KoolavAll agenciesBy industryBy disciplineReportsHow we vet
All agencies · Video Production

Yans Media review

STRONG FIT for Video Production

Shortlist-ready for Video Production, with the caveats below.

Armenian-US animation studio with published three-tier pricing (3,500-20,000 USD), a stated 4-6 week timeline, source files included as standard, and roughly 65-70 named-client case studies including Cisco, DoorDash and Databricks - but no live action capability at all.

Pricing: $4,500–$8,500 Published by the agency
FAQ states the cost of an animated video 'typically ranges from $4,500 to $8,500', with payment 50 percent up front and 50 percent on completion. source ↗

Score 4.0/5Confidence: mediumLast 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.

Craft and portfolio evidenceStrong

The works index and extended portfolio carry roughly 65-70 attributable, named-client entries, each with its own case study page. Named clients include Cisco (Duo and Umbrella product videos, produced alongside Quickframe), DoorDash, Databricks, Live Nation, Solana, Bitstamp, AdQuick, the American Psychological Association and the Green Climate Fund. Two case studies were read in full first-hand and describe a specific brief and a specific creative approach rather than a logo wall. Recency is demonstrable: the Green Climate Fund piece was made for UNOC3, which places it in 2025. Independent Clutch reviewers credit output quality directly, one calling a delivered video 'truly world class'. Held below Excellent because no finished video could be played through this instrument on any page read, so the quality of the output itself is credited from named-client attribution and reviewer commentary rather than from watching it.

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.

Scope and pricing transparencyExcellent

Prices are published on the service pages and the FAQ, not only in blog cost guides. Three tiers are named with what separates them: 3,500-5,500 USD for 'AI-powered production refined by our creative team', 5,500-8,500 USD for work '100% handcrafted by our studio', and 8,500-20,000 USD for multi-scene high-complexity productions. The FAQ states a typical range of 4,500-8,500 USD. The quoted fee is all-inclusive in the way the rubric asks for: scriptwriting, storyboard, original character design, animation, professional voiceover, music and sound effects, multiple file formats, source files, a subtitled version and an alternative ending are listed as standard deliverables, and revisions are specified as two per stage (one at voiceover). Payment terms are published as 50 percent up front, 50 percent on completion. Independent directories corroborate the band: Clutch lists a minimum project size under 10,000 USD at 25-49 USD/hr and DesignRush lists 1,000-10,000 USD at 30 USD/hr. The one imprecision is that the published floor varies by page (3,500, 4,500 and 5,000 USD all appear).

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

Process and project managementStrong

A seven-stage process is published with client sign-off at each gate: Brief and Research, Script and Concept, Mood Board and Storyboard, Style and Illustrations, Voice Over, Animation, Post Production and Revisions. The Style stage commits to a concrete artifact, '2-3 custom, full-color visuals' for approval, and the revision allowance is stated per stage with unused revisions forfeited on approval. Clutch reviewers independently report the coordination side: one describes 'under 24-hour turnaround time in all cases' from the project manager, another 'constant progress updates', and reviewers state work arrived on time including under tight deadlines. Short of Excellent because no collaboration tooling is named anywhere on the site, no per-stage duration is published, and the reviewer commentary supporting this comes from a base whose most recent entry is February 2024.

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

Format and production rangeAdequate

This is an animation studio only. The capabilities page lists explainer, landing page, branded and product videos, animation services, motion graphics and mixed media, with '2D with 3D Elements' as the descriptor; the about page describes the company as operating in the 'explainer and animation industry' and no page read offers live action. Mixed media is real rather than nominal - the Green Climate Fund case study combines 2D illustrated animation with real-world photography - which lifts this above a pure single modality. No aspect ratio or format coverage is published anywhere read. The ceiling is a real one a buyer must match against the brief: a script that needs people on camera, a founder interview or a testimonial shoot cannot be served here, and the site never says so plainly, so the buyer has to infer it from what is absent.

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

Rights, ownership and licensingStrong

Better than most of the category but not complete. The FAQ states that on completion 'all the rights for unlimited usage of the designs will belong to you', and the service page enumerates the permitted uses: website, social media, email campaigns, paid advertising, trade shows and internal training across all platforms. Crucially, 'full source files for reuse' are a listed standard deliverable rather than an upsell, and the FAQ says project files are retained so future changes are possible. Yans retains the right to display the work in its own portfolio unless the client declines, which is disclosed. Held below Excellent because the licence terms themselves are never stated: nothing published says how long the music and stock licences run, whether voiceover talent usage is limited by term or territory, or whether copyright is assigned as opposed to a broad usage grant. The public terms and conditions page covers website use and Armenian governing law and contains no intellectual property clause at all, so none of this is checkable outside a signed agreement.

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

Turnaround and schedulingStrong

A timeline is published and repeated consistently across the homepage, the FAQ and the explainer service page: approximately four to six weeks from kickoff to final delivery for a 60-second video, with rush production available in three to four weeks for an additional fee. The FAQ is honest about what extends it, naming revision rounds and the timing of client feedback. Clutch reviewers corroborate delivery against schedule, one stating that 'everything was on time and communicated promptly'. Short of the top of the band because no per-stage schedule is published and nothing states how far out the studio books, so a buyer with a fixed launch date cannot tell from the site whether a slot exists.

