Sandwich Video review

Excellent — 5 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 9 · Strong 32 · Adequate 16 · Weak 4. The typical agency here scores Strong, and none scores 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 — A recognisable, consistently high-craft body of launch-film work with a distinctive house voice. A brand engaging Sandwich is buying that voice deliberately, which is the strongest form of portfolio evidence there is. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Excellent.

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 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 — Ranges and timelines are publicly discussed — $50,000-$250,000+ per film, 8-16 weeks — which is more disclosure than most premium production houses offer, even though nothing is fixed. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Premium cinematic launch films start at $250,000, with quoted ranges of $50,000-$250,000+ and 8-16 week timelines for enterprise/flagship work.” knowlify.com ↗

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 9 · Strong 29 · Adequate 19 · Weak 4. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 38 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 — No publicly described process, tooling or approval structure, and no independent reviewer commentary located to corroborate how engagements run. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

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

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 — High-end live-action launch films. Deliberately narrow: one thing, done exceptionally, rather than a range. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

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 — Footage and project-file ownership and licence terms not stated publicly. At this budget the terms should be negotiated explicitly rather than assumed. 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.

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 Excellent 4 · Strong 27 · Adequate 7 · Weak 23. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 38 of them score 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 — 8-16 week timelines, and by construction the agency takes on a small number of engagements — booking lead time is likely the binding constraint and is not published. 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: Epipheo scores Excellent on the same dimension.

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 Excellent 9 · Strong 15 · Adequate 14 · Weak 23. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 38 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 — No independent review base located at time of vetting; reputation travels by referral and by the work itself.

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

Stronger here: Vidico scores Excellent on the same dimension.