Shuttlerock review

Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 20% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 42 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 6 · Adequate 30 · Weak 6. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and none scores higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: How many assets does this vendor actually ship per client per month, and how fast is a variant round? A stated, specific throughput (e.g. Where the vendor names a client, check the client's live ads in the Meta Ad Library — POSITIVE EVIDENCE ONLY, and scope it properly. Correct procedure: run the keyword search, harvest the advertiser's page_id from the rendered HTML, then re-query with view_all_page_id=<id>. Scoped counts are 100% brand-attributed; keyword counts are not scoped to the advertiser and overstated by 41% in one measured case (HexClad, 410 keyword vs 290 scoped), while a search for a generically-named client returned 1,400 results consisting of Viator, Klook and Tripadvisor. A high-volume, recent, scoped result confirms a real programme and may raise this score. A low or absent result is INCONCLUSIVE and must never lower it. Critically: NEVER record an absence from a page ID you did not harvest from a live ad — the userID shown on a logged-out Facebook page is not the Ad Library page_id, and querying it returns a clean, convincing zero. That was proven by control on 2026-08-11 against a brand known to be running 290 ads. Absence of ads is never scored against an agency. See library/_notes/meta_ad_library_method_2026-08-11.json.

Scores high — 'X assets/month', published turnaround of 24-72h per round) with corroboration scores 4-5.

Scores low — Vague 'unlimited requests' claims with a one-at-a-time queue score 2-3 — unlimited requests with a single concurrent slot is a throughput of one. No stated volume anywhere scores 2.

What we found — Three fixed monthly editions priced $6,000-$12,000 with no hourly or per-project billing, built specifically for continuous ad production. Reviewers consistently cite fast turnaround as the differentiator. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Three pricing editions ranging from $6,000 to $12,000, all fixed monthly prices, explicitly not hourly or per-project billing.” g2.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 20% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 42 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 4 · Adequate 20 · Weak 18. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and none scores higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Does the vendor work from the client's brand system — logo lockups and clear space, exact colour and type, tone of voice — or from a mood board and taste? Look for an explicit intake of brand guidelines, a named check step before client review, and any statement about who catches an off-brand asset.

Scores high — A documented preflight or QC step scores 4-5.

Scores low — 'We'll learn your brand over the first month' scores 2-3. Rotating contractor pools with no guideline intake score 1-2. Silence on the question scores 2: at volume, brand drift is the default outcome and a vendor that has not thought about it has not solved it.

What we found — Works from assets the client supplies, so output is constrained by the client's existing brand material by construction rather than by a designer's interpretation. No separately described QC step. 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.

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 42 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 12 · Adequate 30. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and none scores higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Can one approved concept become 100+ assets across aspect ratios, placements, languages and markets? Resizing only, single language, scores 3. Distinguish genuine transcreation (copy reworked for a market) from machine translation dropped into a template; the latter is not localization capacity and should be scored as resizing.

Scores high — Named format/placement coverage plus real multi-market or multi-language delivery scores 4-5.

Scores low — 'We make ten great ads' scores 2 — excellent and out of category.

What we found — Ad adaptation across formats and placements is the core service rather than an add-on. Multi-language capability not documented. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

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 15% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 42 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 2 · Strong 33 · Adequate 6 · Weak 1. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 35 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Does anyone on this vendor's team read the ad account? Look for a stated feedback loop: winners scaled, losers cut, next round briefed off results. Iteration on client-relayed feedback only scores 3.

Scores high — Access to platform performance data plus a named cadence scores 4-5.

Scores low — Ship-and-stop production, where the vendor delivers files and never learns what happened, scores 1-2 — this is the most common failure in the design-subscription tier and it is what separates production from performance creative.

What we found — Post-production partner, not a media partner. No evidence of ad-account access; iteration depends on the client relaying results. 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 10% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 42 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 11 · Adequate 19 · Weak 12. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 11 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Legal disclaimers, claim substantiation, platform specs and safe zones, accessibility contrast, rights and licensing on music/footage/creator content. Platform-spec competence only scores 3. Do not fail a small shop for lacking pharma review workflows it was never asked for.

Scores high — Explicit process, or regulated-category experience (health, finance, alcohol, children's), scores 4-5.

Scores low — No evidence either way scores 2 with LOW confidence rather than a penalty — most SMB-facing shops never discuss this publicly, and absence here is weaker evidence than absence on volume or ownership.

What we found — Platform-spec competence is implied by the ad-build service. Music and stock licensing terms not public. 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 10% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 42 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 3 · Adequate 23 · Weak 15 · Poor 1. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 3 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Who owns the output — final files, source/working files, raw footage, and the rights to creator content? Documented designer discontinuity in independent reviews is a verified Poor, not an inference.

Scores high — Explicit transfer of source files and full usage rights scores 4-5.

Scores low — Finals only, working files withheld, scores 2. Silence scores 2; at this price point silence usually resolves against the buyer. Separately, continuity: the same named designers month to month scores 4-5, a rotating pool with no continuity guarantee scores 1-2.

What we found — Fixed-fee monthly model with a consistent team implied, but no stated continuity guarantee and no public statement on source-file ownership. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

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

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 42 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 9 · Adequate 7 · Weak 26. The typical agency here scores Weak, and none scores higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Published tiers with an unstated volume ceiling score 3. Note any minimum spend, and note whether pausing is permitted, since seasonal advertisers pause.

Scores high — Published per-asset, per-month or per-round pricing scores 4-5. Month-to-month or per-project scores 4-5.

Scores low — Bespoke-only quoting with no public anchor scores 1-2. Twelve-month lock-in on a production service scores 2 — production is inherently variable in volume and a long lock is a transfer of that risk to the buyer.

What we found — Three published editions at fixed monthly prices, explicitly not hourly and not per-project. The most legible commercial model in this file. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Excellent.

On the record — “Three pricing editions ranging from $6,000 to $12,000, all fixed monthly prices, explicitly not hourly or per-project billing.” g2.com ↗

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