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

On the record — “Portfolio lists ~100+ projects attributed to named clients (Visa, Pfizer, ServiceNow, Mountain Dew, Panasonic, Builder.ai) with per-project style labels including live action and hybrid formats” kasradesign.com ↗

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 19% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 61 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 6 · Strong 21 · Adequate 4 · Weak 30. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 6 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 — 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. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Fixed packages published on Clutch: $4,000 / $7,000 / $9,000 with itemized inclusions (script, storyboard, animation, stock music; voiceover from Medium) and 2/3/4 revisions” clutch.co ↗

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

On the record — “Published timelines: 4-6 weeks for a 90-second 2D/2.5D explainer, 6-12 weeks for 3D, with an eight-stage described process” kasradesign.com ↗

On the record — “Fixed packages published on Clutch: $4,000 / $7,000 / $9,000 with itemized inclusions (script, storyboard, animation, stock music; voiceover from Medium) and 2/3/4 revisions” clutch.co ↗

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 — 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. 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.

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 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. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “Fixed packages published on Clutch: $4,000 / $7,000 / $9,000 with itemized inclusions (script, storyboard, animation, stock music; voiceover from Medium) and 2/3/4 revisions” clutch.co ↗

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

Stronger here: Epipheo scores Strong on the same dimension.

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 Excellent 4 · Strong 26 · Adequate 7 · Weak 24. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 4 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 — 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. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Published timelines: 4-6 weeks for a 90-second 2D/2.5D explainer, 6-12 weeks for 3D, with an eight-stage described process” kasradesign.com ↗

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 Excellent 9 · Strong 14 · Adequate 14 · Weak 24. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 9 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 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.

On the record — “Clutch profile is verified with a 4.8 rating across 21 reviews (18 verified), most recent November 4, 2025; minimum project size $5,000+” clutch.co ↗

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