Gisteo review

Strong — 4 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 31 · Adequate 16 · Weak 4. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 10 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 — 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. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Portfolio lists 50+ attributed videos with named clients (Scholastic, Loyola Marymount University, Aerospike, Rayonier, Eldermark, LoadUp among others) including 2024-2026 work” gisteo.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: partly checkable — corroborated in part against the sources below; the remainder rests on the agency’s own account.

Excellent — 5 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 5 · Strong 22 · Adequate 4 · Weak 30. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and none scores 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 — 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. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Excellent.

On the record — “Published package pricing: $3,500 / $4,000 / $5,000 first 60 seconds plus $500 per additional 30-second increment, 15% prepay discount, $20K/yr unlimited subscription” gisteo.com ↗

On the record — “All-inclusive packages cover script/storyboard, voiceover, illustration, animation, music, sound effects and unlimited within-stage revisions, with published turnarounds of 2-3, 3-4 and 5-6 weeks by tier” gisteo.com ↗

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 9 · Strong 28 · Adequate 20 · Weak 4. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 9 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 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. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Six-stage process with client approval gates before each stage advance; unlimited revisions within a stage; fees only for reworking approved stages, case by case” gisteo.com ↗

On the record — “All-inclusive packages cover script/storyboard, voiceover, illustration, animation, music, sound effects and unlimited within-stage revisions, with published turnarounds of 2-3, 3-4 and 5-6 weeks by tier” gisteo.com ↗

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 — 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. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

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

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 Strong 6 · Adequate 6 · Weak 49. The typical agency here scores Weak, and none scores 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 — 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. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Client owns 100% of rights to the delivered video perpetually as work for hire; After Effects source files remain Gisteo IP unless released for a stated $500-$1,000 fee” gisteo.com ↗

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

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 — 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'. 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.

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 Excellent 9 · Strong 15 · Adequate 13 · Weak 24. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 24 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 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.

On the record — “Clutch profile shows 5.0 from 8 verified reviews (Mar 2022 - Aug 2024) citing on-time delivery, transparent pricing and strong scriptwriting” clutch.co ↗

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