KoolavAll agenciesBy industryBy disciplineReportsHow we vet
All agencies · Brand Naming

A Hundred Monkeys review

STRONG FIT for Brand Naming

Shortlist-ready for Brand Naming, with the caveats below.

A 35-year-old Berkeley naming-only studio of six with 400+ shipped names and the most explicitly documented trademark screening process in the category - graded A-F by an outside IP attorney, with legal clearance openly left to the client's counsel - but it publishes no fees and no project timelines at all.

Pricing: several published tiers Reported — not published by the agency
The firm's Clutch profile lists a $5,000+ minimum project size and a $100-$149 hourly rate, and carries zero client reviews. source ↗

Score 3.55/5Confidence: lowLast evaluated 2026-08-26Website

How it scored

Every dimension is scored against this discipline’s published rubric. Open one to see the claim it was scored on, what the rubric measures there and how much it weighs, and where the evidence came from.

Named work in marketStrong

The /work/our-names/ index lists well over 400 names with a one-line description of what each thing is, and 40+ case studies sit behind it. The named work is recent, not decades-old glory: Coefficient Giving (Open Philanthropy's rename, announced November 2025), Codex (OpenAI), Stelo (Dexcom), Olto, Brightband, Abridge. I confirmed first-hand that the shipped names resolve as real products and companies: miro.com, stelo.com (dexcom.com/stelo redirects there) and boomsupersonic.com/overture all return 200. Two case studies carry client-side quotes attributed to real, checkable people with titles - Barbra Gago on the Miro rename and Naina Bajekal, Director of Communications, on Coefficient Giving. Capped at Strong rather than Excellent because every attribution is self-published: repeated searches turned up no independent source crediting any specific name to this firm, and SERP results for the credits are dominated by the firm's own domain. The names are verifiably in market; the authorship of them is the firm's own claim.

What this dimension measures: Names the firm created that are verifiably in use by real companies — the strongest evidence this category can offer, because a shipped name is public. Attributed, checkable names for recognisable clients score 4-5. Case studies without the client's confirmation, or a portfolio dominated by decades-old wins, score 2-3: naming credits are notoriously contested and old glory says little about the current team. No attributable names scores 2. Counts for 25% of the weighted score.

Evidence: partly checkable — corroborated in part against the sources below; the remainder rests on the agency’s own account.

Methodology and linguistic screeningAdequate

The process is published with named stages, not described in the abstract: Intake, Naming opportunity, Round one (knockout search + preliminary screening), Feedback, Round two, Contenders (deep legal), Selection - laid out in a long resource piece, Trademark Screening 101. That is well above a generic 'we brainstorm then check'. Held to Adequate because the dimension's top band turns on a described multi-market linguistic check with named steps, and that is the one thing missing. The naming page's entire treatment of it is a single clause - trademark screening, URL acquisition and 'cultural checks' are 'addressed thoughtfully and in the proper order' - with no method behind it. The named markets that do appear (US, EU, UK, Canada, Germany) are trademark jurisdictions, not linguistic screens. The firm also never publishes how many candidates it generates per round, which the rubric asks for. The trademark half of the method is documented in unusual depth; the linguistic half is asserted.

What this dimension measures: A published, specific process: how territories are developed, how many candidates are generated, and — critically — linguistic and cultural screening across the markets the client sells in. A described multi-market linguistic check with named steps scores 4-5. A generic 'we brainstorm then check' description scores 2-3. No described method scores 2. Weight specificity: the firms that do this well tend to write about it in detail, so vagueness is informative. Counts for 20% of the weighted score.

Evidence: vendor stated — the agency’s own claim, recorded as theirs rather than ours.

Trademark screening rigorExcellent

The strongest thing on the site, and the boundaries are drawn honestly rather than blurred. Published process: a knockout web search per name, then a batch sent to an outside IP attorney (named on the page as Trevor Caudle, Esq.) who runs them against the USPTO database and returns each name graded A through F; only A's and B's are presented to clients. Class strategy and goods-and-services scope are explained, including that US filings may only cover G&S the business actually intends to sell. The firm states plainly what its screening does not cover - common law conflicts, and international jurisdictions where 'laws and treaties' differ - and that the client's counsel owns 'deep legal': 'the remainder of the legal journey is in the hands of the client and their legal team.' Nothing on the site implies the screening substitutes for counsel. The case studies then show the process actually applied and disclose the outcomes: Stelo screened for medical device conflicts in the US, UK, Canada and Germany, receiving A's and B's; Brightband screened for AI, machine learning and meteorological conflicts and graded B; Coefficient graded B; Overture took four names into deep legal with Boom's trademark counsel; eero's preliminary screening was US-only with clearance done by the client's counsel.

What this dimension measures: What the firm does before candidates reach the client: knockout searches, class strategy, and how it hands off to trademark counsel. A stated pre-screening step with honest boundaries — screening is not legal clearance, and firms that say so score better than firms that imply it is — scores 4-5. Silence on trademark process scores 2, because presenting unscreened names wastes the one thing this purchase buys. Any implication that the firm's screening substitutes for counsel is a red flag, scored 1-2. Counts for 15% of the weighted score.

