Cub Studio review

Deep named-client roster on-site: Premier League (VAR explainer series), ESPN, Fox Sports, FIA (Formula E, WEC), World Rugby, US Open Tennis, MLB All Star Game, Team Canada, MasterClass, HelloFresh, Bremont. Project pages carry per-person crew credits (e.g. Premier League VAR: direction Merlin Nation & Fraser Davidson, animation Alfie Bogush & Sean Proctor), which is unusually specific. However, the portfolio pages served thumbnails without playable video to this reader, project pages carry no dates, and no independent corroboration of the client attributions was read first-hand - so the corroboration cap holds this at Adequate despite a roster that, if verified, would score higher.

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. Distinctive, consistently high-quality output for demanding clients scores 4-5. Competent, generic output scores 3. A portfolio dominated by work more than two years old scores 2 — the team that made it has usually moved on. 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. Counts for 25% of the weighted score.

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

No published prices or ranges anywhere on the site; the process page explicitly declines fixed rates in favour of tailored quotes, noting only that music licensing and voice-over usage rights affect cost. Bespoke-only quoting with no public anchor scores 1-2. Scope clarity is the redeeming half: the studio states plainly it does animation only (2D, 3D, motion graphics, character) and offers no live action - a clear boundary the rubric says not to penalise, which lifts this to the top of the Weak band rather than Poor.

What this dimension measures: 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. Ranges given only on request score 2-3. Bespoke-only quoting with no public anchor scores 1-2. 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. Counts for 20% of the weighted score.

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

Stronger here: Epipheo scores Excellent on the same dimension.

A genuinely detailed published seven-stage process (briefing, scripting, style frames, voice over, animation, audio mix, sign-off) with explicit approval gates: no voice recording until script sign-off, approved style frames as the 'visual bible', audio mix after picture lock. States no revision cap and claims 'We've never missed a deadline' and 'the team you brief is the team that makes your animation'. All self-published; no independent reviewer commentary on communication or schedule was locatable, so the 4-5 band (which requires reviewer corroboration) is out of reach.

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. Reviewers consistently citing clear communication and structured workflow score 4-5. 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. Counts for 15% of the weighted score.

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

Animation-only by design: 2D, 3D, motion graphics, character animation, interactive animation, plus adjacent services (storyboarding, script writing, sound design, motion guidelines), delivering to broadcast, social, web and digital out-of-home specs. No live action at all - a single-modality shop, which the rubric scores 2-3 regardless of quality within the modality. Broad range inside animation puts it at the top of that band, but briefs needing people on camera cannot be served.

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. Both live action and animation, across multiple formats, scores 4-5. A single modality scores 2-3 — not a defect, but a real ceiling that the buyer must match against the brief. 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. Counts for 15% of the weighted score.

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

No published statement of who owns finals, project files or working files. The process page acknowledges that music licensing and voice-over costs depend on usage rights - which shows the studio prices licences by term and usage - but the actual terms buyers get are not published anywhere read. Silence scores 2; ownership and licence duration must be raised before contracting.

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. Explicit ownership transfer with stated licence terms scores 4-5. Finals-only delivery scores 2. Silence scores 2 and should be raised before contracting, since retrospective clearance is expensive. Counts for 10% of the weighted score.

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

Stronger here: Epipheo scores Strong on the same dimension.

The process page publishes a concrete, realistic anchor: 'a typical 60-second animation takes around four weeks from approved script to final delivery', with the animation phase 'typically several weeks' depending on complexity, and staged approvals structuring the schedule. That is a stated, honest-looking timeline of the kind the rubric rewards. Current booking lead time is not disclosed.

What this dimension measures: Stated timelines from brief to delivery, and how far out the agency books. Fixed, published timelines score 4-5. 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. Counts for 10% of the weighted score.

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

Clutch profile read first-hand: zero reviews (rating 0.0, project sizes 'confidential based on 0 review'). No Google or G2 review base was located and read. A Facebook recommendation figure surfaced in search results but the review page itself was not readable first-hand, so no number is cited. None located scores 2 - consistent with a referral-driven studio, and low-weighted by design.

What this dimension measures: Volume and recency of independent, verified reviews. A substantial base on a verification-requiring platform scores 4-5; a handful of reviews scores 2-3; none located scores 2. 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. Counts for 5% of the weighted score.

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

Stronger here: Vidico scores Excellent on the same dimension.