KoolavAll agenciesBy industryBy disciplineReportsHow we vet
All agencies · Localization & Transcreation

We Are Amnet review

CONDITIONAL for Localization & Transcreation

Worth a conversation about Localization & Transcreation once the caveats below are settled.

A 1,200-person offshore creative production studio that lists transcreation and localisation as one of nine production lines, with a real proprietary workflow platform but no published languages, linguist credentials, translation memory policy or rates.

Pricing: $25–$5,000 per hour Reported — not published by the agency
The Clutch profile carries a 0.0 rating with zero verified client reviews, and lists a $5,000+ minimum project size and a sub-$25 hourly rate. source ↗

Score 2.7/5Confidence: lowLast evaluated 2026-08-26Website

How it scored

Every dimension is scored against this discipline’s published rubric. Open one to see the claim it was scored on, what the rubric measures there and how much it weighs, and where the evidence came from.

Transcreation and marketing practice evidenceAdequate

Transcreation and localisation is a named line on the Creative Production menu with its own page, and the company calls itself 'a translation, transcreation and localisation agency' there. The page does draw the distinction the rubric looks for -- 'Getting every word right in translation may do nothing to convey the meaning and spirit of the original text' -- and the FAQ independently lists Adaptation, Transcreation and Localization among the services best suited to its offshore model, naming 'social content localization' as one of the two highest-volume offshore services. Against that: nothing is attributable. All ten items on the case-studies index (Tatton, Erno Laszlo, Inizio Medical, Boston Scientific, Avon, Pearson, British Airways, plus three white-label studies) are print, packaging, retouching, web or document work; none is a language project. No language pairs, no language count and no localization client are named anywhere on the site. The localization deliverable scope published is narrow -- banner ads, e-mailers, landing pages, in-store and OOH digital displays -- with no website, app, long-copy or video-subtitling localization offered. Capped at Adequate: a real named practice inside a real production business, but with no attributable campaign work.

What this dimension measures: Is marketing work a real, named practice with attributable campaign or content work — or a service-page claim on a general translation business? Named marketing clients with described campaign work across stated language pairs scores 4-5. A marketing services page with no attributable work scores 2-3. Distinguish transcreation (copy reworked for the market, briefed like creative) from translation with a marketing label; vendors that explain the difference in their own materials tend to actually do it. Counts for 25% of the weighted score.

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

Linguist model and quality processAdequate

The model stated is 'native talent around the world' and 'the work is done by native speakers, wherever possible in the territory concerned' -- the 'native speakers' formulation the rubric bands at 2-3. There is general production QA around it: 'Every deliverable is human-checked', a named 'Brand Guardian' assigned per account, Six Sigma-certified processes claimed on the Creative Production page, and 'stringent quality control procedures and ISO 9001:2015: Quality Audits' claimed on the Image Services case study. That is production QA, not linguistic QA -- no in-country reviewer step, no back-translation, no reviser/proofreader layer, and no linguist credentials or vetting are described. ISO 17100, the translation-services standard, is not claimed anywhere on the domain, and the ISO 9001 claim is a self-published statement inside a case study rather than a certificate a buyer can check, so the corroboration cap keeps this below Strong. Machine translation is not mentioned at all -- neither disclosed nor evidenced as hidden, so it is scored neither way.

What this dimension measures: Who does the work and who checks it: in-country professional linguists versus anonymous pools, named review layers, and certifications that can be verified (ISO 17100, ISO 9001 — check the certificate claim, not the badge). A described model with named QA steps and verifiable certification scores 4-5. 'Native speakers' with no process detail scores 2-3. How the vendor positions machine translation matters: disclosed MT-plus-post-editing with stated boundaries is honest and scores on its own terms; undisclosed MT sold as human work is a red flag scored 1-2 where evidenced. Counts for 20% of the weighted score.

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

Scope and pricing transparencyWeak

No rates of any kind are published. The FAQ names two commercial models in a single sentence -- 'transactional pricing for managing peaks and troughs in demand to fixed employee pricing for more predictable volumes of work' -- which is a stated model with no numbers, and none of this category's actual billing mechanics appear: no per-word rate, no hourly transcreation rate, no per-language minimum, no tier structure. The repeated '40-60% cost savings' figures are attributed to their own 2025 Global Benchmark Report and describe an industry range for offshoring generally, not Amnet's price. The only figures a buyer can find are third-party: the Clutch directory profile lists a $5,000+ minimum project size and a sub-$25 hourly rate, which is a self-supplied directory field, not a rate card. Scored at the bottom of the stated-model band.

What this dimension measures: Published per-word rates, hourly transcreation rates, or stated pricing models by service tier score 4-5. A stated model without numbers scores 2-3. Bespoke-only quoting scores 1-2. This category bills by mechanisms buyers rarely see up front (per-word, per-hour, minimums per language); a vendor that explains its own billing mechanics scores toward the top of whatever band its disclosure earns. Counts for 15% of the weighted score.