Evidence: vendor stated — the agency’s own claim, recorded as theirs rather than ours.

Scope and pricing transparencyAdequate

No fee, range or starting point appears anywhere on their own domain - I checked the homepage, naming, writing, ecosystems, about and contact pages. The contact page addresses budget only to deflect it: under 'Need a name but don't have a budget?' it points prospects to a book and a deck of naming cards. The one number I could read first-hand is on their Clutch profile, which lists a $5,000+ minimum project size and a $100-$149 hourly rate; that is a vendor-supplied directory listing, off-site, and the same profile shows zero reviews. Scope honesty is the better half of this score and is genuinely good: engagement structure is stated (two rounds, contenders, selection), design work is consistently credited to separate partners rather than implied in-house (Mucho on Ultraderp, Manual on Overture, Upstatement on Coefficient Giving), and legal filing is repeatedly placed with the client's counsel. A buyer can tell what they are and are not buying; they cannot tell what it costs without an email.

What this dimension measures: Naming fees are famously opaque. Published fees, ranges or stated starting points score 4-5. A stated engagement structure without numbers scores 2-3. Nothing at all scores 1-2. Score scope honesty alongside: a firm that states what a naming engagement excludes (identity, strategy, legal filing) is more useful than one implying a full rebrand. Counts for 15% of the weighted score.

Evidence: partly checkable — corroborated in part against the sources below; the remainder rests on the agency’s own account.

Deliverables and rounds clarityStrong

The round structure is published rather than left to the contract: two rounds of names with a feedback stage between them, then contenders, then selection. The shortlist size going into deep legal is stated - 'a concentrated shortlist of about three to five names'. What accompanies the names is visible in the case studies: naming rationale, and the screening results themselves, since clients are told the letter grades. There is a stated, if blunt, contingency for clearance failure - the firm writes that even after all precautionary steps a USPTO denial can happen, that a few options remain to pursue the mark, but that it is 'essentially a reset button back to the drawing board'. Short of Excellent on two counts: the number of candidate names presented per round is never published, and the restart contingency is described as an outcome without any stated treatment of scope or fees for the additional work it would require.

What this dimension measures: What the client actually receives: how many candidate names per round, how many rounds, what accompanies them (rationale, screening results, territory map), and what happens if every candidate dies in legal. A stated structure with a stated contingency for clearance failure scores 4-5. Undefined deliverables score 2 — in a category where the visible output is a shortlist, not knowing its size before contracting is buying blind. Counts for 10% of the weighted score.

Evidence: vendor stated — the agency’s own claim, recorded as theirs rather than ours.

Turnaround and schedulingWeak

Measured absence, not a retrieval failure. I read the homepage, naming, writing, ecosystems, about, contact, case studies index and several individual case studies and pattern-matched each for durations; no engagement timeline appears on any of them. Nothing states how long a naming project runs from kickoff to final candidates. The only durations published anywhere on the site belong to third parties, not to the firm's delivery: the USPTO taking 'between three to five months' to respond to a filing, and the note that a deep legal search timeline 'can vary depending on counsel'. The Codex case study says the launch date was fixed before work started and calls it 'a race against the clock', which confirms schedules are negotiated per project but gives a buyer no horizon to plan against.

What this dimension measures: Stated engagement timelines from kickoff to final candidates. Published, realistic timelines score 4-5 — naming projects run weeks, not days, and honesty beats speed. Undisclosed scheduling scores 2. Counts for 10% of the weighted score.

Evidence: inferred — our reading of indirect evidence, not a documented fact.

Stronger here: River + Wolf scores Excellent on the same dimension.

References and review baseAdequate

Thin but non-zero, which is normal for a six-person boutique. Their Clutch profile exists and I read it first-hand: zero reviews. Google reviews average 5.0 across 6 reviews, which I read through the Birdeye aggregator rather than Google directly; most entries carry a name and a date but no review text, and the one quoted review is roughly eight years old. Client references inside the case studies are named and checkable people (Barbra Gago; Naina Bajekal, Director of Communications) but are vendor-published. The firm keeps an unusually scrupulous press page listing coverage back to 1990 - New York Times Magazine, Communication Arts, Fast Company, NPR, Harvard Law Review, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg Businessweek - and separates 'written about us' from 'quoted on naming', noting for the AP wire story that it is 'one article syndicated many times, not many articles'. That is a real independent footprint, but it is press commentary on the discipline, not verified client feedback, and the firm says as much itself.

What this dimension measures: Independent, verified reviews or checkable client references. A substantial verified base scores 4-5; a handful scores 2-3; none scores 2. Low weight deliberately: boutique naming firms run on referral and small annual project counts, so a thin review footprint is normal and the in-market names matter more. Counts for 5% of the weighted score.

Evidence: partly checkable — corroborated in part against the sources below; the remainder rests on the agency’s own account.

