Kasra Design review

Portfolio page lists roughly 100+ attributable projects, each named to a client and style (Visa - 2D Explainer, Mountain Dew - Loop Animation, Pfizer - Raya 2023, plus ServiceNow, Betterment, Builder.ai, Panasonic). Client roster includes demanding brands (Visa, Pfizer, Intel, HP, Shell, WWF). Clutch reviewers independently credit animation quality and storytelling, which corroborates the self-published portfolio. Held below Excellent: most portfolio entries carry no dates, so how much of the body of work is current could not be established, and videos were not viewed individually.

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.

Fixed productized packages are published on their Clutch profile and were read first-hand: Small $4,000 (script, storyboard, animation, premium stock music, 2 revisions), Medium $7,000 (adds English voiceover, 3 revisions), Large $9,000 (4 revisions). Own site publishes no prices - only budget bands on the quote form ($3-5K, $5-10K, $10-50K) and generic industry cost-guide blog posts, which are marketing, not pricing transparency. Their FAQ states 'no per-minute charges added later'. Not Excellent because the agency's own site anchors nothing and the Clutch packages omit ownership terms.

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.

An eight-stage process is described on the explainer service page (script, character/style sheet, storyboard, voiceover, animation, sound, translation, delivery). Basecamp is named as the project tool and payment is 50% upfront / 50% on completion. Clutch reviews (read first-hand, 21 reviews) repeatedly cite strong project management, responsiveness and timely delivery. Counterweight from the same reviews: some clients wanted more flexibility on revisions and timelines and noted occasional delays.

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.

Portfolio categories observed first-hand span 2D, 2.5D, 3D, motion graphics, collage, isometric, live action, and hybrid live action + animation. The core competence is clearly animation; live action appears in the portfolio but its depth (shoots, crew, studio vs location) is not described anywhere on the site, so a buyer with a people-on-camera brief should probe this before contracting.

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.

Nothing located on the site, the service pages, or the Clutch packages about who owns the final file, project files or raw assets, or how long the premium stock music and voiceover licenses run. A targeted search for ownership/licensing content on the domain returned nothing. Silence scores Weak per rubric; a buyer must raise this 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: inferred — our reading of indirect evidence, not a documented fact.

Stronger here: Epipheo scores Strong on the same dimension.

Published timelines on the explainer page: 4-6 weeks for a 90-second 2D/2.5D explainer, 6-12 weeks for 3D, with compressed timelines available via parallel teams; homepage states typical 2D delivery in 4-5 weeks contingent on approval speed. Estimates look honest rather than optimistic, and one testimonial (Jennifer Miklosi, FLYR) reports 2D videos delivered within 30 days. Booking lead time is not disclosed.

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

Clutch profile read first-hand: 4.8 rating across 21 reviews (18 verified), verified profile, most recent review November 4, 2025, minimum project size $5,000+, hourly rate listed $150-199. Testimonials on the agency's own clients page link back to Clutch. Recency and verification are good; the base is solid though not huge.

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.