Top 10 Mobile App Marketing Agencies 2026:#1 Frenchy Digital

Apple's own page of Apple Ads partners listed five companies this morning, and one of the agencies I was scoring says on its website that it is an official Apple partner. It isn't one of the five.

That's not proof of anything bad. Apple's page is short, and there may be a relationship the page doesn't show. But it tells you how most rankings of app marketing agencies get built: somebody copies a claim from the agency's homepage, and nobody opens the page that would confirm it.

So here is my claim, with the date on it. On September 30, 2026 I scored ten mobile app marketing agencies on six things you can check from public pages in about fifteen minutes per firm. Three agencies tied at the top on 10 of 12: AppAgent, Gummicube and SplitMetrics. The average was 7.8.

The three attributes that matter most are the three channels most app budgets go to: App Store Optimization, Apple Ads and Google App campaigns. For each one I asked a simple question. Can the agency show me a named app where it did this work, on its own website, today?

To be clear about the conflict up front: I run Frenchy Digital, and we manage Google App campaigns for clients. We are not in the scored table. We get a disclosed section near the end, where I score us on the same rubric. We get 6 of 12, which would put us tenth of eleven. I'll explain why we are still the pick for one narrow kind of buyer, and say plainly who should hire someone else.

If you are earlier than this and still working out what an app launch should cost in total, our breakdown of what a mobile app launch marketing plan costs builds the budget line by line from published prices. This article is the named-agency version: who, what they can show, and what they don't publish.

Most rankings of app marketing agencies fail for three reasons: the author is a contestant, the badges are unchecked, and the scores rest on results only the agency can see.

The first is almost universal in this niche. While researching, I opened several "best app marketing agencies" and "top ASO agencies" articles published by agencies, and the author ranked itself first each time. I'm not above the temptation either, which is why my own company sits outside the table.

The second is specific to app marketing. Agency footers are covered in platform logos: Google Partner, Meta Business Partner, TikTok partner, Apple. Some of those badges come from programs with published entry rules. Some are simply the logo of a platform the agency buys ads on. The logo looks the same either way.

The third is the one that matters most. App marketing case studies are almost all percentages: installs up, cost per install down, return on ad spend multiplied. They are the agency's own numbers about its best engagements, with no baseline you can inspect and none of the campaigns that lost money.

The wrong model is that a ranking measures which agency gets the best results. The real model is that a public ranking can only measure what agencies disclose and what platforms confirm. Results you can only judge from references, and from a paid test on your own app.

Why does that matter more for app marketing than for, say, web design? Because you can't open an agency's campaigns the way you can open a website it built. The ad accounts are private. The only public trace of the work is what the agency chooses to write up. So the question I can fairly score is whether it wrote anything up at all, with a named app attached.

Before scoring anyone, each candidate had to pass four tests: app marketing shown with named work on its own site, a managed service rather than only software, no acquisition, merger or shutdown from 2024 to 2026, and not the author of a ranking that puts itself first.

I started from roughly twenty names that recur across app marketing lists and cut hard. The cuts are as useful as the list, so here they are.

• Yodel Mobile: A well-known London agency. NP Digital announced on April 15, 2025 that it had acquired Yodel Mobile. Inside the 2024 to 2026 window, so out.
• Phiture: The Berlin consultancy behind a widely used mobile growth framework. Its shareholders sold the company to Precis Group, announced February 24, 2026. Out on the same rule.
• Agencies that rank themselves first: At least two prominent app agencies publish their own top agencies lists with themselves at number one. I left out every list author I found doing that, for the same reason my company is outside the table.
• Software vendors without a managed service: Several Apple Ads partners are platforms you operate yourself. They are useful tools, but this is a ranking of agencies.
• Closed or unreachable firms: One agency that appears on older lists says on its own site that it closed in 2021. Another's domain now serves an unrelated software company.
• Publishers and generalists: A mobile game publisher that also buys users was out of scope, as were generalist digital agencies whose sites showed no named app work.

The NP Digital announcement is on Neil Patel's blog, and the Phiture sale is described by the law firm that advised its shareholders, Osborne Clarke. Neither acquisition says anything about the quality of the work. It changes who owns the agency and who might be on your account, and that is enough reason to leave them out of a list about what you can verify today.

