Gisteo review

Portfolio page lists 50+ attributed videos with named clients including Scholastic, Loyola Marymount University, Aerospike, Rayonier, Eldermark and LoadUp, with uploads dated through 2024-2026, so the body of work is current and attributable. Clutch reviewers independently credit scriptwriting and the ability to 'simplify complex solutions', which the rubric says to weight. Individual videos could not be played in this evaluation, so craft quality itself is judged from attribution plus independent review commentary rather than direct viewing.

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.

Exact prices are published on-site: Just Animate! $3,500, Full-Service $4,000, VIP Fast Pass $5,000 for the first 60 seconds, each +$500 per additional 30 seconds, 15% prepay discount, plus a $20K/yr Unlimited subscription. Packages are all-inclusive (script or storyboard, voiceover, illustration, animation, music, sound effects, unlimited within-stage revisions), so the quoted number is the real number - the rubric's top of band. One boundary is stated plainly: source files cost an extra $500-$1,000.

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.

A six-stage process (discovery, script, storyboard, voiceover, animation, delivery) with explicit client approval gates at each stage and unlimited revisions within a stage is published on the how-it-works page. Clutch reviewers independently cite structured, responsive management: 'We've never missed a deadline' and rapid response times, with the founder directly accessible. No reviewer reports of slippage were found.

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.

Claimed range covers 2D animation, motion graphics, whiteboard, kinetic typography, mixed media, animated presenters, live action, and AI cinematic/avatar videos. The visible portfolio is dominated by 2D animation with motion graphics; multiple animation styles are evidenced there, but live-action depth is vendor-stated and was not verifiable from attributed samples. A buyer with a people-on-camera brief should ask for live-action examples specifically.

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

Ownership terms are explicit on-site: after payment and delivery 'you own 100% of the rights on a perpetual basis', with all work classified as work for hire, covering the music and voiceover included in the package. Source files (native After Effects projects) remain Gisteo's IP unless released for a stated $500-$1,000 fee - a finals-plus arrangement disclosed up front rather than discovered later.

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

Fixed timelines are published per package: 2-3 weeks (VIP Fast Pass), 3-4 weeks (Just Animate!), 5-6 weeks (Full-Service) for a 60-90 second piece, with an Express option for tight deadlines. Clutch reviewers independently corroborate on-time delivery, including one client saying the video arrived 'in half the time other companies promised'.

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.

Clutch shows 5.0 from 8 verified reviews (read first-hand), dated March 2022 through August 2024 - a genuine but small base on a verification-requiring platform, and the most recent review is now about two years old. Ratings quoted on other platforms (Google, LinkedIn) were not independently readable and are not counted.

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.