GEO, SEO and AEO
Where the terms overlap, and why the labels do not define an algorithm.
GEO, SEO and AEO describe overlapping concerns. They are useful vocabulary when the speaker explains the scope, but the letters do not reveal an algorithm. Before comparing advice, ask whether it concerns ordinary search results, extracted answers, generated responses, or a particular product. The same task can reasonably appear under more than one label.
Start with the underlying task
SEO means search engine optimization. It includes helping search engines discover and understand content and making that content useful to people. Google explicitly says SEO can support people-first content when it serves readers rather than manipulating rankings. See its content guidance. Technical access, descriptive links and useful explanations remain concrete tasks whatever a proposal calls them.
AEO usually means answer engine optimization. People use it for work such as making a direct answer easy to find or organizing content for answer-oriented experiences. Its use is not consistent enough to imply one universal technical standard. Ask the person making the recommendation to identify the actual feature and the intended reader benefit.
Where GEO adds a question
GEO draws attention to how content may be used in generated answers, including how a source is represented or linked. A generated response can draw on multiple pieces of information, so a familiar search-position report will not describe everything a reader sees. That difference makes careful observation useful; it does not establish an entirely separate ranking system you can optimize by formula.
For Google AI Overviews and AI Mode, Google says foundational SEO practices still apply and that no special AI schema or machine-readable file is required. Its AI features documentation concerns those Google experiences. Do not turn it into a claim that all platforms share the same access rules, reporting or source-selection process.
Compare proposals by deliverable
Hypothetical example: two consultants propose improving a pottery class page. One calls it SEO and offers an access review, clearer class information and better internal links. Another calls it GEO and offers the same work. The label does not determine the value. Compare the missing information each will fix, the evidence for the change and the way the work will be checked.
A third proposal might offer a set of repeated prompts and a citation log. That is an observation exercise, rather than proof of higher visibility or increased bookings. Specify the product, questions, dates, language and conditions. Decide in advance whether the work is meant to diagnose a problem, improve content or observe a result.
Keep one practical backlog
A site owner rarely needs three disconnected lists for these terms. Keep one backlog with the affected page, reader problem, provider-specific requirement, proposed change and verification step. Group tasks by the decision they support. Access failures should not disappear beneath a new acronym, and content gaps should not be described as technical crawler problems.
Be cautious when a proposal moves from vocabulary to guaranteed outcomes. A claim about a platform mechanism needs current evidence from that platform; a claim about your business needs your own relevant data. These are different evidential standards. Agree on the work and its limits before agreeing on a name for it.