Levitate Media review

Portfolio of ~17 attributable pieces for named clients (Vizio, Homebot, Session AI, BrainRobotics, Inline Plastics, DOD Technologies) spanning 2D, 3D, motion graphics and live action; Clutch reviewers independently credit the team with simplifying complex/technical concepts, which is the hard part of this job. Homepage logo wall (Amazon, NVIDIA, Verizon, J&J) is vendor-stated and not tied to specific portfolio pieces; portfolio items carry no dates, so recency cannot be confirmed.

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.

FAQ publishes ranges by video type, read first-hand: animated videos '$5,500-$25,000+', live action 'start at $12,000', remote production 'start at $5,000', plus a budget calculator. Clutch-reported project sizes ($4,500-$32,000) corroborate the ranges. Falls short of the top band because what a quote includes (script, music, narration, revision count) is not stated, and the /video-pricing page itself publishes no numbers — the real figures live in the FAQ.

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.

Described intake process (call within 24hrs, scoping, proposal, kickoff 'within a day or two'). Clutch (89 reviews, read first-hand): 'communicative' is the top mention (27), 'timely' second (26), scheduling rated 4.8/5, and reviewers name Basecamp and monday.com as the collaboration tooling. One 1.0-rated review cites project delays, extensive revisions and a client having to direct the creative themselves — a real but isolated counterexample.

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.

Both live action (studio, on-location, FAA-compliant drone, remote capture) and animation (2D, 3D, motion graphics, isometric, mixed media), all represented by actual portfolio pieces, plus photography, editing and translation. No modality ceiling for a buyer to work around.

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 on the site states who owns the final file, raw footage or project files, or the term of music/stock/talent licences. Notably, the company's own 'learn' articles advise buyers to ask production companies exactly these questions — while its own terms are unpublished. Must be raised 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, realistic timelines per format in the FAQ: 2D animation 8-12 weeks, 3D animation 12+ weeks, live action 4-12+ weeks, event videos 4-6 weeks, social 4-8+ weeks; rush options mentioned. Ranges rather than fixed commitments, but honest multi-month estimates corroborated by a 4.8/5 Clutch scheduling score.

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.

89 verified reviews on Clutch at 4.8/5 overall, read first-hand, with activity through mid-2026 — a substantial, current base on a verification-requiring platform.

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.