73. Price signals positioning, not quality.
A quality floor stated in a metric the agency picked. Some publish a floor in Ahrefs DR, some in Moz DA, one in the publisher's referring-domain count. These are not interchangeable, and a floor is only meaningful once you know which scale it is on. 14 of 26 agencies publish a floor at all.
A guarantee that expires at publication. At least one agency here states plainly that metrics are validated only at the moment the link goes live, with no lifespan guarantee and replacements billed as new orders. That is a legitimate way to run a business and it is admirably clear, but it is the opposite of what most buyers assume a guarantee means.
Pricing that only exists after a call. 13 of 26 agencies publish nothing. Sometimes that reflects genuinely bespoke work. Sometimes it means the price depends on what you look like you can pay.
Client logos that are actually publications. More than one agency in this set displays CNN, Forbes and the BBC on its homepage. Those are places they have placed links, not companies that have hired them. Read the heading above the logo wall.
Reporting you cannot audit. Ask whether you will receive live URLs, and whether the agency re-checks the metrics it sold you against after placement. Most do not.
Which metric is your quality floor measured in, and what happens if a placement lands below it? What is your replacement policy after the link goes live, in months? Can you show me three live URLs from the last quarter in a vertical like mine? And what has your own organic traffic done this year?
The last one is not a gotcha. Everyone in this market had a difficult year, and an agency that answers it straight is telling you something useful about how it will report on yours.
Published prices in this dataset run from $37 to $528 per link, and monthly packages from $697 to $19,999. For most B2B SaaS companies a serious programme lands between $2,500 and $10,000 a month. Anything materially cheaper is usually buying volume rather than authority, and that is a legitimate choice as long as you are making it deliberately.
13 of the 26 agencies here publish no pricing at all. The honest reason is that outreach cost varies enormously by vertical — a fintech placement is genuinely harder to earn than a general-marketing one. The less honest reason is that a quoted price can be set after the agency has seen your funding round. You cannot tell which you are dealing with from the outside, which is why the ranking scores transparency separately rather than treating it as a proxy for quality.
As a filter, yes. As a target, no. DR is a reasonable proxy for whether a site has a link profile at all, and a terrible proxy for whether a link from it will move your rankings. It is used here because it is the one metric every agency in the set can be measured on identically, and because an agency selling authority should be willing to be measured on its own.
A per-link price is a product: you order a placement at a stated authority tier and pay for it. A retainer buys a programme — strategy, content, outreach and links together — and usually a named person. Dividing a retainer by its link count gives you a comparison figure, but not a link price, because you are also paying for the work around the links. Where that division is shown on this site it is labelled as derived.
By a published formula, not an opinion. Seven weighted criteria — own authority, own traffic and its trend, pricing transparency, published quality floor, service depth, named client evidence and longevity — computed from the dataset by a script. The weights live in a file that the methodology page renders directly, so what you read there is what the ranking actually ran on.
It affects their position, and it is disclosed everywhere. Inbound Blogging is pinned at #1 and SerpsGrowth at #3. Both are scored on exactly the same criteria as everyone else and both scores are shown unaltered, including where they sit well below agencies ranked beneath them. The scores are the honest number; the positions are editorial. Sorting the table by score shows you the difference immediately, which is the point of publishing it.
Two of the 28 domains no longer serve an agency site. One presents a TLS certificate for an unrelated domain; the other redirects to a personal LinkedIn profile. Both are listed with their reason rather than quietly dropped. A third was removed from scope because link building is not among the services it names on its own site.
The dataset rebuilds from one script. Ahrefs metrics refresh against the live API; pricing and business facts are re-read from each agency's own site, because a fetch loop cannot honestly interpret a pricing page. Every figure carries the date it was checked, and the date is shown rather than buried.
Every number here traces back to a source and a date. If you want to see how the ranking is computed rather than take it on trust, the weights that produce these positions are published in full on the methodology page — which is the least any list of SaaS link building experts should be willing to show you.