> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.reputation-insider.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Reputation X review - URL: https://www.reputation-insider.com/reputation-x-review-2026/ - Published: 2026-09-09T06:23:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-09-20T06:24:36.000Z - Description: The agency gives buyers relatively clear service costs, while its public records, client evidence and contractual detail still require closer review. - Author: Marielle Vast - Tags: Vendors, #hide-recent, Agencies, Reputation management Agency review # Reputation X review Reputation X is a long-running U.S. reputation-management firm with a current service mix spanning search-result repair, Wikipedia work, review management, Knowledge Panels and AI-output correction. Its pricing is more public than many agency peers, while several company-profile claims and buyer protections still need clarification. Reviewed September 2026 Current company record ## The firm's own 2026 fact sheet now places the business in Austin Founded2005 Legal nameObtainium Ventures LLC HeadquartersAustin, Texas Team size10–50, company-reported Sources: [Reputation X About and fact sheet](https://www.reputationx.com/about?ref=reputation-insider.com); external history cross-checked against [BBB](https://www.bbb.org/us/ca/mill-valley/profile/internet-marketing-services/reputation-x-1116-528474?ref=reputation-insider.com) and [Clutch](https://clutch.co/profile/reputation-x?ref=reputation-insider.com). Public-record reconciliation ## Several current disclosures do not match older third-party profiles or other pages on the site The differences do not by themselves indicate a problem, but they affect basic procurement checks and should be resolved in the proposal or contract. **Headquarters** **The company now says Austin; BBB and Clutch still show Mill Valley** The current [company fact sheet](https://www.reputationx.com/about?ref=reputation-insider.com) lists Austin, Texas as headquarters and says offices are in the United States only. [BBB](https://www.bbb.org/us/ca/mill-valley/profile/internet-marketing-services/reputation-x-1116-528474?ref=reputation-insider.com) and [Clutch](https://clutch.co/profile/reputation-x?ref=reputation-insider.com) still list the Mill Valley, California address. **Country coverage** **100+ countries is the current fact-sheet figure, while a testimonial page still shows 20+** The [About page](https://www.reputationx.com/about?ref=reputation-insider.com) says work has been delivered in more than 100 countries and 25 languages through translation partners. The [testimonials page](https://www.reputationx.com/testimonials?ref=reputation-insider.com) also says more than 100 countries in its body copy, but one metric on that same page reads 20+ countries served. **BBB status** **An ethics page says the company maintains BBB accreditation; BBB currently says it is not accredited** Reputation X's [ethics page](https://www.reputationx.com/about/ethics?ref=reputation-insider.com) states that it maintains BBB accreditation. The current [BBB profile](https://www.bbb.org/us/ca/mill-valley/profile/internet-marketing-services/reputation-x-1116-528474?ref=reputation-insider.com) gives the business an A+ rating while explicitly stating that Reputation X is not BBB Accredited. Current service model ## The offer now reaches beyond conventional search suppression Search-result repair remains central, but the current catalog places substantial emphasis on Wikipedia, entity information and AI-output correction. Search reputation ### Suppression, content development and removal coordination remain the core ORM work The current [pricing page](https://www.reputationx.com/pricing?ref=reputation-insider.com) separates starter, professional and enterprise search-repair campaigns according to the number and strength of negative results and the required international or legal coordination. Wikipedia ### Editing, article creation and ongoing monitoring are sold as distinct services The agency markets research, sourcing, peer review and work through independent editors rather than presenting Wikipedia as a simple content-placement product. Entity data ### Knowledge Panels and WikiData are treated as separate reputation infrastructure Current packages cover optimization, new panel creation and ongoing maintenance, with structured data and entity association included in the workflow. AI outputs ### AI audits and source-level correction are now a formal service line The [AI misinformation service](https://www.reputationx.com/services/improve/ai-misinformation?ref=reputation-insider.com) maps cited sources, checks entity records and retests outputs across major answer engines. The page also states that the agency cannot directly edit a model or guarantee exact wording. Reviews ### Review monitoring and response sit alongside broader reputation campaigns The [review service](https://www.reputationx.com/services/improve/reviews?ref=reputation-insider.com) covers