B12 review

Weak — 2 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 17% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 12 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 5 · Strong 7. The typical agency here scores Strong, and all of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Uses stakeholder/customer research, analytics, content modeling, journeys, and tested information architecture.

Scores low — Evidence-led UX scores 4-5; sitemap-by-opinion scores 1-2.

What we found — Prompt and questionnaire workflows do not equal deep user research or custom IA.

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

Stronger here: 500 Designs scores Excellent on the same dimension.

Adequate — 3 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 17% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 12 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 7 · Strong 5. The typical agency here scores Excellent, and all of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Portfolio demonstrates distinctive, on-brand responsive systems with strong typography, interaction, and component logic.

Scores low — Recycled templates or visual trend copying score 1-2.

What we found — The system produces professional small-business sites, but template and AI constraints limit distinctiveness.

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

Adequate — 3 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 17% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 12 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 8 · Strong 4. The typical agency here scores Excellent, and all of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Deep capability in the selected CMS/stack, integrations, component systems, QA, environments, and deployment.

Scores low — Production-quality builds score 4-5; design-only handoff or outsourced mystery development scores 1-2.

What we found — Built-in commerce, scheduling, payments, and integrations are useful, while bespoke engineering depth is limited.

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

Adequate — 3 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 13% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 12 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 3 · Strong 7 · Adequate 2. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 10 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Targets Core Web Vitals, WCAG, semantic markup, crawlability, redirects, security, and cross-device QA.

Scores low — Measured standards score 4-5; silence scores 1-2.

What we found — SEO and hosted performance features exist, but formal WCAG assurance is not established.

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

Weak — 2 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 12% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 12 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 2 · Strong 8 · Adequate 2. The typical agency here scores Strong, and all of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Connects journeys and content to qualified conversions, product adoption, ecommerce revenue, or another business outcome.

Scores low — Quantified post-launch results score 4-5; aesthetic awards alone score 1-2.

What we found — Lead and client tools are built in, with little independent business-outcome evidence.

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

Stronger here: Dotlogics scores Excellent on the same dimension.

Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 10% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 12 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 7 · Strong 4 · Adequate 1. The typical agency here scores Excellent, and 7 of them score higher than this one.

Scores high — Recent live sites, named clients, verified reviews, and projects of comparable complexity score 4-5.

Scores low — Mockups, dead links, or logo walls score 1-2.

What we found — G2 lists 30 reviews and public examples for professional-service sites. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

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

Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 8% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 12 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 6 · Strong 5 · Weak 1. The typical agency here scores Excellent, and 6 of them score higher than this one.

Scores high — Clear discovery, milestones, content ownership, feedback limits, change control, QA, migration, launch, and rollback plan score 4-5.

Scores low — Vague timelines and surprise change orders score 1-2.

What we found — Packaged scope and support simplify small-site launch, but this is not custom project governance. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

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

Excellent — 5 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 6% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 12 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 3 · Adequate 6 · Weak 3. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and none scores higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Client owns code, design files, accounts, domains, analytics, and documentation; pricing and post-launch support are explicit.

Scores low — Proprietary lock-in or withheld source files score 1.

What we found — Monthly tiers and the optional one-time expert setup are public, though platform portability remains a concern.

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