One firm in the final ten needs a note. Gummicube was acquired by Airship in 2022 and now calls itself a division of Airship Group. That's outside my window, so it stays in, and I mention it in the profile because ownership affects who runs your account.

For the other nine, searches found no acquisition, merger or shutdown from 2024 to 2026. Absence from search results isn't proof. Ask.

Six attributes, 0 to 2 points each, twelve maximum, all checked on September 30, 2026 from pages anyone can open.

• Named ASO work: 2 for a named App Store Optimization case study on the agency's own site; 1 for ASO offered without a named case; 0 for not offered on the pages read.
• Apple Ads evidence: 2 for a named case study that includes Apple Ads (or Apple Search Ads, its old name), or a listing on Apple's own Apple Ads partner page; 1 for the service offered or a partnership claimed only on the agency's site; 0 for none.
• Google App campaign evidence: 2 for a named case study of Google ads for app installs on the agency's own site; 1 for the service offered or a Google Partner badge shown; 0 for none found.
• Published pricing: 2 for fees for managed app marketing on the agency's own site; 1 for its own figures for something narrower, such as creative only or a spend minimum; 0 for neither.
• Named app clients: 2 for three or more named apps with case pages you can open; 1 for client logos or testimonials only; 0 for none.
• Years operating: 2 for a founding year of 2016 or earlier, or ten-plus years, stated on the agency's own site; 1 for a later year or a third-party date only; 0 for none found.

Ties break on the sum of the three channel columns, then years, then alphabetically. That's the whole rubric.

The channel columns are what make this list different from our ranking of app development consulting firms, which scores discovery work and deliverables. An app marketing agency is hired to move money through three machines owned by Apple and Google. So the scoring asks, three times over, whether the agency can show a named app where it did that.

What I excluded, and why.Ad spend managed, apps grown, installs driven and return on ad spend, because every figure is the agency's own claim. Awards, because most app marketing awards are entered and paid for by the agencies. Clutch ratings and counts, because Clutch blocks automated reading and I couldn't see them at the source. Team size, because it doesn't tell you who runs your campaigns.

How to re-check it.Open each agency's case studies page and search it for "ASO", "Apple Search Ads", "Apple Ads" and "App Campaigns". Open Apple's Apple Ads partner page and look for the name. Search the agency's site for "pricing" and "founded". It takes about fifteen minutes per firm. If something changes after September 30, the score should change too, and I'd want to know.

Three agencies tie on 10 of 12, two tie on 9 and three tie on 6, so tiebreaks settle much of the table. The three leaders are level on every tiebreak too, so they are listed alphabetically.

Do the arithmetic. The ten totals add to 78, so the average is 7.8 of 12, 65%. The leaders disclose about 1.28x what the average agency does, and 2x what the agency at the bottom does.

Now read the columns instead of the rows, because that's where the finding is. Pricing: seven of ten score zero, and only one scores 2. Google App campaigns: five of ten show a named case. Apple Ads is similar, with six of ten earning a 2.

So the app marketing market is fairly open about ASO and Apple Ads, where agencies like to show a keyword win, thinner on Google, and nearly silent on fees. The Google gap is worth knowing, because Google App campaigns are the channel where Google's automation decides most of what happens, and the agency's real job is feeding it good assets, a clean conversion event and enough budget. It's harder to write a flattering case study about that.

Every score above traces to a cell below. Where a cell describes a case, it's the agency's own write-up, and I say what channel it names, not what result it claims.

Three cells deserve a note. SplitMetrics is on Apple's partner page, but what Apple lists is its software, not its managed service, so I didn't score it on that listing. I scored the agency side instead: its Gibson App case, filed under Services rather than a software product, describes its own team restructuring Apple Ads campaigns and running Google Ads for Android. That case earns both channel 2s.

The ASO Project's Apple Ads page says it is an official Apple partner recognized by Apple. It wasn't on Apple's partner page on September 30, so it scores 1, the same as any other claim made only on the agency's own site. Ask them where Apple says it.