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

Stronger here: Translated scores Excellent on the same dimension.

Technology and workflow integrationAdequate

The workflow is described in more detail than most vendors bother with. Joule, their proprietary MarTech platform, is documented across two pages: DAM library with permissions, managed approval workflows, templated briefing with an AI agent that fills brief gaps, dashboards and reporting, and estimate/quote approval with digital signatures. A file-format list is published (jpg, tif, gif, psd, png, bmp, pdf, docx, mpg, mp4, avi, mov, wmv, flv, f4v, ogv, webm), integration is offered via REST APIs, they state they are 'tech agnostic' and will plug into client systems, and a 'follow the sun' 24/7 model plus creative automation for versioning 'with no limitation on volume of files' supports continuous output. What is missing is specific to this category: no TMS, no CAT tool, no translation memory or termbase, and no named connector into a client CMS or design stack -- REST APIs are offered but no integration is named. Joule is proprietary and no export path on exit is stated. Held at Adequate because the described workflow is a production workflow, not a localization one.

What this dimension measures: How work actually flows: TMS use, connectors into the client's CMS or design stack, stated file-format coverage, and whether continuous localization is supported for content that ships weekly. Named integrations and a described workflow score 4-5. Email-the-files-back workflow scores 2-3 — workable for a campaign, a ceiling for a content operation. Proprietary-platform lock-in with no export path should be named in the verdict. Counts for 15% of the weighted score.

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

Asset ownership and translation memoryWeak

Silence, which the rubric bands at 2. Translation memory and glossaries are not mentioned anywhere on the domain, so there is no policy to read on whether linguistic assets built on the client's spend leave with the client. Nor is there any statement of IP or deliverable ownership: the Policies page covers anti-bribery, non-discrimination and modern slavery only. The Content Governance & Rights Management service page is about managing the client's own rights -- 'meta-data tagging, archive management and validation, control and clearance around rights management' -- and says nothing about who owns what Amnet produces. This is a measured absence across every page where it would belong, not a retrieval failure.

What this dimension measures: The translation memory and glossaries built on the client's money are the client's accumulated asset, and whether they leave with the client at exit is the switching question of this category. Explicit client ownership of TM, glossaries and deliverables scores 4-5. Silence scores 2. A stated policy that the vendor retains the TM scores 1-2 — that is the client's spend converted into the vendor's moat, and it should be named plainly. Counts for 10% of the weighted score.

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

Stronger here: Argos Multilingual scores Strong on the same dimension.

Turnaround and capacityAdequate

Capacity is concrete and consistent across pages: 1,200+ staff, production studios in Chennai and Mumbai with offices in London, New York, San Jose and Pune, and a 'follow the sun' 24/7 model. Turnaround claims are grounded in case studies rather than floated as slogans -- 24-hour turnaround and 24/7 studio cover on the Image Services engagement, and 18,000 pages inside three months with 48-hour turnaround on the rush items in the Rebrand at Scale study. The Certainty Index is a stated monthly report on schedule compliance and first-time-right quality, though no scores from it are published. Held at Adequate rather than Strong because none of these commitments is stated for language work: no turnaround by word volume or language pair, no rush terms, and no stated linguist capacity per market. To their credit they do not overclaim -- there is no 'same-day in 40 languages' promise anywhere, because no language count is claimed at all.

What this dimension measures: Stated turnaround by volume and language pair, rush terms, and stated capacity across time zones. Published, realistic turnaround commitments score 4-5. Undisclosed scheduling scores 2. Score honesty over speed: same-day everything at marketing quality across forty languages is a claim to be sceptical of, not to reward. Counts for 10% of the weighted score.

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

References and review baseWeak

The Clutch profile exists but carries zero reviews and a 0.0 rating, read first-hand. No G2 profile was located. The DesignRush entry is a directory listing, not a review base. Two testimonials on the Smartshoring Partnership case study are attributed by role only -- a Group Commercial Director and a VP of Operations at 'a global creative technology company' -- so neither is a checkable reference, and the second is the only place a specific piece of work is named (the 2018 Adidas World Cup digital campaign, delivered as a subcontractor to that agency). The homepage carries 60+ brand logos including Adidas, Nike, Google, Netflix, Unilever, Pepsi and Mercedes-Benz with no work attributed to any of them. Glassdoor ratings for Amnet entities are employee reviews and are excluded. Low weight, and absence is weak evidence in enterprise localization.

What this dimension measures: Independent, verified reviews or named checkable references. A substantial verified base scores 4-5; a handful scores 2-3; none scores 2. Low weight deliberately — enterprise localization runs on procurement references rather than public reviews, so absence is weak evidence, and the practice evidence above matters more. 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: Translated scores Strong on the same dimension.

