Sago review

Adequate — 3 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 20% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 13 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 9 · Strong 3 · Adequate 1. The typical agency here scores Excellent, and 12 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Question-method fit, hypotheses, instruments, bias controls, analysis plan, limitations, and reproducibility are explicit.

Scores low — Defensible design scores 4-5; a survey template and charts score 1-2.

What we found — The company has formal research and data-quality processes, but execution concerns reduce confidence.

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

Poor — 1 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 17% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 13 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 5 · Strong 6 · Adequate 1 · Poor 1. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 12 of them score higher than this one.

Scores high — Transparent recruitment, screening, incidence, sample size, panel/source, fraud checks, incentives, and representativeness score 4-5.

Scores low — Opaque panels, bots, convenience samples, or unverifiable synthetic respondents score 1.

What we found — Widespread incentive and support complaints create attrition, trust, and response-quality risk. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Poor.

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

Stronger here: PlanBeyond scores Excellent on the same dimension.

Adequate — 3 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 13% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 13 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 10 · Strong 2 · Adequate 1. The typical agency here scores Excellent, and 12 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Can select and execute interviews, ethnography, focus groups, diary studies, surveys, conjoint, segmentation, pricing, or experiments appropriately.

Scores high — Method breadth with specialists scores 4-5.

What we found — Global qualitative and quantitative infrastructure is real.

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 16% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 13 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 10 · Strong 1 · Adequate 2. The typical agency here scores Excellent, and 11 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Moves from evidence to clear decisions, segments, opportunities, product/brand implications, and prioritized actions without overstating certainty.

Scores low — Decision impact scores 4-5; data dumps score 1-2.

What we found — Capability is marketed, but participant-side execution failures can compromise inputs.

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

Adequate — 3 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 12% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 13 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 5 · Strong 6 · Weak 2. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 11 of them score higher than this one.

Scores high — Named clients, independent reviews, and examples where research changed a launch, product, positioning, pricing, or investment decision score 4-5.

Scores low — Testimonials without method or impact score 1-2.

What we found — Named client references exist, but the adverse respondent evidence is more current and voluminous. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

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

Poor — 1 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 8% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 13 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 1 · Strong 8 · Adequate 3 · Weak 1. The typical agency here scores Strong, and all of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Consent, PII handling, recording/transcript security, respondent rights, retention, regulated populations, and any synthetic/AI use are explicit.

Scores low — Strong governance scores 4-5; silence scores 1-2.

What we found — Repeated complaints about incentive handling and unreachable support create an ethics and governance concern.

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

Stronger here: NewtonX scores Excellent on the same dimension.

Excellent — 5 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 8% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 13 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 10 · Strong 3. The typical agency here scores Excellent, and none scores higher than this one.

Scores high — Experience recruiting and interpreting the buyer's actual audience, geography, language, and category scores 4-5.

Scores low — Generic consumer panels for niche B2B or clinical audiences score 1-2.

What we found — A global network supports many markets and audience types. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Excellent.

B2B — business-to-business: selling to companies rather than consumers — longer deals, more decision-makers.

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 6% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 13 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 2 · Strong 2 · Adequate 6 · Weak 3. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 10 of them score higher than this one.

Scores high — Transparent scope, sample assumptions, pass-through costs, timeline, change control, raw-data access, recordings, instruments, and IP ownership score 4-5.

Scores low — Hidden panel markups or no raw-data access score 1-2.

What we found — Participant complaints repeatedly allege timelines extending beyond promised payment windows. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

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

Stronger here: PlanBeyond scores Excellent on the same dimension.