And App Guardians' Apple Ads case is old. It describes a three-week test that started in November 2018 at about $100 a day. It is still a named Apple Ads engagement on the agency's own site, so it scores 2. But Apple Ads has changed a lot since, and you should ask for something recent.

Each profile says who the agency suits, what I could verify and what I couldn't.None of this is a judgment of results. I haven't worked with any of them, and I didn't see inside anyone's ad accounts.

Top ranked

1

AppAgent

game growth with all three channels on the record

Score: 10 of 12, tied first; listed first alphabetically. Suits: mobile game studios that want creative, user acquisition and ASO from one team.

Verifiable: its about page says it is a self-funded mobile growth and creative agency founded in 2016 that focuses on gaming. Its Star Stable Online case describes an ASO program of about six months with roughly thirty tests. Its World Hockey Manager case says it expanded user acquisition beyond Facebook into Google Ads, Apple Search Ads and other channels, and its Dreamloft case starts from a word game that already had traction on Google Ads on Android.

Not verifiable:no fees. The about page says it is open to performance-based models, which is worth asking about but isn't a price. Its homepage shows Google Partner and Meta partner badges, which I didn't need for the score. If you aren't a game, this isn't your first call.

Visit AppAgent

2

Gummicube

the ASO specialist, now part of Airship

Score: 10 of 12, tied first. Suits: consumer brands and large apps whose growth depends on App Store and Google Play search.

Verifiable: its about page says it was founded in 2009. Its ASO case studies name Sephora, Carvana, AVIS, TrailLink, IMVU and others, and one of them, McAfee Safe Connect, pairs ASO with Apple Search Ads, and the McAfee case pagesays Gummicube also managed the app's Apple Search Ads and Google Ads campaigns. The site also has a page offering Apple Search Ads and Google Ads management for app installs.

Not verifiable:no fees. Its Google evidence rests on that one case, where Google Ads supports the ASO work. It has been a division of Airship Group since 2022. The about page calls it the number one ASO company in the world; that's its own claim and isn't scored.

Visit Gummicube

3

SplitMetrics

Apple Ads software plus a managed team

Score: 10 of 12, tied first. Suits: apps that want Apple Ads and ASO testing handled by the people who build a well-known Apple Ads platform.

Verifiable: its Growth Services page offers fully managed Apple Ads, fully managed ASO and multichannel acquisition across Google, Meta, TikTok and others, and says the company has over ten years of experience. Its textPlus case is an ASO engagement credited to SplitMetrics Agency, and its Gibson App case describes its team taking over paid channels for a guitar learning app, expanding Apple Ads keywords and optimizing Google Ads for Android. SplitMetrics is also one of five companies on Apple's Apple Ads partner page.

Not verifiable:managed service prices go through sales. I scored the managed agency, not the software: Apple's listing covers the platform, so it earned nothing here, and the channel 2s rest on the Gibson App case. Most of its customer stories are software customers, so ask who on the managed side runs your account.

Visit SplitMetrics

4

App Guardians

named cases in every channel, a younger firm

Score: 9 of 12. Suits: subscription, consumer and business apps that want ASO, Apple Ads and Google App campaigns from one North American team.

Verifiable: its about page says it was born in 2018, and its footer describes it as a division of App Growth Network in Vancouver. Its case studies index names ASO work for Heroes Jobs and launches for GBG Hoops and Touchpix. The Elsewhere case is an Apple Search Ads test, and its Google App Campaigns page tells the Portable North Pole story, a global campaign in four languages.

Not verifiable: no fees; its FAQ says ASO pricing depends on how many stores need updating. Founded in 2018, so years scores 1. The Apple case dates from 2018, as noted above.

Visit App Guardians

5

Admiral Media

Google App campaigns and creative at volume

Score: 9 of 12. Suits: apps and games spending enough to need a steady flow of new ad creative across Google, Meta and TikTok.

Verifiable: its about page says Andre Kempe founded it in 2019 and that it is headquartered in Dubai. Its NeuroNation case is explicitly about growing Google App Campaigns, and its Petit BamBou case is about entering new markets with Apple Search Ads. Its homepage prices AI-produced video ads from €363 each and shows a Google Premier Partner badge.

