Nepa 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 — The MMM product page carries a 16-item FAQ that describes the approach in real terms: sales is the modelled output, brand tracking KPIs enter as a proxy for long-term brand equity, external factors (weather, holidays, salary weeks, inflation) are supplied by Nepa, seasonality is predicted inside the model, and models are 'bespoke' with 'dynamic estimation' rather than a fixed template. That is more method than most firms in this category publish. Validation, however, is one sentence: 'Our models are continuously recalibrated using fresh data, validated against actual performance, and reviewed by our analytics experts.' No holdout period, no out-of-sample or backtest procedure, no reconciliation against an experiment, no diagnostics and no stated model assumptions or error bounds are published anywhere read. The gap is sharpened by their own buyer's guide, which tells readers to ask a measurement vendor 'Does the model use Bayesian inference? Can it incorporate geo-lift experiments for calibration?' - Nepa poses those questions and does not answer either about its own models. Described method with no validation story maps to the rubric's 3. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “The only validation statement published is 'Our models are continuously recalibrated using fresh data, validated against actual performance, and reviewed by our analytics experts.' No holdout, out-of-sample test, backtest, diagnostics or experiment reconciliation is described on any page read.” nepa.com ↗

On the record — “Nepa's own MMM buyer's guide tells readers to ask a vendor 'Does the model use Bayesian inference? Can it incorporate geo-lift experiments for calibration?' and describes geo-lift calibration in the third person as what modern MMM does - but nowhere states that Nepa runs or calibrates against geo-lift experiments for its own clients.” nepa.com ↗

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 — No experimental capability is offered anywhere on the site read: no geo holdout, matched-market, PSA/ghost-ad or switchback design, and no statement that modelled results are reconciled against a live test. The MMM guide describes geo-lift calibration and Bayesian hierarchical modelling as what 'modern' MMM does, in the third person, and never claims Nepa runs them. The nearest thing to a control is Campaign Pulse, which is survey-based (message clarity, liking, sender recall, purchase intent) benchmarked against a 2,800-campaign database - a comparison to other campaigns, not to an unexposed control group. So the buyer is purchasing a correlational estimate. The guide does list 'correlation vs causation' among MMM's limitations, which is honest, but the sales surfaces do not carry that caution: 'prove what's working', 'unbiased recommendations', 'measure the impact of every channel', a claimed '+50% media-driven sales' for Hemkop and an 'average 15% ROI increase' across FMCG clients are all stated without an experiment behind them. Placed at the bottom of the rubric's 2-3 correlational band for that reason. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “Nepa's own MMM buyer's guide tells readers to ask a vendor 'Does the model use Bayesian inference? Can it incorporate geo-lift experiments for calibration?' and describes geo-lift calibration in the third person as what modern MMM does - but nowhere states that Nepa runs or calibrates against geo-lift experiments for its own clients.” nepa.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: 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 — Nineteen case-study URLs are listed in the cases sitemap and clients are named openly: GANT, VARNER, Telenor, Kellogg's, Sinebrychoff, Hemkop, SBAB, If Insurance, Dafgards, Fjallraven, Fortnox, Business Finland, Wolt, Atria, MTV, Akademibokhandeln. Two were read first-hand end to end and both matched their URL. The GANT case describes the engagement (brand health tracker across 11 markets, KPI dashboard, recurring insight meetings) and carries two named client employees with titles - Eleonore Sall, EVP Global Brand, and Alexander Nilsson, Global Brand Strategy and Insights Director. The If Insurance case names Anssi Soini, Nordic Insight Manager, and describes a five-principle framework across four Nordic markets. Named individuals at named companies are checkable in a way anonymised case studies are not. Held below Excellent because the outcome figures attached to this work (+40% sender recall, +38% campaign liking, +13% purchase intention, +50% media-driven sales at Hemkop; 15% average FMCG ROI increase) are Nepa's own numbers with no client corroboration, no baseline and no period. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Named clients with described engagements and named, titled client employees quoted: GANT (Eleonore Sall, EVP Global Brand; Alexander Nilsson, Global Brand Strategy and Insights Director) and If Insurance (Anssi Soini, Nordic Insight Manager). The cases sitemap lists 19 case-study URLs including Telenor, Kellogg's, VARNER, Sinebrychoff, Hemkop, SBAB, Fjallraven, Fortnox, Dafgards and Wolt.” nepa.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 — Data requirements are stated more precisely than is normal here: a minimum of 2-3 years of historical media spend, promotions and sales or conversions; direct marketing, special events, pricing, distribution and competitor activity as beneficial extras; continuous brand tracking data on funnel KPIs required specifically to measure long-term effects; external and macro data supplied by Nepa; integrations named (Google Ads, Meta, offline media, CRM and sales platforms). Data ownership is addressed - 'You retain full ownership of your data, and we never share or resell it.' On independence: across the homepage, all three product pages, the Media Strategy solution page and the About page, no media buying, media planning execution or reselling line appears. Nepa sells research and modelling and its 'Media Strategy' offer is advisory built on those products, so it is measuring media it does not sell - structurally the credible side of this dimension, and reinforced by audited public accounts. One coupling is worth naming rather than hiding: the long-term brand effect the MMM sells on can only be modelled if the buyer also buys Nepa brand tracking, and the MMM Plus tier exists to integrate the two. That is a commercial incentive inside the method, not a conflict of the buy-and-grade-your-own-media kind, but a buyer should price it in. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “No media buying, media planning execution or media reselling offering appears across the homepage, the three product pages, the Media Strategy solution page or the About page - Nepa measures media it does not sell.” nepa.com ↗

On the record — “Data requirements are published: a minimum of 2-3 years of historical media spend, promotions and sales or conversions, with brand tracking data on funnel KPIs additionally required to measure long-term brand impact. Nepa supplies external factors (weather, holidays, salary weeks, inflation) itself.” nepa.com ↗

funnel — the path from stranger to customer — awareness at the top, purchase at the bottom. “Full-funnel” means owning the whole path, not one stage.

