Soar With Us 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 42 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 7 · Adequate 29 · Weak 6. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 7 of them score 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 — Volume is stated specifically and per-client, which is more than most shops publish. The Pure Pet Food case study says 521 individual creative assets were shipped in 6 months (about 87 a month for one account) on 'monthly strategy reporting and bi-weekly creative iterations'; the Voy case study (Nov 2025 to Apr 2026) claims 500+ creatives launched. Agency-wide throughput is claimed twice and the two figures do not agree: /if-our-ads-dont-get-you-results-you-dont-pay says '2000 ads created a month', while a newsletter page is titled 'The Claude Operating System We Built to Run 6,000 Ads a Month' and repeats 6,000 in the body. No turnaround time per revision round is published anywhere. All of this is self-published; the rubric's 4-5 band requires corroboration, and an attempt to corroborate a named client's live ad volume in the Meta Ad Library did not return a readable, page-id-scoped result, so no ad-library evidence was used in either direction. Capped at Adequate for that reason. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “A named iteration cadence is published in a case study: 'We ran monthly strategy reporting and bi-weekly creative iterations... We shipped 521 individual creative assets in 6 months.'” soarwithus.co ↗

On the record — “Agency-wide throughput is claimed as '2000 ads created a month' on one live page and as 6,000 ads a month on another, in both the page title and body.” soarwithus.co ↗

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 42 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 5 · Adequate 20 · Weak 17. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 25 of them score 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 — Nothing on the site describes taking in a brand system or checking against one. The onboarding sequence is published and readable: /onboarding/step-3-sharing-assets-hambi, the asset-sharing step for the in-house creative division, asks only for Meta Business Manager access, TikTok Business Centre access and Triple Whale admin. No logo, colour, type or tone-of-voice intake appears at that step. Step 1 of the published process is a 'Deep Dive & Strategy Development' built on customer and competitor analysis, not on brand guidelines. The only named check before an ad goes live is the client's: the performance-creative page says 'Done for You: Sit back and relax... All you need to do is provide your feedback before we set them live.' Client testimonials assert the work is 'dialed into our voice, vision and brand', but that is an opinion about outcome, not a documented preflight or QC step. Per the rubric, silence on who catches an off-brand asset at volume scores 2. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “The pre-launch check is placed on the client, not on an internal QC step: 'Done for You: Sit back and relax. We'll take care of everything. All you need to do is provide your feedback before we set them live.'” soarwithus.co ↗

On the record — “The published onboarding step for the creative division asks the client to grant the agency's Meta Business Manager (ID 378624512768822), TikTok Business Centre (ID 7163653004430688258) and Triple Whale admin access, evidencing direct access to platform performance data.” soarwithus.co ↗

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

Stronger here: New Engen scores Strong on the same dimension.

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 Strong 13 · Adequate 29. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 13 of them score 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 — Format and placement coverage is named and plausible at the stated volumes: static direct-response, UGC creator video, high-production/cinematic video and motion graphics, described as 'Optimised for feed, stories, and display formats' and built 'for every stage of the awareness funnel'. The 521-asset and 500+-asset figures are consistent with turning a small number of approved concepts into a large set. What is entirely absent is localization: no page read mentions a second language, transcreation, or market-by-market adaptation. Every named client is a UK brand (Kukoon Rugs ships UK and EU, but the case study describes English-language story-led creative, not localized variants). On the rubric's own scale that is resizing-and-formats in a single language, which scores 3. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “A named iteration cadence is published in a case study: 'We ran monthly strategy reporting and bi-weekly creative iterations... We shipped 521 individual creative assets in 6 months.'” soarwithus.co ↗

On the record — “Performance creative is a productized core line, not a bolt-on: there is a dedicated /performance-creative page describing an in-house creative division, Hambi Media, delivering three named formats (high-production video, UGC, static), and a separate Hambi-specific onboarding track in the sitemap.” soarwithus.co ↗

UGC — user-generated-content style ads: creative shot to look like a customer’s own phone video rather than a produced commercial.

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.

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 15% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 42 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 2 · Strong 32 · Adequate 7 · Weak 1. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 2 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 — This is the best-evidenced dimension. Platform data access is not just claimed, it is operationalised in a published onboarding step: /onboarding/step-3-sharing-assets-hambi lists the agency's own Meta Business Manager ID (378624512768822) and TikTok Business Centre ID (7163653004430688258) for the client to grant, plus team@soarwithus.co to be added as admin on Triple Whale. A Triple Whale-published case study about the agency states that every client is required to be on Triple Whale. A named cadence appears in the Pure Pet Food case study: 'monthly strategy reporting and bi-weekly creative iterations... Each creative cycle was informed by the last, with clear learnings feeding back into briefs.' The Kukoon case study measures their creative against the client's in-house creative at account level (outbound CTR +33%, thumb-stop rate +17%), which is an account-read comparison rather than a delivery metric. Not Excellent because the cadence is named in one case study rather than published as a standard commitment. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “The published onboarding step for the creative division asks the client to grant the agency's Meta Business Manager (ID 378624512768822), TikTok Business Centre (ID 7163653004430688258) and Triple Whale admin access, evidencing direct access to platform performance data.” soarwithus.co ↗

On the record — “A named iteration cadence is published in a case study: 'We ran monthly strategy reporting and bi-weekly creative iterations... We shipped 521 individual creative assets in 6 months.'” soarwithus.co ↗

CTR — click-through rate: the share of people who click after seeing an ad or listing.