Not verifiable:no named ASO case on the pages I read, only a service page, so ASO scores 1. Its tie with App Guardians breaks on channels, where App Guardians has named ASO work. The creative price isn't a management fee, so pricing scores 1. Its pricing page describes typical market tiers rather than its own rates.

Visit Admiral Media

The bottom half isn't worse at marketing apps. It publishes less, or it does a narrower job.

6

App Masters

the only published monthly plans

Score: 7 of 12. Suits: indie developers and small app teams that need a price before a call.

Verifiable: its pricing page lists plans at $1,000, $1,500 and $3,000 a month, each with an Apple Ads manager on the team, and user acquisition plans at $3,000 and $5,000 a month for ad budgets up to $100,000 a month. It offers ASO, Apple Search Ads and Google Ads.

Not verifiable: its case studies are anonymized (a home design app, a health app, an audio app), so named ASO, Apple and Google work each score 1, and named clients score 1 on logos. Its about page dates its founder community to April 2017, so years scores 1.

Visit App Masters

7

Apptamin

store and ad creative, not campaign management

Score: 6 of 12. Suits: teams that already run their own campaigns and need app preview videos, screenshots and ad videos.

Verifiable: its homepage offers ASO videos for the App Store and Google Play, user acquisition videos for Google Ads and TikTok, and static creative, and cites ten years of experience. It says its main base is in Montpellier, France, with team members in New York and Hong Kong.

Not verifiable:it makes the creative that goes into ASO and ads, but doesn't describe running Apple Ads or Google App campaigns, so each channel scores 1. Pricing is by quote. It's here because store creative is half of ASO, and some buyers need exactly that.

Visit Apptamin

8

The ASO Project

a specialist that shows logos, not cases

Score: 6 of 12. Suits: utility and consumer apps that want a dedicated ASO team with Apple Ads alongside.

Verifiable: its site says it has helped apps grow since 2014 and shows client names such as Hotspot Shield, Keeper, Lose It!, Malwarebytes, Shipt and Skyscanner. Its Apple Ads page describes management through its own Search Ads Manager tool, and a separate page covers Google App Ads.

Not verifiable:no case study pages, so ASO and clients each score 1. The official Apple partner claim isn't on Apple's partner page. No fees. The client list is strong on paper; ask for two references from it.

Visit The ASO Project

9

AdQuantum

performance buying for games and subscriptions

Score: 6 of 12. Suits: subscription apps and games that want a buying team open to profit share or cost per action deals.

Verifiable: its Fitingo case walks through a fitness app campaign that included Apple Search Ads alongside social channels, and its footer dates the company from 2015. It also names cases for Evil Clicker, Home Fitness for Weight Loss and IQ Option.

Not verifiable: I found no ASO service and no Google App campaign mention in the text I could read, so both score 0. It lists commission, profit share and cost per action models, but no figures.

Visit AdQuantum

10

RocketShip HQ

large budgets, paid social first

Score: 5 of 12. Suits: apps spending $50,000 or more a month that want experienced paid social and creative strategy.

Verifiable: its homepage says fully managed services start at $50,000 or more a month in ad spend, with an advisory option for smaller budgets. It shows a Google Premier Partner badge, lists Meta, TikTok, Google and AppLovin as channels, and names case studies for Adventure Communist, Parent Lab, Games2Win and hampr. The hampr summary credits part of its result to ASO.

Not verifiable:no ASO service page, so the hampr mention scores ASO 1; no Apple Ads channel on the pages read, and no founding year. It publishes a lot of useful Apple Ads material, but content isn't a case, and the rubric scores cases. A 5 here says it isn't an ASO and Apple Ads shop, not that it's weak at what it does.

Visit RocketShip HQ

Each of the three channels has a different kind of proof, and a buyer should weigh them differently.

Apple Ads. Apple publishes an Apple Ads partners page. On September 30 it listed five companies under campaign management and custom product pages: AppTweak, MobileAction, Newton, SplitMetrics and V.O.X. Most of them are software. Apple also notes that the statistics and descriptions on the page come from the partners themselves. So it's a short list, not a directory of every competent agency, and most good Apple Ads agencies won't be on it.

