Motion The Agency 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 — 16 case studies on /our-work with recognisable named clients (ClickUp, Y Combinator, HackerRank, Apollo.io, Mirakl, Planful, Primer). Work is thumbnail-linked case studies, not dated on the listing page, and all animation. Clutch reviewers (read first-hand, 27 reviews through May 2026) independently call the output 'exceptional quality' and 'high-quality and engaging animated videos', which corroborates the portfolio; agency founded 2022 per Clutch, so the work is recent by construction. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Portfolio of 16 case studies is entirely animation/motion graphics — no live-action work shown or offered; named clients include ClickUp, Y Combinator, HackerRank, Mirakl, Planful, Primer” motiontheagency.com ↗

On the record — “Clutch profile for motiontheagency.com (London, founded 2022): 5.0 rating across 27 verified reviews dated May 2023-May 2026; $1,000+ minimum project size, $50-$99/hr; reviewers cite on-time delivery and Figma-based collaboration” clutch.co ↗

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 — Full published price tables by length and tier: 30s from £2,700 (Basic) to £3,900 (Enhanced), up to 150s £5,600; +30% fast-delivery surcharge; priced add-ons (voiceover from £340, aspect-ratio reformat from £480); 14-day money-back policy. Not top of band because the quoted number is not all-inclusive — narration is an add-on, Basic excludes storyboarding, animation revisions cap at 2x, and one Clutch reviewer reported revision costs blowing out beyond budget. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Published fixed pricing by length and tier: 30s video £2,700 (Basic) / £3,100 (Premium) / £3,900 (Enhanced), scaling to £5,600 for 150s Enhanced; voiceover, reformatting and duration changes priced as add-ons; 14-day money-back policy” motiontheagency.com ↗

On the record — “Published turnaround windows: 4-12 working days (Basic), 8-22 (Premium), 10-24 (Enhanced), with +30% cost fast-delivery option” motiontheagency.com ↗

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 — 7-step process published on /how-it-works; Clutch reviewers independently cite Figma-based real-time feedback, 'first class' communication, and on-time delivery ('delivered two 30-second videos in 3 weeks'). One reviewer asked for 'clearer communication regarding revisions and budget impacts' — a process gap around change control, not schedule slippage. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

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

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 8 · Strong 32 · Adequate 18 · Weak 3. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 40 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 — Animation only: 2D/2.5D/3D, motion graphics, UI/Lottie, explainer and product videos. The portfolio shows no live-action work at all, and no filming service is offered. Broad within animation (including paid aspect-ratio reformatting), but a single modality — briefs needing people on camera cannot be served. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “Portfolio of 16 case studies is entirely animation/motion graphics — no live-action work shown or offered; named clients include ClickUp, Y Combinator, HackerRank, Mirakl, Planful, Primer” motiontheagency.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 — No published ownership or licensing terms for video projects. Voiceover add-on states 'commercial rights' included; the subscription FAQ says designs 'become the property of the client' but tells buyers to 'discuss specific ownership terms with our team'. Nothing on project/source files or the licence terms of the 'premium stock video libraries' used in Basic-tier videos — a real exposure if stock licences lapse. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

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

Stronger here: Epipheo scores Strong on the same dimension.

Excellent — 5 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 3 · Strong 27 · Adequate 7 · Weak 24. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and none scores 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 per-package delivery windows on the pricing page: 4-12 working days (Basic), 8-22 (Premium), 10-24 (Enhanced), with a priced +30% expedite option. Clutch reviewers independently confirm fast delivery, one citing a ~75% reduction versus a prior video vendor. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Excellent.

On the record — “Published turnaround windows: 4-12 working days (Basic), 8-22 (Premium), 10-24 (Enhanced), with +30% cost fast-delivery option” motiontheagency.com ↗

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 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 — 27 verified Clutch reviews, 5.0 overall, dated May 2023 through May 2026 — read first-hand on clutch.co/profile/motion-agency-0, which confirms the same domain and London HQ. A G2 listing exists but returned 403 and could not be read, so no G2 figures are cited.

On the record — “Clutch profile for motiontheagency.com (London, founded 2022): 5.0 rating across 27 verified reviews dated May 2023-May 2026; $1,000+ minimum project size, $50-$99/hr; reviewers cite on-time delivery and Figma-based collaboration” clutch.co ↗

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