monitoring, response and compliant review-request programs across major platforms. Wikipedia delivery model ## Wikipedia is unusually prominent in the agency's current product mix This part of the offer is more specific than the generic “Wikipedia editing” language used by many reputation firms, although buyers still depend on Wikipedia's volunteer processes. ### The agency says it does not employ Wikipedia editors directly Its [current Wikipedia service page](https://www.reputationx.com/services/wikipedia?ref=reputation-insider.com) says Reputation X prepares research and works with independent editors who disclose paid relationships under Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest rules. The agency also states that volunteer editors decide what remains published, so article creation and individual edits cannot be guaranteed as fixed outcomes. Published guarantee **45-day improvement guarantee on selected packages** The detailed editing page says that if measurable improvement is not visible within 45 days of the first publication round, the client receives a full refund. Buyers should obtain the measurement definition and refund mechanics in writing. 01 Research**Article audit, sourcing and policy review** 02 Submission**Peer review and independent-editor handling** 03 Monitoring**Post-edit review, vandalism watch and source updates** Sources: [Wikipedia services](https://www.reputationx.com/services/wikipedia?ref=reputation-insider.com), [editing methodology and guarantee](https://www.reputationx.com/services/wikipedia/editing?ref=reputation-insider.com), and the [current pricing page](https://www.reputationx.com/pricing?ref=reputation-insider.com). Published pricing ## Reputation X publishes more usable price anchors than most full-service ORM agencies The figures are described as starting points or sample investments rather than fixed quotes, but they let buyers estimate the order of magnitude before a sales call. **$3k–$20k+**Typical monthly ORM range The company's FAQ says reputation-management campaigns commonly fall in this monthly range depending on complexity, authority of negative content and scope. **Search repair** $3k / $5k / $10k+ mo. Published tiers cover starter, professional and enterprise campaigns. **Wikipedia** From $3k–$5k/mo. Editing and creation packages begin at these levels; ongoing management is listed from $2k per month. **Knowledge Panel** $3k / $7k one-time Optimization starts at $3,000; creation starts at $7,000; ongoing management starts at $1,500 per month. **AI / GEO** $3k one-time; $5k+ mo. Assessment starts at $3,000, with active optimization from $5,000 per month and enterprise work from $10,000. **Custom bundles** From $8k/mo. Multi-service bundles start at $8,000 per month; the published corporate-overhaul package starts at $15,000. **Review management** From $250/mo. The review-service page says basic monitoring can start at $250 monthly, while full-service work typically ranges from $1,500 to $5,000+. Published pricing checked September 2026: [Reputation X pricing](https://www.reputationx.com/pricing?ref=reputation-insider.com) and [review-management pricing](https://www.reputationx.com/services/improve/reviews?ref=reputation-insider.com). Commercial terms ## Public sales terms are easier to find than the binding client contract Reputation Insider found clear public statements about engagement length and outcome limits, but did not find a public standard client service agreement setting out cancellation procedure, dispute terms or general refund rights. **Month-to-month is the published buying position.** The [pricing FAQ](https://www.reputationx.com/pricing?ref=reputation-insider.com) says most campaigns require six to twelve months for significant results while also stating that the company does not lock clients into long-term contracts. The [ethics page](https://www.reputationx.com/about/ethics?ref=reputation-insider.com) separately describes engagements as month-to-month with no lock-in. Search outcomes**Specific rankings are explicitly excluded from the public guarantee** The pricing FAQ says the agency can commit resources and effort but cannot guarantee a particular search-engine ranking controlled by a third party. Wikipedia guarantee**A refund promise exists for selected Wikipedia work** The editing page describes a full refund if its defined 45-day improvement condition is not met. The public page does not replace the need to inspect the signed guarantee wording. Before signature, a buyer should request the actual cancellation mechanics, payment timing, refund exclusions, ownership of created assets, governing law and the exact language used for any service-specific guarantee. Public case evidence ## The case-study library is detailed on tactics and metrics, while many client identities remain confidential The current results page says it contains 17 client engagements. Several cases provide exact before-and-after