8 min read
Hrafn Hjartarson runs marketing for Kaldvík, a salmon producer in Iceland. Its website used to be another job he rarely had time for. Now Optise proposes changes and he approves them.
“I usually just approve it,” he says in Optise’s customer case study.
I have a slightly different arrangement with AI. It proposes a fix. I check it. Sometimes the problem is still there.
At the Sydney-based publication where I work as an editorial lead, coding agents help maintain the publishing system. Editors report problems in Slack, and an agent can start on a proposed fix within minutes.
In late September, I reported that new authors were missing from the dashboard. The issue was logged within two minutes. A fix was tested on the live site 24 minutes after my report.
Quick work. Except the author problem took several attempts. One fix was marked done, but when I checked, authors were still missing. The eventual fix addressed a database query limit the earlier attempts had missed.
This is useful technology. It has also given me something else to supervise.
The $990 offer
Optise wants to take that work off a marketing team’s list.
“Everything that is website,” CEO Ómar Thor Ómarsson replied when I asked what customers could hand over. Copy, design, positioning, pages, SEO and technical upkeep. He includes visibility in ChatGPT, Gemini and Perplexity.
“Optise is an agency killer,” he said.
He compares its $990 monthly subscription with around $6,000 a month that he says some B2B companies spend on agencies and separate tools. Those purchases are not necessarily equivalent. He still sees work for agencies in brand building, design and campaigns, which he says “haven’t been fully cracked yet”.
The proposition is the everyday running of the website: monitor performance, propose improvements and let the customer review changes before publication.
To get that service, the website has to move onto Optise’s content management system.
Ómar calls that an advantage.
“AI is only as good as its context,” he told me. Hosting the site gives Optise access to its content, design and performance information in one place, with the ability to make changes directly.
I recognise the problem. Running agents on WordPress, I often watch them collect page content, blocks and settings through separate requests. Then come the rate limits. Missing information can send an agent in the wrong direction.
I pay for those wrong turns in wasted tokens.
Moving house
Bringing the information and the ability to act into one platform makes sense. Moving an entire website is also a substantial commitment, particularly as existing platforms add agent connections.
Webflow’s Claude connector, announced in February 2026, lets marketers create and update CMS content, make routine changes and run content and SEO audits from Claude.
Ómar argues that plugins and limited APIs give agents only part of the picture. Optise, he says, can identify a problem, fix it and measure the result within its platform.
We have not tested that claim against a connected agent doing equivalent work.
My newsroom experience concerns a different system, maintained by technical people. I have not seen its agents run SEO or content strategy. It does, however, give me an appreciation for how much work can hide behind the word approve.
I can review copy. For a proposed database fix, I need someone who understands the code.
The button is easy. Knowing when to click it takes more work.
Missing counts
Optise’s Kaldvík case study reports a 315.4% increase in leads and a 250% increase in organic traffic. Ómar put the lead increase at 90 days and said Kaldvík had replaced its agency.
He did not supply monthly lead counts. A 315.4% increase would take 100 leads to about 415, but that is an illustration, not Kaldvík’s reported baseline. Without the starting number, we cannot assess the scale. We also have no revenue figures connecting those leads to sales.
Ómar put the annual agency saving at $72,000. Twelve months of Optise at $990 costs $11,880, leaving a difference of $60,120.
That is arithmetic using his figures. We have not examined the agency contract, migration costs, additional services or remaining staff time, or independently confirmed the results with Kaldvík.
Hjartarson’s account offers a more straightforward description of the benefit. Other tools, he says, “all kind of assumed I was a website expert”.
That is the frustration Optise is selling relief from. The marketer can have ideas about what the website should achieve without also knowing how to implement every change.
The case study describes a customer who feels able to hand over that work. The missing counts limit what we can conclude about its commercial results.
Moving out
Optise’s terms give customers 30 days after termination to retrieve their data. Ómar says customers retain their content, design, media, data and domain, and that the company will help them move.
His answer did not specify the export format or the work needed to get the website running elsewhere. He says no customer has left yet.
That leaves the return journey less clearly described than the arrival. Before moving a site, I would want to know what comes out, in what format and who gets it working again.
For teams that stay on their existing CMS, Algolia’s AI-built pricing-page test provides a narrower example of AI implementing changes while a person keeps the launch decision. Our coding agent comparison covers tools behind a build-it-yourself approach.
Neither establishes how Optise performs. They show why the choice extends beyond whether an agent can change a page. Someone has to decide what to change, check the result and deal with it when the fix is not finished.
Approval pending
I understand the appeal of paying someone to make the website stop being your problem.
My agents can get to work quickly. I still spend time finding out whether their version of “done” matches mine. A service that reliably takes over that checking would remove work I already know exists.
Hjartarson says he mostly clicks approve. I still check what broke.
The work between those two experiences is what I would want Optise to demonstrate before moving my website.
Reporting note: This story draws on interviews with Ómar Thor Ómarsson, Optise’s published materials, Webflow documentation and the author’s experience supervising AI-assisted website work. Customer results are company-reported. Industry Contents has not tested Optise or independently interviewed Kaldvík. This rewrite retains the reporting from the existing article.
FAQ
What is Optise and who is it for?
Optise is an Icelandic platform for B2B teams that want website hosting, performance insights and ongoing improvements in one service. Marketers review and approve suggested changes before publication.
How does Optise’s AI website workflow work?
Optise monitors traffic, search rankings, visibility in AI-generated answers and visitor behaviour. It recommends changes each week so teams can review improvements and approve what goes live.
How much does Optise cost?
Optise CEO Ómar Thor Ómarsson told Industry Contents the service costs $990 per month. He compares this with around $6,000 a month spent on agencies and separate tools by some B2B companies. Savings will depend on a team’s current setup.
What results have Optise customers seen?
Optise’s case studies report that Kaldvík increased leads by 315.4% and organic traffic by 250%, while Ankeri increased leads by 70% and organic traffic by 146%. Ómar said Kaldvík’s lead growth occurred over 90 days. These are company-reported outcomes.
Do customers retain ownership of website content and data?
Ómar says customers retain ownership of their content, design, media, data and domain, and Optise will assist with moving. Its terms allow 30 days after termination to retrieve data. Buyers can confirm export formats and migration arrangements before signing.
How does Optise compare with AI tools for WordPress or Webflow?
Optise offers a unified, managed website workflow combining hosting, monitoring and proposed improvements. Adding AI tools to an existing CMS keeps the current platform and may offer more flexibility, but can require separate integrations and oversight. The better fit depends on the team’s resources and priorities.