Thinkmojo review

40+ named client case studies at /projects/<client> (sitemap-confirmed), including Slack, Asana, Salesforce, Google, Discord, Square, Zendesk, MongoDB, OpenSea. Work is current: Asana AI campaign across CTV/billboards/radio, and a 2026 press release cites a 2026 Webby nomination for Rubrik's 'Rewind It Back' and a 2026 Inc. 5000 ranking (#1,873, 189% three-year growth). Case study pages read first-hand; the videos themselves were not watched, so craft quality is judged from client roster, recency and specificity rather than viewed footage. Not Excellent because attribution is self-published and the Webby/Inc claims were read only in Thinkmojo's own press release.

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. Distinctive, consistently high-quality output for demanding clients scores 4-5. Competent, generic output scores 3. A portfolio dominated by work more than two years old scores 2 — the team that made it has usually moved on. 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. Counts for 25% of the weighted score.

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

No pricing page exists (direct fetch of /pricing returns 404, and the sitemap has no pricing, packages or FAQ page). No published ranges by video type; engagement starts from a contact form or hello@thinkmojo.com. Bespoke-only quoting with no public anchor. Scope itself is reasonably clear (video and motion for tech brands, product explainers to brand campaigns), which keeps this off the floor.

What this dimension measures: 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. Ranges given only on request score 2-3. Bespoke-only quoting with no public anchor scores 1-2. 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. Counts for 20% of the weighted score.

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

Stronger here: Epipheo scores Excellent on the same dimension.

No process, methodology or FAQ page anywhere on the site (sitemap-confirmed: only home, about, contact, jobs, work and project pages). Homepage offers 'creative meets strategy' positioning but no described stages, approval gates or tooling. Zero independent reviews on Clutch means no third-party commentary on communication or on-time delivery either.

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. Reviewers consistently citing clear communication and structured workflow score 4-5. 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. Counts for 15% of the weighted score.

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

Stronger here: Vidico scores Excellent on the same dimension.

Case studies span animation (3D animation series for Mixpanel, motion design systems), product explainers, live event production, brand campaigns and national broadcast/CTV spots (Asana AI campaign across CTV, billboards and radio). Both animation and live-action/event capability across multiple formats, per their own project pages.

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. Both live action and animation, across multiple formats, scores 4-5. A single modality scores 2-3 — not a defect, but a real ceiling that the buyer must match against the brief. 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. Counts for 15% of the weighted score.

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

Complete silence. Nothing on the site about who owns finals, raw footage or project files, or how long music, stock and talent licences run. Must be raised before contracting.

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. Explicit ownership transfer with stated licence terms scores 4-5. Finals-only delivery scores 2. Silence scores 2 and should be raised before contracting, since retrospective clearance is expensive. Counts for 10% of the weighted score.

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

Stronger here: Epipheo scores Strong on the same dimension.

No stated timelines from brief to delivery anywhere on the site, and no indication of how far out they book. Undisclosed scheduling.

What this dimension measures: Stated timelines from brief to delivery, and how far out the agency books. Fixed, published timelines score 4-5. 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. Counts for 10% of the weighted score.

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

Stronger here: Epipheo scores Excellent on the same dimension.

Clutch profile read first-hand: 0 verified reviews, 0.0 score, despite operating since 2011-2012. No readable G2 review base (G2 seller page only). FeaturedCustomers claims 4 testimonials but is not a verification-requiring platform and was not read first-hand. No independent review base located.

What this dimension measures: Volume and recency of independent, verified reviews. A substantial base on a verification-requiring platform scores 4-5; a handful of reviews scores 2-3; none located scores 2. 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. Counts for 5% of the weighted score.

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

Stronger here: Vidico scores Excellent on the same dimension.