Conversion.com review
Shortlist-ready for CRO / Web Conversion, with the caveats below.
A dedicated experimentation agency with a clear research-to-roadmap-to-build workflow and enough engineering depth to run the tests it recommends; premium pricing and limited public review volume are the main caveats.
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.
Experimentation rigor (valid A/B testing)Excellent
Excellent — 5 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 25% of the total score.
Benchmark — across the 25 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 16 · Strong 7 · Weak 1 · Poor 1. The typical agency here scores Excellent, and none scores higher than this one.
What this dimension measures: Runs statistically-valid experiments: proper sample sizes/power, avoids peeking, sequential/Bayesian methods, honest win-rate reporting.
Scores high — Named testing methodology and honesty about losers/flat tests score 4-5.
Scores low — 'We A/B test button colors' or claims of 90%+ win rates score 1-2 (a red flag).
What we found — Experiment design, launch, and analysis are the core service rather than an add-on. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Excellent.
On the record — “Conversion.com describes a delivery cycle that moves from CRO strategy and roadmapping to the design, build, and analysis of every experiment.” conversion.com ↗
Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.
Conversion research & UXExcellent
Excellent — 5 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 18% of the total score.
Benchmark — across the 25 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 12 · Strong 11 · Adequate 1 · Weak 1. The typical agency here scores Strong, and none scores higher than this one.
What this dimension measures: Grounds tests in real research: heuristic analysis, analytics, session replay, surveys, user testing, not guesses.
Scores high — Research-led hypotheses score 4-5.
Scores low — Best-practice checklists with no research score 1-2.
What we found — The process begins with research and a prioritized experimentation roadmap. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Excellent.
Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.
Landing page / site design & devStrong
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 25 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 6 · Strong 17 · Adequate 2. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 6 of them score higher than this one.
What this dimension measures: Can design AND build high-converting pages/sites fast (not just recommend).
Scores high — In-house design + dev score 4-5.
Scores low — Recommendations handed back to the client's team score 2-3.
What we found — The team publicly describes designing and building test variants. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.
On the record — “Conversion.com describes a delivery cycle that moves from CRO strategy and roadmapping to the design, build, and analysis of every experiment.” conversion.com ↗
Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.
Analytics & attributionStrong
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 25 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 7 · Strong 14 · Adequate 4. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 7 of them score higher than this one.
What this dimension measures: Sound measurement: clean analytics implementation, event tracking, attribution, and guarding against false positives.
Scores high — Strong analytics score 4-5.
Scores low — Reliance on platform vanity dashboards scores 2.
What we found — Experiment analysis is part of the delivery loop. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.
On the record — “Conversion.com describes a delivery cycle that moves from CRO strategy and roadmapping to the design, build, and analysis of every experiment.” conversion.com ↗
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: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.
Measurement tied to revenue liftStrong
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 25 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 14 · Strong 9 · Adequate 2. The typical agency here scores Excellent, and 14 of them score higher than this one.
What this dimension measures: Reports revenue-per-visitor / incremental revenue lift, not just conversion-rate deltas on micro-conversions.
Scores low — Revenue-lift focus scores 4-5; micro-conversion vanity scores 1-2.
What we found — Programs are framed around commercial experimentation outcomes, not design awards.
Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.
Platform depth (Shopify/Webflow/Next)Adequate
Adequate — 3 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 8% of the total score.
Benchmark — across the 25 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 7 · Strong 9 · Adequate 9. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 16 of them score higher than this one.
What this dimension measures: Deep in the buyer's actual stack (Shopify for ecom, Webflow/Next for B2B/SaaS).
Scores low — Match scores 4-5; mismatch/generalist scores 2-3.
What we found — Strong test engineering is visible, but public evidence is not organized around specific commerce frameworks.
B2B — business-to-business: selling to companies rather than consumers — longer deals, more decision-makers.
SaaS — software as a service: subscription software; as a client type it brings recurring revenue and metrics like churn and lifetime value.
Evidence: inferred — our reading of indirect evidence, not a documented fact.
Vertical & stage fitStrong
Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 4% of the total score.
Benchmark — across the 25 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 11 · Strong 14. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 11 of them score higher than this one.
What this dimension measures: Ecommerce CRO vs B2B SaaS/lead-gen CRO are different crafts.
Scores low — Named clients matching the buyer score 5; mismatch scores 1-2.
What we found — Best fit is an established company with meaningful traffic and an experimentation budget.
CRO — conversion-rate optimization: raising the share of visitors who buy or sign up through structured testing, not redesign by taste.
B2B — business-to-business: selling to companies rather than consumers — longer deals, more decision-makers.
SaaS — software as a service: subscription software; as a client type it brings recurring revenue and metrics like churn and lifetime value.
Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.
Contract & pricing transparencyWeak
Weak — 2 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 3% of the total score.
Benchmark — across the 25 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 2 · Strong 4 · Adequate 8 · Weak 8 · Poor 3. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 14 of them score higher than this one.
Scores high — Month-to-month or short terms with a pricing anchor score 4-5.
Scores low — 12-month lock-ins or bespoke-only score 2.
What we found — Pricing is not published. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.
Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.
Stronger here: CROHOUSE scores Excellent on the same dimension.
Verdict
Conversion.com is a genuine experimentation specialist rather than a web-design shop relabeling redesign work as CRO. Its public process covers opportunity research, strategy and roadmapping, then the design, build, launch, and analysis of experiments. That is strong evidence of a complete operating loop.
It is best suited to established businesses with enough traffic and budget to support a continuous program. The buyer should still ask for recent statistical-governance examples and commercial terms because public pricing and independent review depth are limited.
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 2026-07-21. Follow any of them and check for yourself — that is the point of publishing them.
- Conversion.com describes a delivery cycle that moves from CRO strategy and roadmapping to the design, build, and analysis of every experiment. conversion.com ↗
- A Clutch profile with four public reviews was located, providing some independent validation but not a deep review base. clutch.co ↗
What other platforms say
Public evidence supports a rigorous, full-cycle experimentation practice; review volume and pricing visibility are the weak spots.
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
- No public pricing
- Small independent review sample relative to the firm's profile
What we could not verify
- Current retainer range
- Statistical guardrails used on low-traffic accounts
- Depth on each specific commerce platform
Sources
Others we evaluated in CRO / Web Conversion
Same rubric, same evaluator, same date range — so these are directly comparable to the verdict above.
See all 26 CRO / Web Conversion 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.