Cub Studio review

Adequate — 3 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 32 · Adequate 15 · Weak 4. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 42 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 — 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. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “Premier League VAR project page publishes per-person crew credits (direction Merlin Nation & Fraser Davidson; animation Alfie Bogush & Sean Proctor; audio Morgan Samuel)” cubstudio.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: 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 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 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. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “No pricing is published; the studio explicitly declines fixed rates in favour of tailored quotes” cubstudio.com ↗

On the record — “Animation-only scope stated on-site (2D, 3D, motion graphics, character, interactive); no live-action services offered” cubstudio.com ↗

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.

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 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. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “Published seven-stage process with explicit approval gates (script sign-off before voice recording; style frames approved before animation; audio mix after picture lock) and a stated typical timeline of ~4 weeks from approved script to delivery for a 60-second animation” cubstudio.com ↗

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 14% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 61 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 8 · Strong 32 · Adequate 18 · Weak 3. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 40 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 — 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. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “Animation-only scope stated on-site (2D, 3D, motion graphics, character, interactive); no live-action services offered” cubstudio.com ↗

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 — 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. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “No pricing is published; the studio explicitly declines fixed rates in favour of tailored quotes” cubstudio.com ↗

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

Stronger here: Epipheo scores Strong 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 61 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 4 · Strong 26 · Adequate 7 · Weak 24. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 4 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 — 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. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Published seven-stage process with explicit approval gates (script sign-off before voice recording; style frames approved before animation; audio mix after picture lock) and a stated typical timeline of ~4 weeks from approved script to delivery for a 60-second animation” cubstudio.com ↗

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 Excellent 9 · Strong 15 · Adequate 14 · Weak 23. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 38 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 — 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.

On the record — “Clutch profile exists with zero client reviews” clutch.co ↗

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.