Loading…
Pricing Guide
We publish our full price book, the typical market range, and the six recurring post-sale fees competitors quietly add. The asymmetry between what the brochure says and what the invoice says is the single biggest source of distrust in this industry.
Market map
Across the Wikipedia-agency industry, four economic models compete — with very different survival rates and very different ideas of what 'finished' means. Ranges below are typical public price ranges, mid-2026, not a live data feed.
Budget tier
$50–$500
~10% Wikipedia survival rate at 90 days
Low-cost agency
$300–$1,500
No dedicated Wikipedia editorial team — the page is usually a line item bolted onto an SEO retainer, not a specialist deliverable
Mid-market
$2,500–$8,000
70–80% pass rates, most spend goes to white-glove account management
Enterprise
$5,000–$25,000
80–85% pass rates, same labor pool with a concierge wrapped around it
Where we sit: Our pricing sits in the lower mid-market band — €600 to €1,930 per page depending on language edition — with a 93% verified success rate. Why we can charge less: we're EU-based with in-house editors instead of subcontracting.
Red flags
A rejected article isn't a refund waiting to happen — it's usually a dead end. Here's what typically goes wrong at the bottom of the market.
01
Wikipedia's notability guideline for companies requires significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Cheap providers write and submit articles without ever reading it, which is the single most common cause of a same-week deletion.
02
Low-cost content mills reuse the same article structure for every client. Wikipedia's patrol tooling flags repeated boilerplate quickly, and the article gets tagged for promotional tone before anyone reads the actual content.
03
A screenshot taken the moment an article is submitted is not proof it survived review. Wikipedia moderation can take weeks; by the time a quietly deleted page is noticed, the cheap provider is usually unreachable.
04
Wikipedia requires paid editors to disclose the relationship on their user page (WP:PAID). Providers that skip this expose the client to a public, permanent conflict-of-interest flag and possible account bans if the omission is discovered later.
05
A page surviving initial review is not the end of the risk — articles can still be nominated for deletion afterward. Cheap providers disappear after the invoice is paid, leaving nobody to defend the page when a deletion discussion opens.
Our published prices
One price book. Refreshed once a year. No surcharges layered on after the deposit is paid.
| Wikipedia edition | Company | Personal |
|---|---|---|
| English Wikipedia | €1,930 | €1,300 |
| Tier 1 — German, Dutch, Italian, Russian, Arabic, Chinese, Hindi | €1,450 | €1,100 |
| Tier 2 — Ukrainian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese, Korean | €1,220 | €1,000 |
| Tier 3 — ~59 editions incl. Catalan, Swahili, Indonesian, Serbian, Romanian | €780 | €780 |
| Tier 4 — ~50 editions | €600 | €550 |
Full per-language sortable list at /pricing, including all 160+ editions with regional and ISO-code search.
Pricing factors
Six variables that shape a quote — none of them are hidden, and none of them are surprises after the project starts.
01
English and German Wikipedia carry the strictest, most actively patrolled notability standards. Editions with a smaller reviewer base or a more lenient sourcing culture are priced lower because the editorial bar itself is lower.
02
A subject with existing coverage in independent, editorially-reviewed outlets can move straight to drafting. A subject without that coverage needs a media strategy built first, which is a separate scope of work.
03
The notability bar differs for organisations versus individuals — companies need coverage of the organisation itself, while individuals need proof of notability in their field. The two cases call for different sourcing work.
04
Each Wikipedia language edition is a separate article with its own moderation community and its own notability review — not a translation of an approved article. Multi-language projects are scoped and priced per edition.
05
Every WikiBusines page-creation project includes monitoring through the 90-day window after publication. Extending that coverage beyond the included period is a separate, optional annual plan.
06
An established company with a long trading history and clean public record is straightforward. An early-stage subject, a controversial one, or one with thin press coverage requires more sourcing and framing work before it can be submitted.
The kill-shot section
These aren't speculation — they're what we see on competitor invoices when a prospect brings us a second-opinion quote. The line items rarely appear in the original proposal.
01
50–70% surcharge on the original price when the first draft is rejected by Wikipedia reviewers.
02
$500–$3,000 per Tier-1 outlet, billed separately from the page itself.
03
$1,000–$5,000 when the article faces an Articles-for-Deletion review after publication.
04
The discounted tier is only available after a 30-minute call with an account exec.
05
$1,000–$3,500 per additional language, even when the underlying source base is the same.
06
$150–$300 per month, often mandatory in year one as part of the original contract.
Our position: We invoice the published price up front. AfD defense and 90-day monitoring are bundled. Translation, when commissioned for additional Wikipedia editions, follows the per-edition rates above with bundle discounts. For the full line-by-line breakdown against the four largest competitors, see the agency comparison table.
Why this works
Three structural choices that let us publish the full price book up front instead of building margin into surprise line items.
No subcontracting. Our 23 wikieditors are direct employees, not marketplace freelancers, which is how we keep pass rates above 90% without enterprise-tier pricing.
If the source base isn't strong enough for Wikipedia's reliable-sources policy, we say no up front. We don't quote a project, take a deposit, and then add resubmission fees when the draft fails review.
80% refund if a published page can't be defended after 3 attempts in the 90-day monitoring window. The clause is on the /guarantees page, not buried in a side letter.
Full refund and protection policy at /guarantees.
Why it pays off
The business case isn't a set of made-up percentages — it's what a Wikipedia page structurally does for a brand's presence in AI and search.
Wikipedia is one of the most consistently cited sources across AI assistants and answer engines. Without a page, a brand is either absent from AI-generated answers or described only from whatever secondary sources those models can find.
A verified Wikipedia page is one of the standard inputs Google draws on to build a Knowledge Panel for a brand or person. It does not guarantee a panel appears, but it removes one of the most common blockers.
Unlike a press placement, a Wikipedia page is a living document that can be kept accurate over time through the monitoring and update process — rather than a one-time piece of content that ages out of relevance.
Two paragraphs of context
The short version of an industry that has spent a long time obscuring its own pricing.
The Wikipedia-agency market is split into four tiers with vastly different economics. At the bottom, Fiverr and freelance marketplaces will quote $50–$500 per article, and generic SEO agencies bolt on a Wikipedia "add-on" for $300–$1,500 with no dedicated editorial process behind it — a large share of those articles get deleted within 90 days. In the middle, US and UK boutique agencies charge $2,500–$8,000 with pass rates in the 70–80% range, but most of that price gets eaten by markup on subcontracted editors and account management. At the top, reputation firms quote $5,000–$25,000 for what is largely the same labor with a white-glove account manager attached.
The real cost trap isn't the headline number — it's the structure. Six categories of post-sale charges quietly show up after the contract is signed: resubmission fees of 50–70% of the original price when the first draft is rejected, source-placement surcharges of $500–$3,000 per Tier-1 outlet, AfD-defense billing of $1,000–$5,000 when the article faces deletion review, mandatory sales calls that gate the discount tier, per-language translation surcharges of $1,000–$3,500, and ongoing monitoring subscriptions of $150–$300 per month. Our pricing publishes the full ladder up front because we believe the asymmetry between what the brochure says and what the invoice says is the single biggest source of distrust in this industry.
Frequently asked questions
Where to next
Send the brief and we'll quote per Wikipedia edition with the refund clauses included up front. No mandatory discovery call, no gated tier.