AppAgent review

Adequate — 3 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 20% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 42 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 7 · Adequate 29 · Weak 6. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 7 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: How many assets does this vendor actually ship per client per month, and how fast is a variant round? A stated, specific throughput (e.g. Where the vendor names a client, check the client's live ads in the Meta Ad Library — POSITIVE EVIDENCE ONLY, and scope it properly. Correct procedure: run the keyword search, harvest the advertiser's page_id from the rendered HTML, then re-query with view_all_page_id=<id>. Scoped counts are 100% brand-attributed; keyword counts are not scoped to the advertiser and overstated by 41% in one measured case (HexClad, 410 keyword vs 290 scoped), while a search for a generically-named client returned 1,400 results consisting of Viator, Klook and Tripadvisor. A high-volume, recent, scoped result confirms a real programme and may raise this score. A low or absent result is INCONCLUSIVE and must never lower it. Critically: NEVER record an absence from a page ID you did not harvest from a live ad — the userID shown on a logged-out Facebook page is not the Ad Library page_id, and querying it returns a clean, convincing zero. That was proven by control on 2026-08-11 against a brand known to be running 290 ads. Absence of ads is never scored against an agency. See library/_notes/meta_ad_library_method_2026-08-11.json.

Scores high — 'X assets/month', published turnaround of 24-72h per round) with corroboration scores 4-5.

Scores low — Vague 'unlimited requests' claims with a one-at-a-time queue score 2-3 — unlimited requests with a single concurrent slot is a throughput of one. No stated volume anywhere scores 2.

What we found — The Creative Program page publishes a monthly production cadence (M1 static/gameplay/UGC/2D, M2 gameplay/UGC/2D, M3 UGC/2D/3D) and states that finalizing a concept 'typically takes two drafts', followed by formatting and localization. Real volume figures exist but are cumulative rather than per-month: the Clash of Clans case study states '500+ original ads, with over 3,000 video exports in various sizes and languages' across a partnership the company describes as 6+ years, and the Bellemint case study states 75+ unique concepts evaluated via monthly tests on Facebook. There is no published assets-per-month figure for a typical client and no published turnaround time per variant round. All volume claims are self-published; an attempt to corroborate a named client's live ad volume through the Meta Ad Library was blocked by the platform and returned no readable result, which is inconclusive and is not scored either way. Capped at Adequate because this band requires corroboration for 4-5. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “Vendor-stated volume for a named client: 'So far, we've delivered 500+ original ads, with over 3,000 video exports in various sizes and languages' for Supercell's Clash of Clans, alongside a documented accuracy QA step - an experienced Clan leader hired to review concepts, record gameplay and do 'a final factual check of the ad'.” appagent.com ↗

On the record — “Published project timeline for a marketability test: 2-3 weeks strategy, 2 weeks concepting, roughly 2 weeks AI-supported asset production, 2-4 weeks testing, final report at approximately 8-10 weeks. This is a project timeline, not a per-round variant turnaround.” appagent.com ↗

UGC — user-generated-content style ads: creative shot to look like a customer’s own phone video rather than a produced commercial.

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

Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 20% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 42 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 4 · Adequate 20 · Weak 18. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and none scores higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Does the vendor work from the client's brand system — logo lockups and clear space, exact colour and type, tone of voice — or from a mood board and taste? Look for an explicit intake of brand guidelines, a named check step before client review, and any statement about who catches an off-brand asset.

Scores high — A documented preflight or QC step scores 4-5.

Scores low — 'We'll learn your brand over the first month' scores 2-3. Rotating contractor pools with no guideline intake score 1-2. Silence on the question scores 2: at volume, brand drift is the default outcome and a vendor that has not thought about it has not solved it.

What we found — The Creative Program page names a fixed team structure with an accountable quality owner: 'A creative producer leads the collaboration, while the creative director ensures the quality of ideas and execution', plus a dedicated strategist and art director who 'balance creative performance with your brand and IP'. Brand development is named in scope, and a separate Brand GamePlan framework handles positioning work (used on the Pixel Federation rebrand test). The Clash of Clans case study documents an actual named check step before delivery: AppAgent hired a long-standing Clan leader who 'regularly reviewed concepts, recorded gameplay, and did a final factual check of the ad', and the stated conclusion is to 'double-check final outputs for 100% accuracy'. What is not published anywhere is a brand-guideline intake step (logo lockups, clear space, colour and type tokens) or a named preflight gate before client review, so the QC that is documented is subject-matter accuracy rather than brand-system compliance. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Vendor-stated volume for a named client: 'So far, we've delivered 500+ original ads, with over 3,000 video exports in various sizes and languages' for Supercell's Clash of Clans, alongside a documented accuracy QA step - an experienced Clan leader hired to review concepts, record gameplay and do 'a final factual check of the ad'.” appagent.com ↗

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

Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 15% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 42 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 12 · Adequate 30. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and none scores higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Can one approved concept become 100+ assets across aspect ratios, placements, languages and markets? Resizing only, single language, scores 3. Distinguish genuine transcreation (copy reworked for a market) from machine translation dropped into a template; the latter is not localization capacity and should be scored as resizing.

