KoolavAll agenciesBy industryBy disciplineReportsHow we vet
All agencies · Podcast Production

FullCast review

CONDITIONAL for Podcast Production

Worth a conversation about Podcast Production once the caveats below are settled.

A boutique founder-led podcast partnership with published tooling and clearly bounded scope, but no named client show, no public pricing, no ownership terms, and placeholder legal copy on a live site.

Pricing: several published tiers Published by the agency
Their own podcast-cost article states 'No exact FullCast prices here' and gives only generic market ranges ($150-$500 per episode for freelance editing, $1,000-$20,000+ per month for agency retainers). source ↗

Score 2.6/5Confidence: lowLast evaluated 2026-08-26Website

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.

Show portfolio and named client workWeak

The sitemap contains no work, portfolio, case-study or clients page, and no named client show appears on the homepage, /about or /podcast-production. Social proof is four logos under 'Trusted by leaders at' (Claremont Graduate University, Dun & Bradstreet, K-Swiss, MediaMath) - employers of individuals, not attributable shows - plus an unverifiable aggregate of '130+ shows launched since 2015'. The only attributable, listenable shows are the founder's own: Podcast Junkies (333 episodes) and Vertical Farming Podcast (187 episodes), both confirmed real and substantial in Apple's index, and both currently dormant (last episodes 2026-03-20 and 2026-05-09). A 'FullCast Clients' list curated by the founder exists on Podchaser but returned HTTP 403 and could not be read, so nothing was scored from it. Zero client shows could be confirmed real and current.

What this dimension measures: The shows themselves are public and listenable, which makes this category unusually checkable. Look for named client shows that are current — still publishing, or completed as a stated season — and attributable to the agency. A roster of live, findable shows for recognisable clients scores 4-5. Named shows that are all dormant score 2-3: podfade in the portfolio is a real signal, though distinguish shows the client chose to end from shows that quietly stopped. A portfolio of clips with no findable shows scores 2. Where independent reviewers credit editorial judgment — making a guest conversation sound like a show rather than a call recording — weight that over technical polish. Counts for 25% 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: Caspian Studios scores Excellent on the same dimension.

Scope and pricing transparencyAdequate

No public pricing at all, stated three separate times: 'There's no public pricing' (/podcast-production), 'No public pricing - we'll discuss specifics together if it's a fit' (/apply), and 'No exact FullCast prices here' in their own cost article. That article's figures ($150-$500 per episode freelance, $1,000-$20,000+/mo agency retainers) are generic market ranges, i.e. vendor-authored SERP content rather than a price anchor. Scope clarity is the offsetting half and is genuinely above average: seven named deliverables, a stated weekly published video episode, a six-month minimum with option to renew, and an explicit boundary listing what the client remains responsible for (guest approval, sending invitations, scheduling, relationship-building, sales follow-up). Bespoke-only price, clearly bounded scope.

What this dimension measures: Published per-episode or monthly pricing, or defined packages with stated inclusions (episodes per month, editing depth, show notes, clips, distribution), scores 4-5. Ranges on request score 2-3; bespoke-only quoting with no public anchor scores 1-2. Score scope clarity alongside price: production-only shops that state plainly they do not do strategy or promotion are more useful than full-service claims with no boundaries, and a stated boundary is never penalised. Counts for 20% of the weighted score.

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

Production process and cadence reliabilityAdequate

A six-step workflow is described (Position, Map, Prepare, Produce, Multiply, Review) and the tooling is published in unusual detail at /stack: Captivate for hosting, Riverside.fm and SquadCast for remote recording, Descript and Auphonic for editing and mastering, Cal.com described as 'the recording booking page for every client', Kit for email. Stated cadence is one published video episode weekly. Missing: no editing turnaround per episode, no approval gates with timings, and no independent reports of episodes shipping on schedule. Capped at Adequate under the corroboration rule - the top band requires reviewers crediting consistency, and no readable review base exists. Noted but not scored as a failure: the founder's own two flagship shows have not published in roughly five and three months, which is a host's choice about his own shows rather than a verified missed client deadline, though weekly cadence is the product being sold.