Verdict

A Hundred Monkeys is a naming and brand-writing studio in Berkeley, founded in 1990 by Danny Altman, now six people who say they have 75 years of combined naming experience and over 700 projects behind them. Naming is not a line on a services menu here - it is the whole business, alongside brand writing and portfolio-level naming architecture. The portfolio is the deepest evidence they offer: an index of well over 400 names and more than 40 written case studies.

The work is current rather than nostalgic - Coefficient Giving is Open Philanthropy's rename from November 2025, and Codex, Stelo, Brightband, Olto and Abridge are all recent. I confirmed independently that the shipped names are real and live: miro.com, stelo.com and boomsupersonic.com/overture all resolve. What I could not confirm from any independent source is that this firm created them.

Every credit traces back to their own domain, and naming attributions are contested often enough that a buyer should treat the portfolio as a strong claim rather than a verified record - though two case studies do carry on-the-record quotes from named client-side communications leads, which is more than most firms in this category put their name to.

The trademark work is where this firm separates itself, and it does so by being specific about limits rather than by claiming more. They publish the whole sequence: a knockout web search per name, then a batch sent to an outside IP attorney - named on the page - who scores each candidate A through F against the USPTO database, with only A's and B's shown to the client. They explain trademark classes and goods-and-services scope, and they state what the screen does not catch: common law conflicts, and any jurisdiction outside the one searched.

Then they hand off explicitly, writing that after the shortlist the remainder of the legal journey belongs to the client and their counsel. Nothing on the site suggests their screening is clearance. The case studies back this up with disclosed outcomes rather than assurances - Stelo screened for medical device conflicts across four countries and graded A's and B's, Brightband and Coefficient both graded B before their counsel's deeper review, four Overture candidates taken into deep legal with Boom's trademark lawyers.

A buyer commissioning a name mostly wants to know that the candidates presented are not dead on arrival and that someone will say so plainly when they are. This firm has published how it does that.

The gaps are commercial, and they are real. There is no price anywhere on their own site - not a fee, not a range, not a starting point. The contact page's only acknowledgement of budget is to sell a book and a deck of cards to people who do not have one.

The single number I could read first-hand is a $5,000+ minimum on their Clutch directory profile, which is vendor-supplied, off-site, and attached to a profile carrying zero reviews. There is no published timeline either: across ten-plus pages I found no statement of how long a naming engagement runs. The only durations on the site belong to the USPTO's examination queue, not to their delivery.

In a category the rubric itself calls famously opaque, this firm is no more transparent than the norm on either count, and a buyer has to open a conversation to learn the two things that most determine whether the conversation is worth having.

What sits between those poles is the method itself. The round structure is stated - two rounds with feedback between, then contenders, then selection - and the shortlist entering deep legal is sized at about three to five names, which is more than most firms disclose before contracting. But the number of candidates presented per round is never published, and the contingency if every candidate dies in legal is described honestly as a reset to the drawing board without any stated treatment of the scope or cost of that reset.

The most notable methodological gap is linguistic: the site's entire treatment of cross-market linguistic and cultural screening is one clause saying cultural checks are addressed 'thoughtfully and in the proper order'. The named markets that do appear are trademark jurisdictions, not linguistic ones. For a firm that names products sold internationally and writes about its trademark process at length, the silence on how a name is checked for meaning in the languages of the markets it will sell in is the conspicuous absence.

Reviews are thin - a 5.0 across six Google entries, mostly text-free and years old, and an empty Clutch profile - but that is unremarkable for a boutique running on referral, and the rubric weights it lightly for exactly that reason.

What you can do next

Koolav can make the introduction and handle the back-and-forth, or you can go straight to the agency.

Visit their website

This agency has not published a paid trial. What a paid trial is.

What we verified

Each claim below was checked against a named source, last on 2026-08-26. Follow any of them and check for yourself — that is the point of publishing them.

What other platforms say

Clutch {'score': 0.0, 'count': 0} · Google {'score': 5.0, 'count': 6}

There is effectively no independent client-review base to read. The Clutch profile exists and is live but carries zero reviews. Google shows a 5.0 average across six reviews, which I read through the Birdeye aggregator rather than on Google directly; most entries show only a reviewer name and a timestamp with no review text, and the one quoted review ('Highly recommend A Hundred Monkeys for your naming and branding needs!', MacKenzie T) is roughly eight years old and says nothing specific. No substantive independent account of what it is like to hire this firm was locatable. The firm does have a genuine independent press footprint spanning three decades - New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Fast Company, NPR, Communication Arts, Harvard Law Review, Bloomberg Businessweek - but that coverage quotes them as naming commentators, a distinction their own press page draws explicitly rather than blurring.

These are other platforms' numbers, not ours. We report them because they are part of the picture, and we do not average them into our score — our score comes from the published rubric above.

What we could not verify

Sources

Others we evaluated in Brand Naming

Same rubric, same evaluator, same date range — so these are directly comparable to the verdict above.

See all 18 Brand Naming agencies we evaluated →

Think this is wrong?

If anything on this page is wrong or out of date, send us the correction and we will re-read the site.

Evidence moves a verdict. Money never does — no agency pays us for a listing, a placement, or a re-review. Whatever we conclude we publish, including that the verdict stands.