Evidence: partly checkable — corroborated in part against the sources below; the remainder rests on the agency’s own account.

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 — There is regulated-category experience of the right kind, but no published process. Two named clients sit in UK men's health: Voy, described on their own case study as a platform for 'clinician-approved treatments for Hair Loss, Weight Loss, and TRT', and Manual, which the site says 'partnered with us to scale Meta acquisition without compromising medical compliance or clarity'. That is the agency's own characterisation. Nothing was found on claim substantiation, legal disclaimers, safe zones, accessibility contrast, or music/footage/creator-content rights and releases, which matters given that creator-led UGC is one of their three named formats. Working against them on their own claim handling: they publish an outcome guarantee ('if we don't improve your current ROI by 23%, we'll give you your money back') and a landing page titled 'If our ads don't get you results, you don't pay' with no terms or qualifying conditions stated anywhere. Confidence on this dimension is low, per the rubric's own instruction not to penalise absence heavily here. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “Regulated-category client work is named on their own site: Voy, described as a UK platform for clinician-approved hair-loss, weight-loss and TRT treatments, and Manual, a UK men's health platform, where the copy says acquisition was scaled 'without compromising medical compliance or clarity'.” soarwithus.co ↗

On the record — “An unqualified outcome guarantee is published in two places with no terms, conditions or refund mechanics stated: 'We promise if we don't improve your current ROI by 23%, we'll give you your money back', and a landing page titled 'If our ads don't get you results, you don't pay'.” soarwithus.co ↗

UGC — user-generated-content style ads: creative shot to look like a customer’s own phone video rather than a produced commercial.

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 10% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 42 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 3 · Adequate 24 · Weak 14 · Poor 1. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 27 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 — Nothing published resolves who owns the output. The only legal document on the site, /terms-and-conditions, is a website-use template: it asserts the agency's ownership of its own site content and marks, and is silent on delivered ad creative, source and working files, raw footage, and creator/UGC usage rights. It also reads as unedited boilerplate, referencing an external template URL (poynordesigns.github.io/soar-terms-code) inside its own text and citing protection under laws 'in the United States' for a UK company. On continuity, no designers are named and no continuity guarantee is published; the Triple Whale page cites a 30+ person team and a 95% client retention rate for 2023, which is agency-level churn, not designer continuity, and a homepage testimonial says a client has 'increased package with them for the third time', which is relationship length rather than staffing. No independent review documented designer discontinuity, so this is silence, not a verified negative. Silence scores 2. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “The site's only legal document is a website-use terms template. It asserts the agency's ownership of its own site content and marks and is silent on ownership of delivered ad creative, source or working files, raw footage and creator-content rights. It references an external template URL (poynordesigns.github.io/soar-terms-code) inside its own text and cites protection under laws 'in the United States' for a UK-registered company.” soarwithus.co ↗

On the record — “A third-party page published by an analytics vendor states the agency was founded in 2018 in the UK, has a team of over 30, requires every client to be on Triple Whale, and reports a 95% client retention rate for 2023. This is partner marketing, not independent review.” triplewhale.com ↗

UGC — user-generated-content style ads: creative shot to look like a customer’s own phone video rather than a produced commercial.

churn — the rate at which customers cancel.

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

Stronger here: Structured 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 42 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 1 · Strong 9 · Adequate 7 · Weak 25. The typical agency here scores Weak, and 17 of them score 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 — There is no pricing page and no price anywhere. The full sitemap.xml was read: roughly 110 non-blog, non-case-study URLs, including six service pages, an onboarding sequence, careers, legal and dozens of newsletter landing pages, and none is a pricing or packages page. Every CTA on every page routes to 'Book a free discovery call'. There is a published qualification floor rather than a price: 'If you're doing over £100K a month, book a free discovery call.' Onboarding step 4 is a GoCardless direct-debit mandate, which implies recurring monthly billing, but no contract term, no minimum commitment, no notice period and no pause policy is stated. The money-back guarantee is advertised without its terms. That is bespoke-only quoting with no public anchor. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “The full sitemap.xml lists roughly 110 non-blog, non-case-study URLs including six service pages, a six-step onboarding sequence, careers and legal pages, and contains no pricing or packages page; every CTA read routes to a free discovery call.” soarwithus.co ↗

On the record — “The only published qualification is client size, not price: 'If you're doing over £100K a month, book a free discovery call today.' Onboarding step 4 is a GoCardless direct-debit mandate, with no contract term, notice period or pause policy stated.” soarwithus.co ↗

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

Stronger here: Shuttlerock scores Excellent on the same dimension.