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.

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 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 6 · Adequate 10. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and none scores 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 — The clearest dimension on the site. Deliverables are itemised per tier: MMM Mini is dashboard access with weekly model refresh (business driver trends, media effects development, short- and long-term effects per media, budget scenario modelling) and explicitly 'MMM consultancy: None'; MMM Core adds quarterly management-ready reports with a workshop and one yearly big-room meeting with an extensive baseline report; MMM Plus adds integration of existing brand tracking and campaign evaluation into '360' recommendations; MMM Enterprise is a bespoke framework. Cadence is stated twice over - models refresh weekly or monthly with results 'within days' of each data update - and the guide states a first build takes 8-12 weeks from data collection to first outputs. This is a continuously refreshed model, not a one-off snapshot, and the distinction between ad hoc and continuous MMM is spelled out in the FAQ. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Excellent.

On the record — “MMM tiers are itemised by deliverable and cadence: Mini is dashboard access with weekly model refresh and explicitly 'MMM consultancy: None'; Core adds quarterly management-ready reports with a workshop plus one yearly big-room meeting; Plus adds integration of brand tracking and campaign evaluation into 360 recommendations; Enterprise is bespoke.” nepa.com ↗

On the record — “Nepa publishes real monthly prices in the page source for all three products: Brand Tracking from SEK 16,300 / EUR 1,500, SEK 27,100 / EUR 2,500 and SEK 34,700 / EUR 3,200 per month; MMM from SEK 43,400 / EUR 4,000 (Mini), SEK 64,000 / EUR 5,900 (Core) and SEK 69,500 / EUR 6,400 (Plus) with Enterprise on request; Campaign Pulse from SEK 61,900 / EUR 5,700, SEK 72,700 / EUR 6,700 and SEK 89,000 / EUR 8,200.” nepa.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.

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 — Actual monthly numbers are published for three products in two currencies, which is rare in this category. Read directly from the page source: Brand Tracking from SEK 16,300 / EUR 1,500, SEK 27,100 / EUR 2,500, SEK 34,700 / EUR 3,200 per month; Marketing Mix Modelling from SEK 43,400 / EUR 4,000 (Mini), SEK 64,000 / EUR 5,900 (Core), SEK 69,500 / EUR 6,400 (Plus), with Enterprise on request; Campaign Pulse from SEK 61,900 / EUR 5,700, SEK 72,700 / EUR 6,700, SEK 89,000 / EUR 8,200. Each tier lists its inclusions, and the guide additionally anchors the category (GBP 30,000-80,000 for traditional project-based MMM). Held at Strong rather than Excellent for three checkable reasons: the /pricing/ hub page itself renders 'From EUR /month' with no figure at all; an unfinished template pricing block sits above the real one on the MMM and Campaign Pulse pages showing a second, contradictory set of prices; and no minimum term, model build or setup fee, market count covered by the 'From' price, or post-engagement licence position is stated anywhere. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Nepa publishes real monthly prices in the page source for all three products: Brand Tracking from SEK 16,300 / EUR 1,500, SEK 27,100 / EUR 2,500 and SEK 34,700 / EUR 3,200 per month; MMM from SEK 43,400 / EUR 4,000 (Mini), SEK 64,000 / EUR 5,900 (Core) and SEK 69,500 / EUR 6,400 (Plus) with Enterprise on request; Campaign Pulse from SEK 61,900 / EUR 5,700, SEK 72,700 / EUR 6,700 and SEK 89,000 / EUR 8,200.” nepa.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 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 — No independent client review base was located or read first-hand. A G2 seller page for Nepa exists at g2.com/sellers/nepa but returned HTTP 403 on retrieval, so no rating or count is cited here - that is an instrument failure, not a measured absence. No Clutch or Trustpilot profile was found. What is independently checkable is corporate rather than client-side: Nepa AB (publ) has traded on Nasdaq First North Growth Market under the ticker NEPA since 2016 with Redeye Nordic Growth AB as Certified Adviser, and files audited annual and interim reports. The named client contacts in the case studies are the closest thing to checkable references. Scored at the rubric's 'none located' floor of 2, with the low 0.05 weight doing its intended job.

On the record — “Nepa AB (publ) has been listed on Nasdaq First North Growth Market since 2016 under the ticker NEPA, with Redeye Nordic Growth AB as Certified Adviser. Its published 2025 results: net sales SEK 222.6m (down 17.1%), subscription revenue SEK 135.5m (down 18.6%), ARR SEK 131.3m, adjusted EBITDA-Capex SEK -4.8m, net income SEK -34.0m.” nepa.com ↗

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