Stage
Series A through Series C is the sweet spot. Earlier-stage companies usually need content and technical foundations first, because placements pointed at weak pages leak.
Editorial links from publications your buyers read. Every placement goes in a ledger you can check, and the last program still has 289 of its 290 links live.
Three programs where editorial links did the heavy lifting. Every figure is on the case study.
Authority numbers come from Ahrefs, traffic from the client's own analytics, pipeline from the client's CRM. All case studies
Two things get called a link. Only one of them still moves anything.
SaaS link building is the practice of earning links from publications your buyers read, so search engines and AI systems treat your domain as one worth citing.
A URL on a page can be bought in bulk, and increasingly moves nothing. A link inside content an editor chose to publish cannot be bought.
The buying committee is technical and reads RevOps, security and category outlets rather than general business press, so a placement there outperforms one on a high-DR generalist blog.
Comparison and integration pages convert best and attract the fewest natural links, so authority has to be built elsewhere and passed to them through internal links.
Link building for software is measured across quarters, not campaigns.
Most reports list 8 to 15 placements with respectable DR scores, on sites your buyers have never heard of. That is the link economy as it actually operates. Five tells:
Most placements sold today live on mid-tier blogs recycling guest posts between agencies. The DR looks fine in a spreadsheet. The editorial authority behind it is fictional.
A DR 70 site with 2,000 visitors a month is almost always sitting on inflated authority. The full method is in the niche edit farm spotter's guide.
One site posting about CRMs, supplements and travel is a content farm selling placements.
Profiles heavy on exact-match commercial anchors are the pattern link spam systems look for.
Sites that built authority on flagged networks watch rankings fall site-wide. The risk moved from wasted money to active liability.
| Bulk-link agency | Editorial link building | |
|---|---|---|
| Sourcing | Paid placements on blog networks | Real outreach to real editors |
| Pitching | Bulk, spray and pray | Targeted, named editors only |
| Authority | Inflated, network-laundered DR | Publications with real readers |
| Anchors | Over half exact-match commercial | 60 to 70 percent branded or URL |
| Lead asset | Generic guest post drafts | Original research, data, founder point of view |
| Refusals | Accepts whatever lands | Turns down what fails the editorial bar |
| Risk | Patterns Google penalises | Editorial grade, safe to audit |
| Reporting | Placement count screenshots | Referring domains, rankings, pipeline |
Most agencies specialise in one or two. We run all five under one team, because the gaps between them are where authority leaks.
Original-research campaigns: data studies and founder commentary pitched to tier-1 and category press.
Bylined pieces from your founders and senior operators in publications where the expertise is real.
Editorial niche edits into existing, relevant content where the mention helps the reader. No farms.
Frameworks, calculators and data studies that publications cite because they are the best reference.
The operational layer underneath all of it: editor research, pitches, follow-up and relationships.
Earlier-stage companies lean on link insertion and outreach. Later-stage companies lean on digital PR and linkable assets. Most programs run all five.
One tier-1 placement often does more than thirty guest posts, because other publications cite the story.
How the campaigns are built: the digital PR strategy framework, pitching TechCrunch, SaaStr and First Round Review, and the ROI framework we report against.
Most agencies make you book a call to find this out. Here it is, per placement.
Volume is the wrong axis to shop on. Ask what share of prospects gets rejected, because the discard pile is where quality lives. Full scoping detail is on the pricing page, and how the specialist agencies compare runs the same tests across eleven firms, including this one.
Shared networks, discounted at algorithm scale
Manual outreach, screened domains
Real editors, replacement policy, anchor discipline
Publications most agencies cannot reach
Five checks. Run all of them on any vendor, including us.
Editorial placements stay, because the publisher put them there for the reader. Bought placements get pruned.
Atom.com, real. The grey line is an illustration of how bought placements get pruned.
If a vendor lets you order anchors from a menu, they are optimising for a penalty.
A profile that grows steadily for two years looks like a brand getting popular. One that adds 200 links in a quarter and stops looks like a receipt.
Sustained organic traffic on relevant terms cannot be faked. A DR 70 site with 2,000 visitors a month is the tell.
Visits a month to the linking site. Four real rows from the Atom.com ledger, and the pattern to refuse.
The single question that separates operators from brokers. Ours is in the contract.
"A placement that goes offline or falls below the minimum DR gets replaced at no cost."From the contract
The same senior team every month, and no project managers translating between freelancers. Volumes are set by your plan, in writing.
Outreach to editors at SaaS, RevOps, HR, finance and security publications. Every pitch goes to a real editor's inbox, never a placement portal.
Built around original research, surveys and proprietary frameworks. Editors run stories, not product pitches, so the research is the lead asset.
Daily monitoring of journalist inquiries in your category, answered with expert quotes under your team's names. Lower volume, very high relevance.
Monthly audits, recovery of broken or removed links, disavow management, and a watch on your three closest competitors.
Every placement is one you would show your board. We turn down opportunities that fail the editorial bar, and that refusal is what protects the profile.
Editorial outreach has longer cycles than content, but something ships every fortnight from day one.
Full backlink audit, competitor profile teardown, and a target publication list you approve.
First pitches to named editors. The anchor plan is agreed.
The first editorial placements go live. Monitoring starts on the existing profile.
Placements, referring domains, anchor distribution, and the 90-day review.
The fastest way to tell what an agency is about is to read what it refuses to do.
No private blog networks, no sites that exist only to host backlinks.
Bulk pitches land on publications that accept bulk pitches. Those have no editorial standards.
Natural anchors only: mostly branded or URL, under 10 percent exact match.
No arrangements where agency clients link to each other.
Honest fit upfront prevents the retainer that ends in month four with both sides unhappy.
Series A through Series C is the sweet spot. Earlier-stage companies usually need content and technical foundations first, because placements pointed at weak pages leak.
$2,000 to $15,000 a month covers most SaaS link building programs. Below roughly $2,000 the manual outreach and editorial screening cannot fit.
Teams that measure links on referring domains, rankings and pipeline rather than placement counts.
Named people, not an account-manager layer.




Around fifteen specialists in total. Meet the whole team
What marketing leaders ask before hiring a link building partner.
Earning links from publications your buyers read, so search engines and AI systems treat your domain as worth citing. It differs from generic link building because SaaS buying committees read vertical publications, and because the highest-converting pages, comparison and integration pages, almost never earn links naturally.
The ones that publish their process, name the publications they place in, state an anchor policy in writing, and have a replacement policy for links that drop. Eleven agencies judged on exactly those tests, including this one, are compared in our roundup.
Credible programs run $2,000 to $15,000 a month, with individual editorial placements landing between $200 and $700 once outreach labour and content are counted honestly. Anything dramatically below that skipped a step, and it is never the invoice.
Most programs we run land between 10 and 35 new referring domains a month. Consistency beats bursts. A steady curve held for a year reads as a brand getting popular; a spike reads as a receipt.
Authority lags placement by one to two quarters, because search systems discount new links until they age. First measurable pipeline contribution typically lands month 6 to 9, with compounding obvious by month 12 to 18.
Editorial insertions into genuinely relevant existing content are fine, and they are one of the five disciplines above. Bulk insertions bought from inventory on content farms are not. The difference is whether an editor chose to include the mention because it helped the reader.
Send us your last fifty links. Each one gets scored against the five checks above, with the ones we would have rejected marked and the reason given. It takes about a day, and you keep the assessment either way.
Or email Rizwan