search or review metrics, but many use industry descriptions instead of named clients. **Named evidence** ### Independent review platforms provide two identifiable client interviews [Clutch](https://clutch.co/profile/reputation-x?ref=reputation-insider.com) includes verified interviews with Stephen Cosentino of a medical-training company and Pamela Johnston of Cloud 12, providing more independently collected context than self-published testimonials. **Anonymous cases** ### Most result pages protect the underlying client identity The [case-study library](https://www.reputationx.com/results?ref=reputation-insider.com) describes industries, tactics, timelines and claimed changes, but anonymization prevents a reader from independently reconstructing many of the search histories or outcomes. **White-label work** ### Agency partnerships are documented as a separate delivery model Two current case studies describe multi-year white-label relationships with PR agencies, including NDA-based delivery and unbranded proposals. These are company-published case studies and should be treated as first-party evidence. Sources: [case-study library](https://www.reputationx.com/results?ref=reputation-insider.com), [PR-agency white-label case](https://www.reputationx.com/case-studies/pr-agency-white-label?ref=reputation-insider.com), [eight-year white-label case](https://www.reputationx.com/case-studies/full-service-agency-white-label?ref=reputation-insider.com), and [Clutch reviews](https://clutch.co/profile/reputation-x?ref=reputation-insider.com). Independent review evidence ## The public review footprint is small for a company that reports more than 1,000 clients Scores are generally positive, but the available independent samples are too small or too old to support broad conclusions about current delivery quality. **2 reviews**Clutch Clutch's two reviews are detailed and verified, but they date from 2014 and 2020\. They are useful for operating-history context rather than as a broad current customer sample. **[Clutch](https://clutch.co/profile/reputation-x?ref=reputation-insider.com)** 5.0 / 5 Two verified client interviews; the profile also lists a $5,000+ minimum project and $150–199 hourly range. **[Trustpilot](https://www.trustpilot.com/review/www.reputationx.com?ref=reputation-insider.com)** 4.0 / 5 Three reviews when checked in September 2026, with no reviews shown in the previous 12 months. **[G2](https://www.g2.com/products/reputation-x/reviews?ref=reputation-insider.com)** 4.2 / 5 Four reviews. At least one 2026 review is labeled as an incentivized review collected through a G2 invite, which should be considered when reading the small sample. **[BBB](https://www.bbb.org/us/ca/mill-valley/profile/internet-marketing-services/reputation-x-1116-528474?ref=reputation-insider.com)** A+ BBB assigns an A+ business rating but currently states that Reputation X is not accredited. Procurement questions ## A buyer should resolve the public-record and contract gaps before treating the proposal as complete 01 **Confirm the contracting entity and current business address** The company's own fact sheet and older third-party business profiles currently show different headquarters information. 02 **Put any guarantee definition and remedy into the signed agreement** This is particularly important for the 45-day Wikipedia improvement guarantee and any sales discussion about removals or search outcomes. 03 **Request the actual cancellation, refund and asset-ownership terms** The public site describes month-to-month engagement and selected guarantees but does not expose a standard client service agreement. 04 **For Wikipedia work, document the disclosure and editor workflow** The current service pages say independent editors disclose paid relationships. A buyer should understand how that process appears on Wikipedia and what happens if editors reject the proposed changes. Reputation Insider verdict ## Reputation X is easier to price than many ORM agencies, but its public company record needs cleaner reconciliation The current site gives buyers unusually specific starting prices and more detail about Wikipedia and AI-related delivery than is common in the category. The strongest procurement concern is documentary: headquarters, country-coverage and BBB-accreditation statements are not fully consistent across current pages and third-party profiles. The independent review base is also modest relative to the company's stated client history. Buyers considering a material engagement should use the public pricing as a benchmark and ask for named references, a current service agreement and written definitions for any guarantee attached to the proposal. Most distinctive area**Wikipedia and entity-information work, including an explicit independent-editor model** Commercial advantage**Published starting prices across major service categories** Main diligence issue**Inconsistent public company disclosures and no public standard client agreement located**