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

References and review baseAdequate

The Clutch profile was read first-hand: 5.0 average across 11 verified reviews, company size 10-49, offices in Yerevan, Armenia and Newark, Delaware. The most recent Clutch review is dated 19 February 2024, so the verified base is real but aging and small. The DesignRush profile, also read first-hand, displays a 5.0 drawn from 18 Google reviews with an entry as recent as December 2025 - more current, but aggregated Google reviews rather than a platform that authenticates each engagement. A G2 seller profile exists with too few reviews for G2 to draw an insight. A handful of verified reviews sits in the 2-3 band; the count and the corroborating Google base put it at the top of it.

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.

Verdict

Yans Media is a project-based animated video studio founded in 2016, running out of Yerevan, Armenia with a Newark, Delaware address, at 10-49 people. It commissions and delivers defined pieces - explainers, product videos, branded films - rather than supplying a continuous stream of ad creative, which puts it squarely in this category. The portfolio is the strongest signal: roughly 65 to 70 entries on the works and extended portfolio pages, each with its own case study page naming the client and the brief.

Cisco, DoorDash, Databricks, Live Nation, Solana, Bitstamp, AdQuick, the American Psychological Association and the Green Climate Fund all appear with substantive write-ups. The Green Climate Fund piece was made for the UN Ocean Conference, which dates it to 2025, so this is not a body of work that stopped being refreshed years ago.

On the commercial terms this studio is unusually forthcoming for the category. Three price tiers are published with the difference between them stated plainly - 3,500-5,500 USD for AI-assisted production refined by their team, 5,500-8,500 USD for fully handcrafted work, 8,500-20,000 USD for high-complexity multi-scene productions - and the FAQ gives a typical 4,500-8,500 USD range. The number is close to all-inclusive: script, storyboard, character design, animation, voiceover, music and sound effects, source files, a subtitled cut and an alternative ending with a different call to action are all listed as standard, revisions are defined as two per stage (one at voiceover), payment is 50 percent up front and 50 percent on completion, and the timeline is a consistent four to six weeks with a paid three-to-four-week rush option.

Two independent directories place the minimum project size in the same band the site advertises, which is a check most agencies fail. The published floor does drift between pages (3,500, 4,500 and 5,000 USD all appear), so the buyer should treat the tier page as authoritative and confirm in writing.

The hard ceiling is capability. This is an animation house and nothing else. Mixed media here means 2D animation composited with photography, not a shoot; no page read offers live action, on-camera talent, studio or location work.

The site never states that boundary outright, which is the one place a buyer could be misled by omission - a brief that needs a founder on camera or customer testimonials cannot be served, and that should be established before the first call rather than discovered in week three. Rights are handled better than the category norm - unlimited commercial usage is granted in writing across named channels and full source files ship as standard, which is the difference between owning a video and renting one - but the licence terms behind it are never published. How long the music and stock licences run, whether voiceover talent usage is bounded by term or territory, and whether copyright is assigned or merely licensed are all unanswered, and the public terms and conditions page contains no intellectual property clause at all.

For a video expected to run in paid media into a second year, those clauses are the ones to read in the contract.

What remains genuinely unknown: no finished video could be played through this instrument on any page read, and both the Vimeo and YouTube channels failed to return readable content, so the actual craft quality is credited from named-client attribution and from independent reviewers who describe the output as world class, not from watching it - a buyer should watch the reel before committing. The verified review base is small and dated: 11 reviews at 5.0 on Clutch with nothing newer than February 2024, supplemented by 18 Google reviews shown on DesignRush running to December 2025. The performance figures on the case study pages, including a claim of tens of millions of views on the Cisco work and an 83 percent conversion lift for Antavo, are client-attributed and not independently checkable, and the Cisco view count is not stated identically on the index and the case study page.

None of this is disqualifying; it is the ordinary residual risk of a small studio that arrives largely by referral. Note also that the site publishes its own 'best agency' and cost-guide blog content, which is marketing and was excluded from the pricing assessment - the credited pricing sits on the service and FAQ pages.

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.

What other platforms say

Clutch {'score': 5.0, 'count': 11} · Designrush (Google Reviews Shown On Profile) {'score': 5.0, 'count': 18}

Read first-hand on Clutch and DesignRush. The Clutch base is small (11 verified reviews, 5.0 average, most recent 19 February 2024) but consistent on three themes: output quality ('truly world class', 'product quality was outstanding, even in the face of tight deadlines'), responsiveness (a project manager with 'under 24-hour turnaround time in all cases', 'constant progress updates'), and value relative to price, with one reviewer surprised they could 'be so competitive on cost while still delivering a world class video'. Delivery against schedule is reported positively, including on compressed timelines. No reviewer complaint about slippage or unresponsiveness was found in what was read. DesignRush displays a 5.0 drawn from 18 Google reviews with an entry as recent as December 2025; a G2 seller profile exists but has too few reviews for G2 to publish an insight. Employee reviews were not considered.

These are other platforms' numbers, not ours. We report them because they are part of the picture, and we do not average them into our score — our score comes from the published rubric above.

What we could not verify

Sources

Others we evaluated in Video Production

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

See all 62 Video Production 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.