That's why the rubric also accepts a named Apple Ads case. It's the next best thing to Apple vouching for you: an app you can look up, and a written account of the keyword and bid work.

It helps to know what you are buying. Apple's comparison of Apple Ads Basic and Advanced says Basic charges per install, runs only in search results and is capped at $10,000 per app per month in the US, while Advanced charges per tap, runs on the Today tab, the Search tab, search results and product pages, and has no maximum. Basic is designed to be run by you. Advanced is where an agency earns its fee.

Google App campaigns. Here the badge is more meaningful, and it measures something different. Google's Partner requirements ask for an optimization score of at least 70%, $10,000 of spend across managed accounts over 90 days and at least half of the company's strategists certified. Premier Partners must also land in the top 3 percent of participating companies in their country each year, judged on client growth, new clients, retention, product diversification and spend.

The wrong model is to read a Premier badge as "great at app installs." The better model is a credit score: it tells you the agency is established with Google and moves real budget. It doesn't tell you it has ever run an App campaign. That's why the badge alone earns 1, and a named App campaign case earns 2.

ASO. No platform certifies ASO agencies at all. The only evidence is named work, which is why that column rests entirely on case studies. If you want the mechanics of what an ASO engagement should change on your listing, our App Store Optimization guide covers the fields, the character limits and the tests worth running.

One practical point ties the three together. Apple Ads and Google App campaigns both send people to your store listing. A weak listing converts fewer of those taps into installs, which quietly raises what every paid install costs. An agency that runs paid channels without touching the listing is working with one hand behind its back.

A worked example makes the published numbers useful. This one is a scenario, not a client.

Consider a meditation app with a paid subscription, live on iOS and Android. The founder has about $9,000 a month for marketing in total, fees and ad spend together, and wants to know what that buys.

Step one is Google's own floor. Google's App campaign setup guide recommends a daily budget of at least 50 times your target cost per install for install campaigns, or at least 10 times your target cost per action for in-app action campaigns. Suppose the founder's target is $2 per install. Then 50 x $2 is $100 a day, which over 30 days is about $3,000 a month, just for Google to have enough room to learn.

If the founder instead optimizes for trial starts at a $20 target cost per trial, the same guide gives 10 x $20, which is $200 a day, or about $6,000 a month. That's 2x the install version, and it's the more honest campaign for a subscription app, because installs that never start a trial don't pay anyone.

Step two is Apple. Apple Ads Basic caps out at $10,000 per app per month, so this budget fits inside it with room to spare. Say $1,500 a month goes to Apple Ads, run as Basic by the founder or as Advanced by an agency.

Step three is the fee. The only ranked agency with published managed fees is App Masters, whose plans run from $1,000 to $5,000 a month. Take a $3,000 plan. Now add it up: $3,000 of Google install budget, $1,500 of Apple Ads and a $3,000 fee is $7,500, leaving about $1,500 of the $9,000 for store creative and testing tools.

Look at the ratio. The fee is $3,000 against $4,500 of media, so the founder is paying about 0.67 dollars of management for every dollar of ads. At that ratio, most of the money buys people, not reach.

That's not automatically wrong. Early on, the people are the valuable part: the store listing, the conversion event, the creative. But it means this founder should expect learning, not scale, in the first ninety days, and should ask any agency to justify its fee against a media budget this size.

The downside of this arithmetic is that it only uses published figures, and seven of ten ranked agencies don't publish fees. Your real quotes may be higher or lower. Run the same division on every proposal you get: fee divided by media spend. Anything above 1.0 means you are paying more for management than for ads.

The rank matters less than the fit. A 6 that matches your channel beats a 10 that doesn't.

Decide your one non-negotiable first (a channel, a budget ceiling, a pricing model, a game or non-game focus) and see who survives it. Then compare the survivors on everything else.

Two rows deserve a longer word.