What this dimension measures: A podcast is a recurring deadline: the product is hitting the same slot every week for a year. Look for a described workflow (recording logistics, editing turnaround per episode, approval gates), named tooling, and independent reports of episodes shipping on schedule. Reviewers crediting consistency and communication score 4-5. No described process scores 2-3. Verified reports of missed publishing schedules score 1-2 — in this category schedule slippage is product failure, not an inconvenience. Counts for 15% of the weighted score.

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

Strategy and distribution rangeAdequate

The described engagement is broad rather than edit-and-publish: authority positioning before recording, a relationship map, monthly researched guest pipeline with outreach templates, host briefs and interview questions, weekly video production with video included by default, content multiplication into clips, posts, emails and show notes, and a monthly strategic review. Discoverability work is a real adjacent line (/podcast-audit, /seo, /ai) covering feed metadata and Apple keyword position. Two ceilings the buyer must match against the brief: guest outreach, invitations and scheduling stay with the client, so this is not done-for-you on the booking side; and the range is asserted rather than demonstrated, since no client show can be viewed. Capped at Adequate because the top band requires full-stack capability evidenced by real shows.

What this dimension measures: What the engagement covers beyond the edit: positioning and format development, guest booking, launch strategy, video podcast capability, clip production for social, and distribution/promotion. Full-stack capability evidenced by real shows scores 4-5. Edit-and-publish only scores 2-3 — not a defect, but a ceiling the buyer must match against the brief, and it should be stated in the verdict. Video capability matters increasingly and its absence should be named. Counts for 15% of the weighted score.

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

Rights and ownershipWeak

Measured silence across nine pages. Nothing states who owns the feed, the masters, the raw recordings or the show accounts, and nothing addresses music licensing. The only intellectual-property language found runs the other direction, on /terms: 'The FullCast name, content, and original frameworks on this site are the property of FullCast and may not be reproduced without permission.' Compounding this, /terms is explicitly marked as placeholder legal copy requiring professional review before launch, while the site actively takes applications for a paid six-month partnership. They publish Captivate as their hosting platform but never say whose Captivate account a client show is registered under, which is precisely the feed-ownership question. Must be raised before contracting.

What this dimension measures: Who owns the masters, the raw recordings, the feed and the show accounts, and how music licensing works. The feed is the asset a switching client needs: an agency that registers the show under its own accounts holds the client's audience hostage at renewal. Explicit client ownership of feed, masters and raws scores 4-5. Finals-only delivery scores 2. Silence scores 2 and must be raised before contracting. Counts for 10% of the weighted score.

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

Stronger here: We Edit Podcasts scores Strong on the same dimension.

Measurement honestyAdequate

No guaranteed-audience claims of any kind were found across nine pages - no download guarantees, no chart-placement promises, no 'top 1%' framing sold as a client outcome - and the homepage frames the goal as relationships and authority rather than download counts, which is the honest framing for a production agency. The free audit page goes further and discloses the limits of its own instrument unprompted: it reports Apple position from Apple's public search API as 'your actual position - not a guess', and states that Spotify 'doesn't expose one, so we can't check your Spotify ranking - anyone who tells you they can is guessing.' What keeps this from the top band is that no reporting approach for the client's own show is stated: the Monthly Strategic Review is described as tracking 'content momentum, relationship opportunities, and strategic next steps' with no named metrics and no download methodology. Two claims about the founder's own show ('#1-ranked' Vertical Farming Podcast, '$100K+' sponsorship revenue) are presented as his results, not as promises to clients.

What this dimension measures: What the agency promises and reports. Honest reporting — downloads with their known limits, follower growth, clip performance, and no guaranteed-audience claims — scores 4-5. Vanity promises (chart placement guarantees, download guarantees, 'top 1%' framing sold as an outcome) score 1-2 on verified evidence, because audience outcomes are not in a production agency's control and guaranteeing them is a claim about someone else's behaviour. No stated measurement approach scores 2-3. Counts for 10% of the weighted score.

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

References and review baseWeak

No independent review base located for this agency. No Clutch profile was found via search. No testimonial with an attributed client name appears anywhere on the site - not on the homepage, /about or /podcast-production. Important caution: a G2 listing showing 4.9 from 12 reviews surfaces in search for 'Fullcast', but it belongs to fullcast.io, a sales-planning software company with a confusingly similar name, and is not this agency; it also returned HTTP 403 and could not be read first-hand, so no rating or count is cited here.

