Explainly 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 — Site displays client logos for Amazon, Google, JPMorgan, HubSpot, Uber, Visa, T-Mobile, Peacock, McKesson and Alibaba, and Clutch reviewers independently credit 'the quality of the animation, and also how they were able to distill all our different needs into a final product' — the distillation ability the rubric weights. But the portfolio gallery itself did not render to a non-JS fetch, so not one piece could be attributed to a named client or watched first-hand, and recency could not be checked — a portfolio that cannot be viewed cannot score as a viewed portfolio, whatever the logo wall claims. Award claims (14x Davey, 17x Telly, 14x Muse) are entry-fee award programs and were not weighted. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “Homepage offers 2D animation, 3D animation, live action and mixed media, plus localization, social cuts and Lottie files, and displays logos for Amazon, Google, JPMorgan, HubSpot, Uber, Visa, T-Mobile, Peacock, Safeway, Toast, CLEAR, McKesson, Universal and Alibaba” explainly.com ↗

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 — The dedicated pricing page publishes no numbers: 'Custom animation means custom pricing.' It does publish scope clearly — standard package includes script, style frames, illustrated storyboard, professional voiceover, music/SFX, 2 revision rounds per deliverable, and a 6-8 week turnaround — and Clutch lists a $10,000+ minimum project size, but there is no public price anchor of any kind; buyers must request an estimate. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “Dedicated pricing page publishes no prices ('custom animation means custom pricing') but publishes package scope: script, style frames, illustrated storyboard, professional voiceover, music/SFX, 2 revision rounds per deliverable, 6-8 week standard turnaround, rush (4-6 wk) and super-rush (<4 wk) options, ownership rights to illustrated assets” explainly.com ↗

deliverability — deliverability: whether cold email actually lands in the inbox rather than spam. The tell is infrastructure talk — warmed sending domains kept separate from your main domain — because a burned domain outlasts the engagement.

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.

Excellent — 5 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 29 · Adequate 20 · Weak 4. The typical agency here scores Strong, and none scores 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 — Five-stage process published on-site (Discovery, Pre-Production, Production, Animation, Final Delivery) with defined deliverables per stage, a client video-management dashboard, and 2 revision rounds per deliverable. Independently corroborated on Clutch: communication rated 5.0, 15 separate reviewer mentions of on-time or ahead-of-schedule delivery, reviewers name Trello and Slack as the working tools. This is the vendor's clearest verified strength. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Excellent.

On the record — “Five-stage process published (Discovery, Pre-Production, Production, Animation, Final Delivery) with per-stage deliverables, a client video-management dashboard, and final delivery of an uncompressed master plus reusable illustrated art assets” explainly.com ↗

On the record — “Clutch profile shows 4.9/5 across 48 verified reviews, $10,000+ minimum project size, Sausalito CA headquarters, 10-49 employees; reviewers cite Trello and Slack and 15 mentions of on-time delivery” clutch.co ↗

deliverability — deliverability: whether cold email actually lands in the inbox rather than spam. The tell is infrastructure talk — warmed sending domains kept separate from your main domain — because a burned domain outlasts the engagement.

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

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 — Site offers 2D animation, 3D animation, live action, and mixed media, plus social cuts, localization and Lottie files — both modalities across formats per the rubric's top band. Caveat: the independent review base is almost entirely animated-explainer work; the live-action capability is a site claim not corroborated by any review or attributable piece read here. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Homepage offers 2D animation, 3D animation, live action and mixed media, plus localization, social cuts and Lottie files, and displays logos for Amazon, Google, JPMorgan, HubSpot, Uber, Visa, T-Mobile, Peacock, Safeway, Toast, CLEAR, McKesson, Universal and Alibaba” explainly.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 10% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 61 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 7 · Adequate 5 · Weak 49. The typical agency here scores Weak, and 7 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 — More than silence, less than explicit transfer: pricing page includes 'ownership rights to illustrated assets,' final delivery includes an uncompressed master plus illustrated art assets 'to use in other marketing materials,' and music is stated as royalty-free. But ownership of the final video itself and the project files, and the term of the voiceover license, are nowhere stated and should be pinned down before contracting. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “Five-stage process published (Discovery, Pre-Production, Production, Animation, Final Delivery) with per-stage deliverables, a client video-management dashboard, and final delivery of an uncompressed master plus reusable illustrated art assets” explainly.com ↗

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

Excellent — 5 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 3 · Strong 27 · Adequate 7 · Weak 24. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and none scores 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 — Published fixed timeline bands: 6-8 weeks standard, 4-6 weeks rush, under 4 weeks super rush — exactly the rubric's top-band pattern — and the estimate is independently shown to be honest: 15 Clutch mentions of on-time delivery, one reviewer stating 'everything was delivered on time and often even ahead of schedule.' 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.

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 9 · Strong 14 · Adequate 14 · Weak 24. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 9 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 — 48 verified reviews at 4.9/5 on Clutch, read first-hand. Substantial for this category; sole recurring criticism is a wish for more creative concept options at project start. Recency of the newest reviews could not be fully established from the profile summary (a featured review dates Sep 2024).

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