The subscription app on iOS search. Gummicube, SplitMetrics and App Guardians all show named ASO work and Apple Ads evidence. Their shapes differ. Gummicube is an ASO firm first, inside a larger company. SplitMetrics is a software company with a managed team. App Guardians is a younger agency with named cases in every channel. Ask each who exactly will run your keywords, and whether that person also touches your listing.

The app scaling Google App campaigns.Five agencies showed a named case with Google ads for app installs: AppAgent, Gummicube, SplitMetrics, App Guardians and Admiral Media. Only Admiral's NeuroNation case is about App campaigns as the main subject, so ask the others to show you one in private. An agency that can't describe how it chose the in-app event its campaigns optimize for is guessing.

Paid social is outside this rubric, but most app budgets end up there too. If you want to understand what a managed social program includes and costs, our social media marketing service page publishes its monthly bands, which gives you one more reference point for the quotes you collect.

Several figures came up again and again while I built this list, and none of them should travel as fact.

The first group is agency counters. Ad spend managed, brands grown, apps scaled, installs generated. Nearly every ranked agency publishes one about itself, with no method and nobody outside checking. None is in the scores, and I don't repeat the figures.

The second is case study percentages. I read dozens today: installs multiplied, cost per acquisition cut, return on ad spend up by triple digits. I used the case studies to confirm which channel an agency worked in. I didn't score or repeat the results, because each is the agency's best engagement, told by the agency.

The third is the average cost per install. One ranked agency's FAQ gives a typical range, and every app marketing blog has one. I've chased these before and never tied one to a published sample and method. Your cost per install depends on your category, your country and your listing, and the only number worth having is your own from a small test.

The fourth is the monthly ASO retainer range that circulates on ranking pages. The versions I found today came from lists written by agencies, with no source. The only fees in this article are the ones agencies publish about themselves.

And one wording slip worth catching: an agency describing Google Premier Partner status as the top 3% "globally". Google's own page says the top 3 percent of participating companies within a country. Small difference, but it's the kind of thing that tells you how carefully a firm reads its own badges.

Hiring an app marketing agency is an asymmetric bet if you set it up right, and an open-ended one if you don't.

Here is the downside, bounded. Suppose you run a 90-day test with one agency on a fixed fee and a capped media budget. At the worked budget above, that's about $9,000 a month for three months, so roughly $27,000 at risk. If it fails, you keep your ad accounts, your tracking, your listing changes and your creative, and you've learned your real cost per trial. That's the survivable version.

The unsurvivable version is the same spend with the accounts in the agency's name, no cap on media and a report built on installs. You lose the money and the learning. These are the lines I'd look for first in any proposal.

• Ad accounts owned by the agency: Your Apple Ads and Google Ads accounts should be in your name, with the agency invited as a user. Otherwise your campaign history leaves when they do.
• No named conversion event: A Google App campaign optimizes for the event you give it. A proposal that doesn't say which in-app action and why is not finished.
• Installs as the headline metric: Installs are cheap to buy and easy to inflate. Ask for cost per trial, per subscriber or per first purchase.
• Percentage of spend with no cap: It rewards spending more. Ask for a flat fee, or a percentage with a written monthly media ceiling.
• A partner badge nobody can find: Ask where the platform lists the agency. Apple's partner page and Google's Partner program are both public.
• Paid campaigns with the store listing untouched: Paid traffic lands on the listing. If nobody is responsible for it, you are paying for taps that don't convert.
• Case studies older than the platform: Apple Ads and Google App campaigns have both changed a lot. Ask for work from the last two years.
• No exit terms: Ask what happens to creative files, keyword lists and reports if you part ways, and how much notice the contract needs.

We publish our own version of these terms on the Google Ads management service page, including monthly fee tiers and what each includes. Use it as a checklist against any proposal, ours included.

Here is what I chased and couldn't establish, so you can weigh the ranking accordingly.