What this dimension measures: Volume and recency of independent, verified reviews. A substantial base on a verification-requiring platform scores 4-5; a handful scores 2-3; none located scores 2. Low weight deliberately — the listenable shows are better evidence than the review count in this category. Counts for 5% of the weighted score.

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

Verdict

FullCast is a genuine podcast production agency, not the sales-planning software of the similar name - the site at fullcast.co is Harry Duran's boutique operation, founded 2015, selling a six-month done-for-you partnership around one published video episode per week. The offer is clearly articulated: seven named deliverables running from authority positioning and a guest pipeline through weekly video production to clip repurposing and a monthly review. Two things about how it is presented are better than category norm.

The tooling is published in specifics rather than gestured at - Captivate, Riverside.fm, SquadCast, Descript, Auphonic, Cal.com, Kit - which is a checkable commitment most agencies avoid making. And the scope has a stated boundary: guest approval, sending invitations, scheduling and relationship-building stay with the client. A boundary is more useful to a buyer than an unbounded full-service claim, and it is stated plainly.

The central weakness is that a category which is unusually checkable has been left unchecked. Podcasts are public artifacts; a production agency can simply name the shows it makes and let a buyer listen. FullCast names none.

There is no work, portfolio or case-study page anywhere in the sitemap. The social proof is four logos under 'Trusted by leaders at' - which describes where individuals work, not shows that were produced - and an aggregate count of 130+ launches that cannot be checked from outside. The only attributable, listenable shows are the founder's own, Podcast Junkies and Vertical Farming Podcast; both were confirmed real and substantial in Apple's index, at 333 and 187 episodes, and both are currently dormant, with last episodes in March and May 2026.

A founder pausing his own shows is his prerogative and is not a missed client deadline, but when the product sold is hitting a weekly slot, the two shows a buyer can actually hear are the ones not currently hitting it. A client list curated by the founder does exist on Podchaser; it returned 403 and was not readable, so nothing was scored from it, and it remains the fastest way for the agency to close this gap.

Two commercial terms are absent rather than merely private. Pricing is withheld deliberately and consistently - three separate pages say so, and their own cost article states 'No exact FullCast prices here' before giving generic market ranges - which is a defensible sales choice but leaves no anchor at all. More consequential is rights: nothing on the site says who owns the feed, the masters, the raw recordings or the show accounts, and nothing addresses music licensing.

They name Captivate as the hosting platform but never say whose Captivate account a client's show lives in, which is exactly the question that determines whether a client can leave with their audience. The only IP language found points the other way, asserting FullCast's ownership of its own frameworks, and it sits on a /terms page explicitly labelled placeholder legal copy pending professional review while the site takes applications for a paid engagement.

On measurement the agency reads as honest. Across nine pages there is no download guarantee, no chart-placement promise and no audience outcome sold as a deliverable, and the free audit page volunteers the limits of its own instrument, stating that Spotify exposes no ranking API and that anyone claiming to check it is guessing. That is a real signal in a category full of vanity promises.

What a buyer still cannot answer: which shows are theirs and whether those shows still publish; what this costs; who owns the feed at renewal; what the per-episode editing turnaround and approval gates are; and what any past client says, since no attributed testimonial and no independent review base could be located. Buyers searching for reviews should also note that the highly-rated G2 listing for 'Fullcast' belongs to an unrelated software company. This is a case where the underlying work may well be solid and the evidence for it simply has not been published - naming five current client shows would move most of these dimensions at once.

What you can do next

Koolav can make the introduction and handle the back-and-forth, or you can go straight to the agency.

Visit their website

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 2026-08-26. Follow any of them and check for yourself — that is the point of publishing them.

No independent reviews found

No independent review base was located or read for this agency. No Clutch profile was found via search, and no attributed client testimonial appears anywhere on the site. A G2 listing showing 4.9 from 12 reviews appears in search results for 'Fullcast' but belongs to fullcast.io, an unrelated sales-planning software company; it also returned HTTP 403 and could not be read first-hand, so no numbers are cited. Buyers should be aware of this name collision when researching.

Not finding one is not a mark against the agency and does not move the score. It does mean there is no third-party record to set against ours — so this verdict rests on the rubric and the sources above, and nothing else.

Red flags

What we could not verify

Sources

Others we evaluated in Podcast Production

Same rubric, same evaluator, same date range — so these are directly comparable to the verdict above.

See all 16 Podcast Production 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.