Bastion Insights review
Shortlist-ready for Market Research, with the caveats below.
A scaled insights practice, formerly Bastion db5, with discrete-choice, pricing, viability, brand-tracking, journey, and segmentation depth plus 22 Clutch reviews.
No published price we can link to. We do not estimate one — ask on the call, and see the pricing-transparency line in the scores below.
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.
How we scored this
We read the agency’s public record first-hand — its site, pricing, case studies and independent reviews — and score what is checkable: what is published, not how it is phrased. There is no keyword counting or sentiment scoring. The label is a judgment on those facts, which is why each dimension shows the fact that decided it, the band it was judged against, and the sources — so you can check the call, and tell us if you think it is wrong. The full method, and who pays, is on how we vet.
Research design and methodological rigorStrong
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 13 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 9 · Strong 2 · Adequate 2. The typical agency here scores Excellent, and 9 of them score higher than this one.
What this dimension measures: Question-method fit, hypotheses, instruments, bias controls, analysis plan, limitations, and reproducibility are explicit.
Scores low — Defensible design scores 4-5; a survey template and charts score 1-2.
What we found — Advanced methods include discrete choice, product viability, pricing, tracking, and segmentation.
On the record — “Bastion Insights publishes methods including discrete choice, product viability, pricing, copy testing, brand tracking, journey, and segmentation.” us.bastionagency.com ↗
Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.
Sampling and respondent qualityExcellent
Excellent — 5 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 17% of the total score.
Benchmark — across the 13 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 4 · Strong 6 · Adequate 1 · Poor 2. The typical agency here scores Strong, and none scores higher than this one.
Scores high — Transparent recruitment, screening, incidence, sample size, panel/source, fraud checks, incentives, and representativeness score 4-5.
Scores low — Opaque panels, bots, convenience samples, or unverifiable synthetic respondents score 1.
What we found — Scaled insights capability supports complex programs, though public control detail is limited. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Excellent.
Evidence: inferred — our reading of indirect evidence, not a documented fact.
Qualitative and quantitative capabilityExcellent
Excellent — 5 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 13% of the total score.
Benchmark — across the 13 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 9 · Strong 2 · Adequate 2. The typical agency here scores Excellent, and none scores higher than this one.
What this dimension measures: Can select and execute interviews, ethnography, focus groups, diary studies, surveys, conjoint, segmentation, pricing, or experiments appropriately.
Scores high — Method breadth with specialists scores 4-5.
What we found — A full toolbox and strategic consulting are explicit.
Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.
Analysis, synthesis and actionabilityExcellent
Excellent — 5 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 16% of the total score.
Benchmark — across the 13 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 9 · Strong 1 · Adequate 3. The typical agency here scores Excellent, and none scores higher than this one.
What this dimension measures: Moves from evidence to clear decisions, segments, opportunities, product/brand implications, and prioritized actions without overstating certainty.
Scores low — Decision impact scores 4-5; data dumps score 1-2.
What we found — The practice connects research to product and marketing ROI decisions.
Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.
Client evidence and decision outcomesStrong
Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 12% of the total score.
Benchmark — across the 13 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 5 · Strong 5 · Adequate 1 · Weak 2. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 5 of them score higher than this one.
Scores high — Named clients, independent reviews, and examples where research changed a launch, product, positioning, pricing, or investment decision score 4-5.
Scores low — Testimonials without method or impact score 1-2.
What we found — Twenty-two wider-agency reviews and named work support legitimacy. 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.
Data privacy, ethics and AI disclosureStrong
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 13 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 1 · Strong 7 · Adequate 3 · Weak 1 · Poor 1. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 1 of them score higher than this one.
What this dimension measures: Consent, PII handling, recording/transcript security, respondent rights, retention, regulated populations, and any synthetic/AI use are explicit.
Scores low — Strong governance scores 4-5; silence scores 1-2.
What we found — No adverse evidence was found; formal research-specific disclosure was not deeply reviewed.
Evidence: unknown
Domain, audience and market fitExcellent
Excellent — 5 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 8% of the total score.
Benchmark — across the 13 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 10 · Strong 3. The typical agency here scores Excellent, and none scores higher than this one.
Scores high — Experience recruiting and interpreting the buyer's actual audience, geography, language, and category scores 4-5.
Scores low — Generic consumer panels for niche B2B or clinical audiences score 1-2.
What we found — Broad brand, product, communications, and consumer coverage. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Excellent.
B2B — business-to-business: selling to companies rather than consumers — longer deals, more decision-makers.
Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.
Pricing, timeline and research ownershipNot disclosed
Not disclosed — 2 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). Nothing was published about this, so it scores at the bottom of the scale — that is a finding about what the agency discloses, not about the quality of its work. This dimension carries 6% of the total score.
Benchmark — across the 13 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 2 · Strong 2 · Adequate 6 · Weak 3. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 10 of them score higher than this one.
Scores high — Transparent scope, sample assumptions, pass-through costs, timeline, change control, raw-data access, recordings, instruments, and IP ownership score 4-5.
Scores low — Hidden panel markups or no raw-data access score 1-2.
What we found — No public research pricing or ownership standard was located. That is what the low band describes, and nothing published resolves it.
Evidence: unknown
Stronger here: PlanBeyond scores Excellent on the same dimension.
Verdict
Bastion Insights is a strong candidate for sophisticated consumer and brand questions that require advanced quant alongside strategic consulting. Its public methods include discrete choice, pricing, product viability, copy testing, tracking, journeys, and segmentation, and the wider agency has 22 Clutch reviews.
Because the insights practice sits inside a broader agency, research independence and activation cross-sell should be governed. Ask who owns the sample, model, raw data, and final recommendation.
What you can do next
Koolav can make the introduction and handle the back-and-forth, or you can go straight to the agency.
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 2026-07-24. Follow any of them and check for yourself — that is the point of publishing them.
- Bastion Insights publishes methods including discrete choice, product viability, pricing, copy testing, brand tracking, journey, and segmentation. us.bastionagency.com ↗
- Clutch lists 22 reviews for Bastion Agency, formerly Bastion db5 in market-research engagements. clutch.co ↗
What other platforms say
Strong strategic and research breadth; the specific Insights team, independence, and data rights require confirmation.
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.
Red flags
- Broader agency ownership creates potential activation cross-sell
- Commercial terms are opaque
What we could not verify
- Research-practice review subset
- Panel controls, pricing, raw-data rights, and AI disclosure
Sources
Others we evaluated in Market Research
Same rubric, same evaluator, same date range — so these are directly comparable to the verdict above.
See all 14 Market Research 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.