MarketLytics review

Adequate — 3 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 25% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 1 · Strong 4 · Adequate 11. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 5 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: The heaviest weight, because an unvalidated model is an opinion with decimal places. Look for a described methodology, stated assumptions, and above all how the model is VALIDATED: holdout periods, backtesting, or reconciliation against a real experiment. A described method with no validation story scores 3.

Scores high — A firm that publishes its validation approach and names its limits scores 4-5.

Scores low — 'Proprietary algorithm' with no methodology at all scores 1-2 — proprietary is not a method, and in this category it is the single least checkable claim a vendor can make.

What we found — A method is described, but no validation story exists anywhere on the site. The attribution page and the RVshare case study both name Markov chain modelling on event data warehoused in BigQuery, with attribution logic redefined so a conversion counts only when the seller confirms the buyer request; the Carbon Collective card names 'dynamic content reports powered by BigQuery, advanced attribution modeling'. That is a real, non-black-box method statement, better than a 'proprietary algorithm' claim. But a text search of the homepage, /how-we-work/, /custom-marketing-attribution/ and /customers/rvshare/ returns zero occurrences of holdout, backtest, control group, statistical significance or model validation. The word 'incremental' appears only in 'Our approach is incremental', which describes milestone-based billing, not incrementality. Per the rubric this is a described method with no validation story. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “No validation, holdout, backtest, control group, geo-lift, matched-market or marketing-mix-model language appears in the text of the homepage, /how-we-work/, /custom-marketing-attribution/ or /customers/rvshare/; the only occurrences of 'incremental' describe milestone-based delivery ('Our approach is incremental').” marketlytics.com ↗

On the record — “The attribution method is named rather than left as a black box: 'Streamlined attribution with BigQuery and Markov chain modeling', with attribution logic tied to seller-confirmed requests rather than ad clicks.” marketlytics.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: vendor stated — the agency’s own claim, recorded as theirs rather than ours.

Weak — 2 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 20% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 1 · Strong 7 · Adequate 5 · Weak 3. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 13 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Whether the firm can establish causality rather than only correlation: geo holdout tests, matched-market design, PSA/ghost-ad tests, switchback designs, or reconciliation of modelled results against live experiments.

Scores high — Named experiment designs with described execution score 4-5.

Scores low — Correlation-only modelling with no experimental capability scores 2-3 — legitimate and common, but the buyer should know they are buying a correlational estimate. A firm that presents modelled attribution as proven causality scores 1-2, and the overclaim should be named in the verdict.

What we found — Measured absence across four pages: no geo holdout, matched-market, PSA/ghost-ad, switchback or any reconciliation of modelled results against a live experiment is described on the attribution service page, the homepage, /how-we-work/ or the RVshare case study. The firm does run onsite A/B testing under its conversion-rate-optimisation line (the Fitmate customer entry cites A/B test velocity), which is genuine experimentation on the website but not on media. Meanwhile the case studies attach causal-sounding media outcomes to the modelling work: RVshare '18% ROAS improvement from accurate attribution', Carbon Collective '50% ROAS uplift', Kindred Bravely '20% ROAS improvement'. Those are correlational estimates presented as results of the attribution build, with no experimental design shown to support them. A buyer should understand they are purchasing a modelled, correlational number, not a measured incremental one. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “No validation, holdout, backtest, control group, geo-lift, matched-market or marketing-mix-model language appears in the text of the homepage, /how-we-work/, /custom-marketing-attribution/ or /customers/rvshare/; the only occurrences of 'incremental' describe milestone-based delivery ('Our approach is incremental').” marketlytics.com ↗

On the record — “The customers index lists approximately twenty named clients with industry, service and a headline outcome, most with their own case study page, including Unilever, Zepz, RVshare, Creatopy, Builder.io, Talent Systems, Carbon Collective and Kindred Bravely.” marketlytics.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.

ROAS — return on ad spend: revenue per dollar of advertising. Platform-reported ROAS overstates; independently measured ROAS is the honest version.

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

Stronger here: Fusepoint Insights scores Excellent on the same dimension.

Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 15% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 1 · Strong 8 · Adequate 6 · Weak 1. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 1 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Attributable client work at a stated scale and category. Treat any 'we found X% waste' claim as a vendor-stated number unless a client is named and corroborates it.

Scores high — Named clients with described engagements score 4-5.

Scores low — Anonymised case studies score 2-3 — common here for genuine confidentiality reasons, so do not penalise beyond the band, but do not credit unverifiable lift figures either.

What we found — The /customers/ index lists roughly twenty named clients with industry, service line and a headline result, and most have their own case study page. I read /customers/rvshare/ first-hand: it states the client (RVshare, peer-to-peer RV rental marketplace), the scale ($10M+ annual ad budget), the specific technical problem (conversions only complete on seller approval), the method, and a named client-side quote attributed to Martijn Scheijbeler, SVP Marketing. Named clients include Unilever, Zepz, RVshare, Creatopy, Builder.io, Talent Systems and Kindred Bravely. Not Excellent because every outcome figure remains vendor-stated: no client-published corroboration of any lift number was located, and some figures are shown redacted on marketing pages ('XXM $ ad budgets', 'XX% market share growth') while the case study page states $10M+. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “The customers index lists approximately twenty named clients with industry, service and a headline outcome, most with their own case study page, including Unilever, Zepz, RVshare, Creatopy, Builder.io, Talent Systems, Carbon Collective and Kindred Bravely.” marketlytics.com ↗

On the record — “The RVshare case study quotes a named client executive, Martijn Scheijbeler, SVP Marketing, and states the engagement scale as $10M+ in annual ad budget.” marketlytics.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 15% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 10 · Adequate 4 · Weak 2. The typical agency here scores Strong, and none scores higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: What the engagement needs from the buyer (spend, conversion, and channel data at what granularity) and — critically — whether the firm also buys the media it is measuring. A firm that measures media it does not sell is structurally more credible; where the same firm buys and grades its own work, that conflict must be disclosed and should be named in the verdict whether or not the firm names it.

Scores high — Clear data requirements plus independence from media buying scores 4-5.

Scores low — Undisclosed conflict scores 1-2.

What we found — Structurally independent: the services page, the about page and the customers index describe analytics audit, measurement tracking, attribution, warehousing/ETL, product analytics, CRO and dashboarding, and no media buying, paid-media management or campaign execution appears anywhere on the site. The firm does not sell the media it grades. Data requirements are stated at platform level rather than at field granularity: the audit service asks the buyer to sign an NDA and 'Provide Access' to their analytics platforms, and the three exploration offers name the systems covered (GA4, GTM, Mixpanel, Amplitude, Segment, AppsFlyer; Analytics, CRM, OMS, ad platforms; Azure, AWS, Snowflake, PowerBI, Looker). What is not stated is required history length, spend granularity or minimum conversion volume. One adjacency worth naming: 'Ad Optimization' appears as a service on the Supreme Optimization customer entry, i.e. the firm advises on the spend its own models grade, though it does not place it. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Client-side prerequisites for an audit are stated as signing an NDA and providing access to the buyer's analytics platforms; the exploration offers name the platforms covered (GA4, GTM, Mixpanel, Amplitude, Segment, AppsFlyer; Analytics, CRM, OMS, ad platforms; Azure, AWS, Snowflake, PowerBI, Looker).” marketlytics.com ↗

On the record — “The published service list contains no media buying, paid-media management or campaign execution; services are analytics, measurement, attribution, warehousing, product analytics, CRO and dashboarding only.” marketlytics.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.

CRO — conversion-rate optimization: raising the share of visitors who buy or sign up through structured testing, not redesign by taste.

CRM — customer relationship management system: the database of record for contacts and deals — HubSpot, Salesforce and kin.

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 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 1 · Strong 5 · Adequate 10. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 1 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: What arrives and how often: a one-off model, a refreshed quarterly model, a live dashboard, a decision workshop. A model delivered once and never refreshed is a snapshot of a market that has moved, and should be scored as the ceiling it is.

Scores high — Stated deliverables with a stated refresh cadence score 4-5.

Scores low — Undefined deliverables score 2.

