Hornet review

Excellent — 5 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 9 · Strong 32 · Adequate 16 · Weak 4. The typical agency here scores Strong, and none scores 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 is viewable first-hand with embedded video and per-project credit blocks naming client, agency, director and crew: Spotify lossless audio launch, Adobe Express 2025 campaign (agency 72 & Sunny), WhatsApp Empire State Building, FENTY x PUMA x Smurfs, Tiffany & Co, Coca-Cola, Coachella, Skittles. Currency is checkable: the news index runs to 11 Jun 2026 and the site footer reads 2001-2026. The flagship piece is corroborated off-site: D&AD's 2025 winners archive lists Balloonerism (Mac Miller / Warner Records) with a Graphite Pencil in Music Videos and credits Hornet as entrant, design agency and production company, so the headline work is not a self-report. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Excellent.

On the record — “D&AD 2025 winners archive lists Balloonerism (Mac Miller / Warner Records) with a Graphite Pencil in Music Videos and credits Hornet as entrant company, design agency and production company - independent corroboration of the studio's headline work.” dandad.org ↗

On the record — “Portfolio is current: news index runs to 11 June 2026 (new director signing) with award and roster announcements through 2025-2026.” hellohornet.com ↗

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

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 — No price, no range, no package, no minimum project size anywhere on the site; there is no rate card, no cost guide and no 'projects start at' anchor. Buying runs through new-business email or one of five regional sales reps (Free Agents US, Beautiful Universe Canada, All Of Us Here London, Unlisted Asia/Australia, Tony Petersen Films Germany), which is bid-per-project. Not scored lower because scope itself is stated plainly: careers page defines the studio as animation, motion design and live action, and brand strategy is pushed to a separately branded sister company, Perfect Stranger, rather than implied to be in scope. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “No pricing, rate card, package or project minimum appears on any page read; buying runs through newbiz@hellohornet.com or one of five regional representatives.” hellohornet.com ↗

On the record — “Work index filters across Design, Animation, Live Action, 2D, 3D and StopMo; site footer reads 2001-2026 and lists New York headquarters plus a Los Angeles executive producer and five regional sales representatives.” hellohornet.com ↗

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

Stronger here: Epipheo scores Excellent on the same dimension.

Adequate — 3 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 29 · Adequate 19 · Weak 4. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 38 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 — No published process page, no named approval gates, no collaboration tooling, and no independent reviewer commentary on delivery could be read. What is checkable is production structure rather than method: credit blocks name a producing chain (Executive Producer, Supervising Producer, Senior Producer, Associate Producer, Director of Production, Head of Production) across separate projects, the careers page lists Project Management and Live Action Production as standing departments, and named executive producers are published for New York, Los Angeles and motion design. Held at Adequate because structure is not a described process and nothing about schedule adherence was independently verifiable. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “Work index filters across Design, Animation, Live Action, 2D, 3D and StopMo; site footer reads 2001-2026 and lists New York headquarters plus a Los Angeles executive producer and five regional sales representatives.” hellohornet.com ↗

On the record — “Project pages publish full attributable credits: the Balloonerism page names director Samuel Jerome Mason, four executive producers, a head of production and over a hundred crew across Hornet and two partner studios.” hellohornet.com ↗

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 14% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 61 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 7 · Strong 32 · Adequate 19 · Weak 3. The typical agency here scores Strong, and none scores 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 — Observed directly on-site, not just claimed. The work index filters by Design, Animation, Live Action, 2D, 3D and StopMo, and individual project pages carry matching discipline tags: WhatsApp is tagged 3D/Animation, Adobe Express is Motion Design/2D, and FENTY x PUMA x Smurfs is tagged Live Action with a Director of Photography and line producer credited, which is a real live-action crew rather than a claimed capability. Stop motion appears both as a filter and in a live job posting spanning cel, CG and stop motion. The director roster runs to roughly 30 directors and studios covering hand-drawn, felted stop motion, CG, real-time game engine and live action. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Excellent.

On the record — “Live-action capability is evidenced rather than claimed: the FENTY x PUMA x Smurfs project is tagged Live Action and credits a director, director of photography, line producer and editorial house.” hellohornet.com ↗

On the record — “Work index filters across Design, Animation, Live Action, 2D, 3D and StopMo; site footer reads 2001-2026 and lists New York headquarters plus a Los Angeles executive producer and five regional sales representatives.” hellohornet.com ↗

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

Weak — 2 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 6 · Weak 48. The typical agency here scores Weak, and 13 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 — Nothing published on who owns the final file, the raw or CG source files, or project files, and no stated term or territory for music, stock or talent licences. The only policy documents linked from the site are a cookie policy and a privacy policy, both hosted as Google Docs, neither of which addresses deliverable rights. Measured absence, not a retrieval failure: about, careers, contact and multiple project pages were all read successfully and none carry licensing terms. A buyer commissioning through an agency or a rep will be negotiating this in the bid. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “The only policy documents linked from the site are a cookie policy and a privacy policy hosted as Google Docs; neither addresses ownership of deliverables, source files or licence terms.” hellohornet.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: inferred — our reading of indirect evidence, not a documented fact.

Stronger here: Epipheo scores Strong on the same dimension.

Weak — 2 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 4 · Strong 27 · Adequate 7 · Weak 23. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 38 of them score 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 — No timelines published anywhere: no brief-to-delivery estimate, no typical project length, no indication of how far out directors book. The one indirect signal is scale rather than schedule, and it cuts the other way for a buyer in a hurry: the Balloonerism credit list runs to well over a hundred named crew across Hornet plus two French partner studios for a 22-minute film, which is a long-cycle production shape. Undisclosed scheduling, so scored on the rubric's own guidance for silence. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “Project pages publish full attributable credits: the Balloonerism page names director Samuel Jerome Mason, four executive producers, a head of production and over a hundred crew across Hornet and two partner studios.” hellohornet.com ↗

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

Stronger here: Epipheo scores Excellent on the same dimension.

Weak — 2 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 14 · Weak 23. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 38 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 — No independent client review base was located and read first-hand. Clutch returned HTTP 403 to every profile URL attempted, so no rating or count can be cited and the existence of a profile cannot be confirmed either way; LBBOnline also returned 403. What was verifiable independently is juried awards, not client reviews: the D&AD 2025 archive entry naming Hornet. The site's own Silver Clio claim could not be confirmed, since the Clio winners page located for this album credits a different entrant on a different piece and does not name Hornet.

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

Stronger here: Vidico scores Excellent on the same dimension.