• Campaign results: No neutral benchmark of app marketing agencies exists, and ad accounts are private. The ranking measures disclosure, not performance.
• Google Partner badges: I saw badges on agency sites. Google's partner search is an interactive tool I couldn't read reliably, so badges were not confirmed in Google's own listing.
• Pages behind bot protection: Some agency pages block automated readers or render in the browser only. Where I couldn't read a page, I didn't score what might be on it.
• Case study freshness: Several cases carry no date. One Apple Ads case dates from 2018. A dated case earns the same score as a new one here.
• Clutch counts and ratings: Clutch blocks automated reads. None is scored or repeated.
• Acquisition status: Searches found no 2024 to 2026 deals for the ten. That isn't proof there were none.
• Contract terms: Account ownership, fees and exit terms usually live in an agreement nobody publishes. Absence on a website isn't absence in a contract.

None of this makes the list less useful. It makes it a shortlist you can audit, which is the most a public ranking can fairly claim to be.

Frenchy Digital is my company. That's a conflict of interest, and it's why this pick sits outside the scored table and is labelled as mine.

So let me score it the same way first, cell by cell.

• Named ASO work: 0: We write about App Store Optimization, but we have no ASO service page and no named ASO case study. Zero.
• Apple Ads evidence: 0: No named Apple Ads case, no Apple Ads service page, and we are not on Apple's partner page. Zero.
• Google App campaign evidence: 1: We manage Google App campaigns for clients, and our Google Ads service page says so. We have no named App campaign case study, so 1, the same as a service offered.
• Published pricing: 2: Our Google Ads management tiers run from $1,000 to $5,000 or more a month plus ad spend, with App campaigns in the top tier, published on our own site.
• Named app clients: 1: We have named app case studies, but they describe building apps, not marketing them. Scored like logos.
• Years operating: 2: Operating since 2016 in France and as a US company since 2019.

That's 6 of 12, level with Apptamin, The ASO Project and AdQuantum on points. My channel columns add to 1, which is lower than all three, so on the tiebreak we would sit tenth of eleven, ahead of RocketShip HQ only. On points, we are not first, and nowhere near.

So why is it still my pick?Because it's the pick for one narrow buyer that none of the ten is built for: a founder who is building an app and wants the same senior team to ship it, wire the conversion events and run Google App campaigns on it afterward.

That combination matters more than it sounds. A Google App campaign is only as good as the in-app event it optimizes for, and that event lives in code. When the people who wrote the code also run the campaign, the tracking gets fixed in the same sprint instead of in a ticket to another company. If that's your situation, the attributes that matter most to you are the build and the Google column, not ASO keyword history.

Concretely: we're a senior-led, Black-owned app and AI agency in Los Angeles. Google Ads management is $1,000 to $5,000 or more a month plus ad spend, on a flat fee rather than a percentage. Senior time is $150 to $225 an hour, retainers run $2,500 to $9,500 a month, and you get a fixed-price phased proposal within 5 business days, a 30-day post-launch warranty on builds and full source code and IP ownership.

Run the same arithmetic I ran for the others. Our $1,000 entry tier matches App Masters' lowest plan, and our top tier starts at $4,000, which is 0.8x its $5,000 user acquisition plan. Against the worked budget above, a $2,000 to $3,500 tier on $4,500 of media gives a fee ratio of about 0.44 to 0.78. Not cheap at small budgets, which is true of everyone on this list who publishes.

Now the proof, and its limits. The closest marketing case we have is Vendome Clinique, a medical spa where we set up Google Analytics and Tag Manager tracking and built Meta and Google campaign structures for awareness and bookings. It's not an app, and it reports no campaign results, so I have no outcome number to give you, and I won't invent one.

You can get from this page to a defensible shortlist in about a week.Here's the order I'd do it in.

1. 1.Write down your main channel (ASO, Apple Ads or Google App campaigns) and your monthly ceiling for fees plus media. Use the buyer-type table to cut the list to three agencies whose column for that channel reads 2.
2. 2.Work out Google's floor for your own numbers: 50 times your target cost per install, or 10 times your target cost per action, per day. If the result is bigger than your media budget, fix the target or the budget before you talk to anyone.
3. 3.Email the three the same four requests: a named case from the last two years in your channel, the person who would run your account, the fee model with a written media cap, and confirmation that the ad accounts stay in your name. Note who answers all four.

Whoever answers those four cleanly, and whose references hold up on a phone call, is probably your agency. Time to send the emails.