Beast Films review

Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 23% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 61 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 10 · Strong 31 · Adequate 16 · Weak 4. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 10 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: The primary reason to hire a production agency. Look for a body of work that is current, attributable and recognisable, with named clients whose brands carry real standards. Competent, generic output scores 3. Where reviewers independently credit narrative or storytelling ability rather than just delivery, weight that: turning a complex proposition into something clear is the hard part of this job.

Scores high — Distinctive, consistently high-quality output for demanding clients scores 4-5.

Scores low — A portfolio dominated by work more than two years old scores 2 — the team that made it has usually moved on.

What we found — Portfolio of 70+ projects viewable on-site, dated roughly 2018-2026, with named work for Nike, British Airways, Adidas, Zalando, DAZN, Tommy Hilfiger and Burger King, credited to 9 named directors. The Cannes Lions Bronze claim for Burger King 'Whopper No Show' (2018) is published as their own case study; independent corroboration of the award was not located first-hand, so award claims stay vendor-stated. Current, attributable, recognisable-client work supports Strong; Excellent withheld because big-brand attribution rests on their own site. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Work index lists 70+ projects dated ~2018-2026 with named clients including Nike, British Airways, Adidas, Zalando, DAZN and Tommy Hilfiger, credited to 9 named directors” beast.agency ↗

attribution — working out which marketing touch actually caused a sale. Good practice names its model and its blind spots; bad practice quotes each ad platform’s self-graded numbers, which overlap and overclaim.

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 19% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 61 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 6 · Strong 22 · Adequate 4 · Weak 29. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 32 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Score scope clarity alongside price: a vendor that states plainly what it does NOT do — no shoots, no strategy, animation only — is more useful than one implying it does everything, and should not be penalised for the boundary itself.

Scores high — Published prices, published ranges by video type, or fixed productized packages score 4-5, and an all-inclusive fee that covers script, music, narration and revisions scores at the top of that band because the quoted number is then the real number.

Scores low — Ranges given only on request score 2-3. Bespoke-only quoting with no public anchor scores 1-2.

What we found — No published prices or packages. The homepage FAQ offers only a very wide orientation range ('a simple shoot may start from a few thousand pounds... larger commercial productions can range from GBP 20,000 to 100,000+'), and the corporate-video FAQ says outright that each project is scoped to the brief after a conversation. That is a vendor-authored cost guide, not a price anchor a buyer can plan against. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “No published pricing; homepage FAQ gives only a broad range from 'a few thousand pounds' to 'GBP 20,000 to 100,000+' and the corporate FAQ says projects are scoped to the brief” beast.agency ↗

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

Stronger here: Epipheo scores Excellent on the same dimension.

Adequate — 3 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 14% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 61 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 9 · Strong 29 · Adequate 19 · Weak 4. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 38 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Video projects fail on coordination far more often than on craft. Look for a described process, named collaboration tooling, defined approval gates, and independent reports of on-time delivery.

Scores high — Reviewers consistently citing clear communication and structured workflow score 4-5.

Scores low — No described process and no reviewer commentary scores 2-3. A vendor whose reviews mention schedule slippage or unresponsive periods scores 1-2 on verified evidence.

What we found — A five-stage process is published (Discovery & Strategy, Concept & Script, Production & Logistics, Post-Production, Delivery & Deployment) with stage-level timing on the homepage FAQ. No named collaboration tooling or defined approval gates. A 2020 Google review relayed on DesignRush credits delivery under a tight deadline 'with no compromise on quality', but there is no consistent independent record of on-time delivery. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “DesignRush profile shows Google 5.0 across 37 reviews, team under 49, founded 2014, pricing 'Inquire'” designrush.com ↗

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

Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 14% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 61 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 8 · Strong 31 · Adequate 19 · Weak 3. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 8 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: What the agency can actually produce: live action, animation (2D/3D), motion graphics, studio versus location, and the format and aspect-ratio coverage needed for where the video will run. Animation-only vendors in particular cannot serve briefs that need people on camera, and that should be stated in the verdict rather than discovered later.

Scores high — Both live action and animation, across multiple formats, scores 4-5.

Scores low — A single modality scores 2-3 — not a defect, but a real ceiling that the buyer must match against the brief.

What we found — Live-action TV commercials (15/30/60s), branded content, corporate, feature film, tabletop/studio filming, photography, and post-production including motion graphics; an Animation category appears in the work index, and multichannel delivery in 16:9, 9:16 and 1:1 is stated. Primarily a live-action director-led shop; animation depth is not demonstrated as a standalone capability. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

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 10% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 61 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 7 · Adequate 6 · Weak 48. The typical agency here scores Weak, and 13 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Who owns the final file, the raw footage and the project files, and for how long the music, stock and talent licences run. This is where video differs most sharply from design: a licence that expires, or talent usage limited by term and territory, can make a video unusable in year two.

Scores high — Explicit ownership transfer with stated licence terms scores 4-5.

Scores low — Finals-only delivery scores 2. Silence scores 2 and should be raised before contracting, since retrospective clearance is expensive.

What we found — Nothing on the site states who owns finals, raw footage or project files, or how long music, stock and talent licences run. The corporate-video FAQ and services pages are silent on ownership. Per the rubric, silence scores 2 and should be raised before contracting. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “Site is silent on ownership of finals, raw footage and project files, and on music/stock/talent licence terms” beast.agency ↗

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

Stronger here: Epipheo scores Strong on the same dimension.

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 61 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 4 · Strong 27 · Adequate 6 · Weak 24. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 31 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Stated timelines from brief to delivery, and how far out the agency books.

Scores high — Fixed, published timelines score 4-5.

Scores low — Multi-month cycles are normal for high-end work and score 2-3 — score the honesty of the estimate rather than the length, since a realistic twelve weeks beats an optimistic four. Undisclosed scheduling scores 2.

What we found — Realistic typical timelines are published: pre-production 2-3 weeks, filming one day to a full week, post-production 2-4+ weeks, and 'a few weeks to a couple of months' for corporate films. Honest estimates, but no fixed published timelines and no information on how far out they book. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

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 61 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 9 · Strong 15 · Adequate 13 · Weak 24. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 24 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Volume and recency of independent, verified reviews. Low weight deliberately — in this category a portfolio is more informative than a review count, and several excellent production shops have almost no review footprint because their work arrives by referral.

Scores low — A substantial base on a verification-requiring platform scores 4-5; a handful of reviews scores 2-3; none located scores 2.

What we found — DesignRush profile (read first-hand) shows a Google rating of 5.0 across 37 reviews with quoted reviews from 2020 and 2025; the Google listing itself was not read directly, so treat the count as relayed. Trustpilot (read first-hand) holds exactly 1 review from 2020 on an unclaimed profile, written by a user named 'beast london' in marketing-copy language. No Clutch profile located.

On the record — “Trustpilot profile is unclaimed with exactly 1 review (2020), posted by a user named 'beast london' in marketing-copy language” uk.trustpilot.com ↗

On the record — “DesignRush profile shows Google 5.0 across 37 reviews, team under 49, founded 2014, pricing 'Inquire'” designrush.com ↗

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