What we found — /how-we-work/ sets out three phases with concrete shapes. Exploration is one of three fixed engagements with day counts: Digital Analytics Audit (3 days), Data Opportunity Analysis (5 days), Proof of Concept Engineering (10 days). Implementation runs in two-week sprints with a week-one kickoff, an optional mid-sprint check-in and a week-two delivery meeting, billed per completed milestone. Support is one of three ongoing plans: an Insurance Program with Slack access and a 24-hour response commitment, day rates, or a retainer at a minimum 20 hours per month on a quarterly commitment with monthly reviews and dashboard monitoring. Time is tracked in ClickUp with reports to the client. Not Excellent because the cadence described is for the working relationship, not the model: no refresh interval for an attribution model is stated anywhere, so whether the delivered model is maintained or is a one-off snapshot depends on which support plan is bought. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Implementation is delivered in two-week sprints with a week-one kickoff, optional mid-sprint check-in and week-two delivery meeting, billed on completed milestones, with time tracked in ClickUp.” marketlytics.com ↗

On the record — “Ongoing support is priced and structured: 'Insurance Program (Starting at $350)' monthly with Slack access and a 24-hour response commitment, plus day rates and a retainer with a stated 20-hour monthly minimum on a quarterly commitment.” marketlytics.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.

retainer — a fixed monthly fee regardless of hours or output — predictable, but worth tying to a defined scope.

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: vendor stated — the agency’s own claim, recorded as theirs rather than ours.

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 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 1 · Adequate 3 · Weak 12. The typical agency here scores Weak, and none scores higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Note any minimum spend and whether the model licence continues after the engagement ends.

Scores high — Published fees, ranges, or a stated engagement structure with numbers score 4-5.

Scores low — A described structure without numbers scores 2-3. Bespoke-only with no anchor scores 1-2.

What we found — Real numbers are published, which is unusual in this category. /how-we-work/ lists '3 days | ~ $900' for the Digital Analytics Audit, '5 days | ~ $1500' for Data Opportunity Analysis, '10 days | ~ $2500' for Proof of Concept Engineering, and 'Insurance Program (Starting at $350)' monthly, plus a stated retainer minimum of 20 hours per month on a quarterly commitment. Held back from Excellent by two things. First, the implementation phase, which is where the real money is, has no published day rate or sprint price at all. Second, the homepage sells the same entry point at a different number: 'Start with an expert audit of your marketing analytics stack starting from $2,000' against '~ $900' on the pricing page. Nothing on the site states whether a delivered model or dashboard remains licensed to the client after the engagement ends. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “The homepage prices the entry audit differently from the pricing page: 'Start with an expert audit of your marketing analytics stack starting from $2,000' versus '~ $900' on /how-we-work/.” marketlytics.com ↗

On the record — “Three fixed entry engagements are published with durations and approximate prices: Digital Analytics Audit '3 days | ~ $900', Data Opportunity Analysis '5 days | ~ $1500', Proof of Concept Engineering '10 days | ~ $2500'.” marketlytics.com ↗

retainer — a fixed monthly fee regardless of hours or output — predictable, but worth tying to a defined scope.

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 5% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Adequate 6 · Weak 10. The typical agency here scores Weak, and 6 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Independent, verified reviews or checkable references. Low weight deliberately: measurement work sells through procurement and referral, so a thin public review footprint is normal and the method evidence above matters far more.

Scores low — A substantial verified base scores 4-5; a handful scores 2-3; none located scores 2.

What we found — One independent client review located and read first-hand: the Clutch profile shows 5.0 out of 5 from a single review, by a marketing lead at Tiller, covering conversion tracking and GA4 reporting rebuilt on BigQuery and Looker Studio, with 5.0 across quality, schedule, cost and willingness to refer. No G2, Trustpilot or Google review base for the firm was located. Glassdoor shows 4.2 from 24 reviews but that is employee feedback, not client evidence, and is excluded. One review is below the 'handful' the rubric describes; the low weight on this dimension is appropriate, since measurement work sells by referral.

On the record — “The Clutch profile shows a 5.0 rating from exactly one review, by a marketing lead at Tiller, with 5.0 across quality, schedule, cost and willingness to refer.” clutch.co ↗

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