Scores high — Named format/placement coverage plus real multi-market or multi-language delivery scores 4-5.

Scores low — 'We make ten great ads' scores 2 — excellent and out of category.

What we found — The portfolio page states creatives ran 'across Meta, Google, TikTok, AppLovin, and Unity Ads, alongside high converting store assets for the App Store and Google Play', which is named placement coverage across five networks plus two stores. Multiplication from concept to variant set is stated concretely on Clash of Clans: 500+ original ads producing 3,000+ video exports 'in various sizes and languages', roughly six exports per original. Multi-language delivery appears in two places: the Sunshine Island entry states top-performing assets were localized in 7 languages, and ASO Localization is a named Month 3 workstream in the Growth Program. Format range is broad and evidenced in the portfolio itself (gameplay, original, UGC, 2D, 3D, live action, static, store creatives, AI-assisted). Not established: whether copy is genuinely transcreated per market or machine-translated into an existing template, which is the distinction this dimension turns on. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Published multi-language delivery on a named client: for Goodgame Studios' Sunshine Island, top-performing assets were localized in 7 languages, with 28% of video ads and 43% of static assets achieving high performance in soft-launch testing.” appagent.com ↗

On the record — “Vendor-stated volume for a named client: 'So far, we've delivered 500+ original ads, with over 3,000 video exports in various sizes and languages' for Supercell's Clash of Clans, alongside a documented accuracy QA step - an experienced Clan leader hired to review concepts, record gameplay and do 'a final factual check of the ad'.” appagent.com ↗

UGC — user-generated-content style ads: creative shot to look like a customer’s own phone video rather than a produced commercial.

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

Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 15% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 42 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 2 · Strong 32 · Adequate 7 · Weak 1. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 2 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Does anyone on this vendor's team read the ad account? Look for a stated feedback loop: winners scaled, losers cut, next round briefed off results. Iteration on client-relayed feedback only scores 3.

Scores high — Access to platform performance data plus a named cadence scores 4-5.

Scores low — Ship-and-stop production, where the vendor delivers files and never learns what happened, scores 1-2 — this is the most common failure in the design-subscription tier and it is what separates production from performance creative.

What we found — The vendor demonstrably reads the ad account rather than shipping files blind. GamePlan requires access to the client's historical data and MMP at kick-off. The Growth Program runs managed UA on two or more channels in 3-month sprints against predefined KPIs with weekly reporting and a shared Slack channel; the Creative Program states 'Every quarter, we review campaign data, product updates, upcoming events, and market shifts to refine and refresh the creative strategy'. Outcome metrics published across case studies are the kind only account access produces: a 14% creative win rate (Starborne), 43.3% of creatives meeting target CPI and 25% exceeding 8 IPM (Bellemint), 28% of video and 43% of static assets clearing soft-launch thresholds (Sunshine Island). Bellemint also documents winners being extended rather than discarded, with UGC-style layers added to high performers to fight ad fatigue. The caveat that keeps this off Excellent: in creative-only engagements the named strategy cadence is quarterly, and all of this is self-reported on the vendor's own site. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Published creative-performance metrics indicating account-level feedback: 43.3% of creatives met target CPI and 25% exceeded 8 IPM in the US on BELLEMINT, from 75+ unique concepts evaluated via monthly tests on Facebook; winners were refreshed with UGC-style layers rather than rebuilt.” appagent.com ↗

On the record — “Published multi-language delivery on a named client: for Goodgame Studios' Sunshine Island, top-performing assets were localized in 7 languages, with 28% of video ads and 43% of static assets achieving high performance in soft-launch testing.” appagent.com ↗

UGC — user-generated-content style ads: creative shot to look like a customer’s own phone video rather than a produced commercial.

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

Adequate — 3 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 10% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 42 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 11 · Adequate 19 · Weak 12. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 11 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Legal disclaimers, claim substantiation, platform specs and safe zones, accessibility contrast, rights and licensing on music/footage/creator content. Platform-spec competence only scores 3. Do not fail a small shop for lacking pharma review workflows it was never asked for.

Scores high — Explicit process, or regulated-category experience (health, finance, alcohol, children's), scores 4-5.

Scores low — No evidence either way scores 2 with LOW confidence rather than a penalty — most SMB-facing shops never discuss this publicly, and absence here is weaker evidence than absence on volume or ownership.