Verdict

We Are Amnet is a creative production agency first and a localization provider second, and the site is honest enough about that ordering that a buyer can see it. The business is Smartshoring -- offshore production studios in Chennai and Mumbai paired with in-country client service teams, 1,200+ staff, offices in London, New York, San Jose and Pune. Transcreation and localisation sits as one of nine lines on the Creative Production menu alongside packaging, retouching, retail marketing and CGI.

The practice is not invented: it has its own page, the company calls itself 'a translation, transcreation and localisation agency' on it, the FAQ names transcreation and localization among the services best suited to the offshore model, and the page draws the transcreation-versus-translation distinction properly rather than relabelling translation as marketing work. What it does not have is a single attributable piece of language work. All ten case studies are print, packaging, retouching, web or document projects.

The operational side is the strongest part of the record and it is unusually well documented. Joule, their proprietary MarTech platform, is described across two pages in enough detail to argue with: DAM with per-asset permissions, managed multi-step approval workflows, templated briefing with an AI agent that chases missing brief information, dashboards, and estimate and quote approval with digital signatures. A file-format list is actually published.

Integration is offered by REST API and they state they are tech agnostic. A 24/7 follow-the-sun model and creative automation for re-versioning support continuous output, and the turnaround claims are attached to specific engagements -- 24-hour turnaround on a retouching account, 18,000 pages in three months with 48-hour rushes on a document rebrand -- rather than floated as marketing. The Certainty Index, a monthly report on first-time-right quality, responsiveness, escalations and schedule compliance, is a real reporting commitment, though no scores from it are published.

For a buyer specifically taking a message into markets they cannot read, the gaps are all in the same place: everything language-specific is missing. The linguist model is 'native talent around the world' and work done 'by native speakers, wherever possible in the territory concerned' -- no credentials, no vetting, no in-country review step, no reviser layer. No number of languages is stated and no language pair is named.

There is no translation memory, no termbase, no CAT tool and no TMS mentioned anywhere on the domain, which for a localization engagement means the linguistic asset that normally accumulates on the client's spend has no described existence, let alone an ownership policy. ISO 9001:2015 quality audits are claimed inside one case study and Six Sigma processes on the Creative Production page, but ISO 17100, the translation-services standard, is not claimed at all -- and neither ISO claim is backed by a certificate a buyer can check. Machine translation is never mentioned, so no MT position can be scored either way.

The localization deliverables published are narrow: banners, e-mailers, landing pages, in-store and OOH displays. Website and app localization, long-form copy and subtitling are not offered.

What a buyer still cannot answer is nearly everything that would let them compare this to a language service company. No rates: the FAQ names transactional versus fixed-employee commercial models in one sentence, and the only numbers anywhere are the $5,000+ minimum and sub-$25 hourly figure on a Clutch profile that carries zero reviews. No ownership terms: the Policies page covers bribery, discrimination and modern slavery, and the Content Governance & Rights Management page manages the client's rights without ever stating who owns Amnet's output.

No checkable reference: 60+ brand logos on the homepage with no work attributed to any of them, and the two testimonials on file identify the client only as 'a global creative technology company'. The single named piece of work on the whole site -- the 2018 Adidas World Cup digital campaign -- appears inside a client quote and was delivered as a subcontractor. This reads as a capable, sizeable production partner that will handle language variants competently as part of an adaptation workload.

It does not read as a provider that has published enough for a buyer to evaluate it as a localization specialist, and everything above is self-published.

What you can do next

Koolav can make the introduction and handle the back-and-forth, or you can go straight to the agency.

Visit their website

This agency has not published a paid trial. What a paid trial is.

What we verified

Each claim below was checked against a named source, last on 2026-08-26. Follow any of them and check for yourself — that is the point of publishing them.

No independent reviews found

No independent client review base was located. The Clutch profile at clutch.co/profile/we-are-amnet was read first-hand and shows a 0.0 rating with zero verified client reviews on file; it lists a $5,000+ minimum project size and a sub-$25 hourly rate. No G2 profile was found. The DesignRush entry is a directory listing rather than a review base. The two testimonials on the site are role-attributed to an unnamed 'global creative technology company' and are not checkable. Glassdoor entries for Amnet-named companies are employee reviews and are not client evidence.

Not finding one is not a mark against the agency and does not move the score. It does mean there is no third-party record to set against ours — so this verdict rests on the rubric and the sources above, and nothing else.

Red flags

What we could not verify

Sources

Others we evaluated in Localization & Transcreation

Same rubric, same evaluator, same date range — so these are directly comparable to the verdict above.

See all 17 Localization & Transcreation agencies we evaluated →

Think this is wrong?

If anything on this page is wrong or out of date, send us the correction and we will re-read the site.

Evidence moves a verdict. Money never does — no agency pays us for a listing, a placement, or a re-review. Whatever we conclude we publish, including that the verdict stands.