Explainly review

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.'

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

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).

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.