What we found — Platform and format competence is evident across five ad networks and both app stores, and one named accuracy gate exists (the Clash of Clans subject-matter reviewer doing a final factual check on each ad). The company also publishes editorial content on misleading mobile game ads and fake gameplay ads. Against that, nothing on the site addresses claim substantiation, legal disclaimers, music or stock footage licensing, rights to creator-supplied UGC, or accessibility contrast, and there is no regulated-category experience shown (the client base is mobile games). One published statement is worth a buyer's attention: the Bellemint case study says the team 'carefully integrated "fake" game elements with actual gameplay' to hold CTR, qualified elsewhere as 'keeping the promise of the ad aligned with the in-app experience'. Scored Adequate on demonstrated platform-spec competence, with low confidence in either direction on formal compliance process. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “Company scale and continuity as published: a team of 40, founded 2016, 150+ mobile game titles, clients in 43 countries, and stated partnership durations of Supercell 6+ years, DreamLoft 5+, InnoGames 4+, Scopely 3+, 505 Games 2+.” appagent.com ↗

UGC — user-generated-content style ads: creative shot to look like a customer’s own phone video rather than a produced commercial.

CTR — click-through rate: the share of people who click after seeing an ad or listing.

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

Adequate — 3 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 10% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 42 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 3 · Adequate 23 · Weak 15 · Poor 1. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 3 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Who owns the output — final files, source/working files, raw footage, and the rights to creator content? Documented designer discontinuity in independent reviews is a verified Poor, not an inference.

Scores high — Explicit transfer of source files and full usage rights scores 4-5.

Scores low — Finals only, working files withheld, scores 2. Silence scores 2; at this price point silence usually resolves against the buyer. Separately, continuity: the same named designers month to month scores 4-5, a rotating pool with no continuity guarantee scores 1-2.

What we found — Continuity is the strong half. The About page describes a 40-person in-house team, and both program pages assign a fixed, named-role team per client (creative producer, creative director, creative strategist, art director, graphic designer, motion designer) with a senior manager as single point of contact; there is no rotating-contractor language anywhere. The AI-information page lists partnership durations of 6+ years (Supercell), 5+ (DreamLoft), 4+ (InnoGames) and 3+ (Scopely), and Clutch reviewers describe consistency and senior-level involvement. Ownership is a measured silence: across eleven pages read first-hand, including an exhaustive 28,000-character company-information page and all three service pages, there is no statement about who owns final files, source or working files, raw footage, or usage rights, and no terms of service exists to check (/terms, /terms-and-conditions and /legal all return 404; only a privacy policy is published). Strong continuity plus silence on rights nets to Adequate. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “Measured absence of engagement terms: /terms/, /terms-and-conditions/ and /legal/ all return HTTP 404; only /privacy-policy/ exists (200). No page read states who owns final files, source or working files, raw footage, or usage and music rights.” appagent.com ↗

On the record — “Company scale and continuity as published: a team of 40, founded 2016, 150+ mobile game titles, clients in 43 countries, and stated partnership durations of Supercell 6+ years, DreamLoft 5+, InnoGames 4+, Scopely 3+, 505 Games 2+.” appagent.com ↗

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

Weak — 2 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 10% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 42 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 1 · Strong 9 · Adequate 7 · Weak 25. The typical agency here scores Weak, and 17 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Published tiers with an unstated volume ceiling score 3. Note any minimum spend, and note whether pausing is permitted, since seasonal advertisers pause.

Scores high — Published per-asset, per-month or per-round pricing scores 4-5. Month-to-month or per-project scores 4-5.

Scores low — Bespoke-only quoting with no public anchor scores 1-2. Twelve-month lock-in on a production service scores 2 — production is inherently variable in volume and a long lock is a transfer of that risk to the buyer.

What we found — No price appears anywhere on the site. The Creative Program FAQ states pricing is delivered inside the engagement rather than published: 'As part of GamePlan we provide you with 3 options for collaboration, differing in scope, duration, and price.' Buying creative production on its own is explicitly gated - 'Do I NEED to do GamePlan first? Yes' - so the paid diagnostic must be purchased before the production price is even disclosed. The published minimum cooperation is 6 months, structured in 3-month cycles; nothing is published about pausing, which matters for seasonal or launch-cycle advertisers. The only figure on the Growth Program page, a recommended $25k minimum monthly media budget, is media spend rather than fees. The one public anchor is off-site and was read first-hand on Clutch: $25,000+ minimum project size and a $100-$149 hourly band. That anchor keeps this off Poor, but the vendor itself publishes nothing. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “No pricing is published anywhere on the site. The only monetary figure found is a recommended minimum media budget, not a fee: 'We recommend a minimum monthly media budget of $25k' on the Growth Program page.” appagent.com ↗

On the record — “Creative production is gated behind a paid diagnostic and carries a six-month minimum. The Creative Program FAQ answers 'Do I NEED to do GamePlan first?' with 'Yes. GamePlan is a necessary step...', states pricing is delivered as '3 options for collaboration, differing in scope, duration, and price' inside GamePlan, and states 'We typically require a minimum 6-month commitment', with the program 'designed in three-month cycles'.” appagent.com ↗

Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.

Stronger here: Shuttlerock scores Excellent on the same dimension.