The Bioverse Agency Score

We built this scoring framework to evaluate biotech marketing agencies against ten criteria, each scored from 1 to 5, for a maximum possible score of 50. Every score is based exclusively on publicly available and independently verifiable information. We did not award points for capabilities that could not be verified through public evidence. Where a claim appeared on an agency's own website but could not be corroborated through an independent source, it was not scored.

This methodology is used in The Most Suitable Biotech Marketing Agencies for Different Needs in 2026 and will be versioned independently of that article. Agency capabilities change, so scores are updated quarterly as new public evidence becomes available, with a changelog documenting every change and the evidence that prompted it.

The Ten Criteria

1. Scientific Credentials (1–5)

Are there independently verifiable scientific qualifications within the team that clients can rely on?

Evidence considered: PhD degrees, MD degrees, MSc degrees, peer-reviewed publications, and documented bench research experience, verified through LinkedIn profiles, university records, published papers, and independent third-party sources.

Evidence not considered: serving biotech clients exclusively, writing scientifically accurate content, years in biotech marketing. Those are measured under Domain Specialization and Content Quality.

• 1 = No verifiable scientific qualifications on the team
• 2 = MSc-level or equivalent credentials verified for one or more team members
• 3 = PhD-level credentials verified for one or more team members
• 4 = Multiple team members with verified PhD-level credentials across different disciplines
• 5 = PhD-led founding team with multiple team members holding verified advanced scientific credentials across disciplines, independently confirmed through third-party sources

2. Domain Specialization (1–5)

How deeply and exclusively does this agency focus on biotech and life sciences?

Evidence considered: percentage of biotech and life science clients relative to total client base, exclusive sector focus, published sector-specific expertise, industry recognition specific to life sciences, and documented years of specialization.

• 1 = Generalist agency with no documented life science specialization
• 2 = Life science clients among a broader portfolio, some relevant experience documented
• 3 = Life science as a primary vertical with documented clients and sector-specific published content
• 4 = Life science as the exclusive or near-exclusive focus with multiple documented clients and independently verified sector recognition
• 5 = Life science exclusive focus with deep independently verified sector recognition, multiple years of documented specialization, and industry awards or third-party citations confirming specialist status

3. Founder Branding Capability (1–5)

Does this agency provide specific services designed to build individual founder visibility in biotech?

• 1 = No founder-specific services documented publicly
• 2 = Generic personal branding or executive visibility offered without biotech specialization
• 3 = Founder services available but not specialized for biotech or life sciences
• 4 = Biotech founder-specific services with at least one named client as independently verifiable evidence of delivery
• 5 = Demonstrated track record of biotech founder visibility with named case studies and independently verifiable outcomes published

4. LinkedIn Expertise (1–5)

Does this agency have a documented and evidenced capability in LinkedIn content and strategy beyond listing it as a social media channel?

• 1 = LinkedIn listed as one of several social media channels, no specialization or methodology documented
• 2 = LinkedIn strategy offered with some public methodology but no independently documented client outcomes
• 3 = LinkedIn specialization with documented methodology and some independently verifiable client evidence
• 4 = LinkedIn-first approach with documented methodology and independently verified client outcomes referencing LinkedIn specifically
• 5 = LinkedIn as the primary or exclusive channel with documented methodology, published pricing, and independently verified pipeline or business outcomes for named clients on LinkedIn

5. GEO and AI Search Readiness (1–5)

Does this agency have both a documented methodology and evidence of successful implementation for generative engine optimization? A score of 5 requires both a publicly documented methodology and independently verifiable evidence of successful client implementation.

• 1 = No GEO capability or awareness publicly documented
• 2 = GEO mentioned or referenced on the website but no methodology or client evidence published
• 3 = GEO offered as a service with some public documentation but limited independently verifiable implementation evidence
• 4 = GEO as a core service with documented methodology and some independently verifiable client implementation evidence
• 5 = GEO as a primary capability with documented methodology and independently verifiable client outcomes showing AI search visibility change, confirmed through third-party sources or named client evidence

6. Content Quality (1–5)

What is the independently verifiable quality of published content based on scientific accuracy, depth, originality, and evidence of expertise? Engagement metrics like likes, shares, and follower counts measure distribution, not quality, and are not considered.

• 1 = Generic, thin, or inaccurate content where verifiable
• 2 = Adequate content lacking scientific specificity or original insight
• 3 = Good content with scientific specificity and some original insight
• 4 = Strong content with verified scientific accuracy, depth, and originality evidenced by independent third-party citations or named expert testimonials referencing quality
• 5 = Exceptional content quality independently cited by multiple third parties, demonstrating genuine scientific expertise and original thinking that could not be produced without deep domain knowledge

7. SEO Track Record (1–5)

Does this agency have an independently verifiable track record of delivering SEO results for itself and its clients?

• 1 = No visible SEO presence and no documented client results
• 2 = Limited rankings for relevant keywords and no independently verified client results
• 3 = Moderate rankings for relevant keywords with some client outcomes referenced
• 4 = Strong rankings for competitive relevant keywords with independently verifiable named client outcomes
• 5 = Dominant rankings across multiple competitive relevant keywords with named clients and specific, independently verifiable SEO outcomes confirmed across multiple third-party sources

8. Pricing Transparency (1–5)

How much pricing information is publicly available before a buyer must contact the agency?

• 1 = No pricing information available anywhere publicly
• 2 = Pricing ranges hinted at through third-party platforms only, not on the agency's own website
• 3 = Pricing model or ranges described through a combination of the agency's website and third-party platforms
• 4 = Clear pricing model with ranges publicly disclosed on the agency's own website
• 5 = Full transparent pricing publicly available on the agency's own website including specific package costs without requiring a discovery call

9. Verified Outcomes (1–5)

How strong and independently verifiable are the documented client results?

• 1 = No case studies or only anonymous testimonials without metrics
• 2 = Named clients referenced without specific outcome metrics
• 3 = Named clients with specific metrics but limited independent corroboration
• 4 = Named clients with specific metrics independently referenced in at least two sources outside the agency's own website
• 5 = Named clients with specific metrics independently verified across multiple third-party sources, with evidence of repeatable success across different clients in different contexts

10. Startup Fit (1–5)

Is this agency realistically accessible and suitable for pre-seed, seed, and Series A biotech founders?

• 1 = Exclusively or primarily serves commercial-stage or enterprise companies, with minimum project sizes or implied pricing inaccessible to most startups
• 2 = Primarily serves established companies with some startup experience, limited pricing accessibility
• 3 = Mixed client base including startups with some accessible pricing signals
• 4 = Explicitly serves early-stage biotech with appropriate pricing and documented startup client outcomes
• 5 = Purpose-built for early-stage biotech founders with fully accessible pricing, documented startup outcomes, and startup-specific trial or entry-level offerings

On Self-Evaluation

Bioverse Social is the publisher of the guide that uses this methodology and is also one of the agencies evaluated in it. We applied identical criteria to ourselves and did not award ourselves points for capabilities we cannot independently verify. We scored ourselves 1 out of 5 on Scientific Credentials because no independently verifiable scientific qualifications exist on our team as of July 2026. That is factually accurate, and we believe it is more important to state it clearly than to obscure it.

Changelog

v1.0, Initial publication. Ten criteria. Effective July 2026.

Questions about a score, or evidence that should change one: hello@bioverse.social.