Motion The Agency review

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.