KoolavAll agenciesBy industryBy disciplineReportsHow we vet
All agencies · Video Production

Zelios review

CONDITIONAL for Video Production

Worth a conversation about Video Production once the caveats below are settled.

A 2018-founded B2B animation studio with unusually explicit published pricing ($9,900-$18,900 packages) and a day-by-day process, but no playable video anywhere on the site, no stated rights or licensing terms, and no independent review since April 2024.

Pricing: several published tiers Published by the agency
Fixed package prices are published on the site: Starter $9,900, Basic $12,900, Premium $18,900, with itemised contents including explainer, deep-dive demo, how-to videos, reformat/resize/localisation and a distribution plan; Premium states 'Unlimited revisions + revision requests accepted within six months'. source ↗

Score 3.35/5Confidence: 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.

Craft and portfolio evidenceAdequate

The portfolio at /cases/ and the category pages under /portfolio/ list attributable, named B2B SaaS work - Allfred (four separate pieces), Supahub, Writesonic, Doks.AI, Balto, Univer, Certhis, Alegria.tech, Lanp, Lovio, LangEase, Neuroflow, HyperHue, Canny-Creative, Perspective - and the sitemap shows those pages were last modified between Feb and May 2026, so the shelf is current rather than a 2022 archive. Two limits hold this at Adequate. First, no finished video is actually playable: /cases/, /portfolio/live-action/ and the StoreTrack customer story all render thumbnails or static screenshots only, so the craft itself could not be viewed first-hand and the corroboration cap applies. Second, the named clients are small and mid-market SaaS tools rather than brands carrying demanding house standards. The written case studies do show narrative thinking - the StoreTrack page argues for making the product dashboard the protagonist instead of using character animation, and the Supahub page explains a deliberate voiceover-free 60-second structure - which is the storytelling judgement the rubric asks about, but it is the agency describing its own reasoning, not a reviewer crediting 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 transparencyStrong

Unusually explicit for the category: /prices/ publishes three fixed productized packages - Starter $9,900, Basic $12,900, Premium $18,900 - with contents listed (explainer, deep-dive demo, how-to videos for FAQ, reformat/resize/localisation, distribution plan; Premium adds 'Unlimited revisions + revision requests accepted within six months'). A configurator prices by video type, duration and service line (scriptwriting, storyboarding, voiceover, animation, audio), and /video-production-process/ attaches a price to each stage ($0 discovery, $1,200 script and concept, $1,500 production, $600 review, distribution free). Held below Excellent by a contradiction the buyer cannot resolve from the site: /faq/ states 'Our prices range from $1,500 to $7,000', which does not overlap the package tiers, and the Clutch profile lists a $1,000+ minimum with 12 of 14 reviews reporting spend under $10,000. Scope boundaries are also unstated - the services page lists live action, mixed media, 2D, 3D, motion graphics, corporate and white-label with no statement of what the agency does not take on.

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

Process and project managementStrong

/video-production-process/ names five stages with day counts and a defined approval gate: Discovery and Strategy (4 days), Script and Concept Development (6), Production and Animation (7), Review and Refinements (1), Distribution and Optimization (3), with the client meeting a Video Producer and a Project Manager. Stage 3 states the client 'can now see what the final product will look like before the video', and Stage 4 is an explicit feedback-and-approval step. Independently, the Clutch profile carries 14 reviews at 4.9 whose only recorded criticisms are mild - 'A bit more involvement in the early stages' (Calibur) and 'having native English speakers on the team would be beneficial' (Premium Sound UK) - with no review titling schedule slippage or unresponsiveness. Two gaps keep this off Excellent: no collaboration tooling is named anywhere on the site, and no independent review has been posted since April 2024, so the on-time record is not currently corroborated.

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

The claimed range is wide - 2D, 3D, motion graphics, live action, mixed media - but the demonstrated range is animation. The agency's own homepage headline is '#1 B2B Animated Video Production Company', the About page describes an origin as a freelance duo that 'evolved into a design studio', and the /portfolio/live-action/ page is populated with items whose own titles read 'Allfred - Animated Explainer Video', 'Allfred - Animated Tutorial Video' and 'Certhis - 3D Product Demo Video', largely duplicating the /portfolio/animation/ listing. No studio, crew, location, camera or filming capability is described anywhere on the services or process pages. Format coverage for distribution is real: packages include 'Reformat + Resize + Localisation', which is the aspect-ratio and language coverage a multi-channel buyer needs. Scored as a strong single-modality shop rather than a genuine dual-modality one; a brief needing people on camera should be tested before contracting.

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

Rights, ownership and licensingWeak

Measured silence, not a retrieval failure. The FAQ, services, pricing, process and quality-evaluation pages were all read and none states who owns the delivered master, the project and source files, or the raw footage, and none states the term or territory of the music, stock or talent licences used. The nearest thing to a post-delivery term is the FAQ line 'After completion of the project, you will receive six months of ongoing support', which is a support window, not a rights grant. No terms-of-service or MSA page appears in the page sitemap. Per the rubric, silence scores 2 and should be raised before contracting - it matters here because the packages bundle localisation and multi-channel reuse, which is exactly the pattern a term-limited music or voice licence breaks in year two.

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.

Turnaround and schedulingStrong

A timeline is published at two levels of detail and the two agree with each other: /faq/ states 'Video production at Zelios takes 2-4 weeks. This can vary depending on the project', and /video-production-process/ breaks that into 4 + 6 + 7 + 1 + 3 = 21 calendar days across the five stages. That internal consistency is the useful part - the estimate is specific enough to hold the vendor to, and 2-4 weeks is a credible span for a 60-90 second animated explainer of the kind shown in the portfolio, so this is not an obviously optimistic number. Not Excellent because nothing states how far out the agency books or what current capacity is, and the estimate carries no independent on-time corroboration since the last Clutch review in April 2024.

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

References and review baseAdequate

The Clutch profile was read first-hand: 4.9 overall from 14 reviews, minimum project size $1,000+, hourly rate $25-$49. That is a real, verification-requiring base but a modest and stale one - the most recent review is dated 23 April 2024 (Allfred.io), and nine of the fourteen date from 2021-2022. More than a handful, well short of substantial, and nothing verifies the last two years of work. Separately, the About page claims '4.9 out of 5' based on '120+ reviews', a figure roughly nine times the review count located on any platform read here and not traceable to a source the buyer can check.

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

Zelios is a project-based B2B video studio, founded 2018 and registered at a Dover, Delaware address, that sells commissioned explainer, demo, walkthrough and brand videos to SaaS, AI/ML, fintech and Web3 buyers. It fits this category rather than continuous ad supply: the unit of sale is a defined piece or a bundle of pieces with a stated start and end, not a monthly creative feed. On the two things buyers most often cannot get from a production shop, it does better than most of the field.

Pricing is published as real numbers - three fixed packages at $9,900, $12,900 and $18,900 with itemised contents, plus a configurator and a per-stage price ladder on the process page. Timelines are published twice and the two published figures agree: a stated 2-4 weeks in the FAQ, and a stage-by-stage breakdown totalling 21 days. That is a vendor a buyer can hold to a number.

The portfolio is current and attributable. Named work for Allfred, Supahub, Writesonic, Doks.AI, Balto, Univer, Certhis, StoreTrack and roughly a dozen others sits on pages the sitemap shows were updated between February and July 2026, and the longer customer stories argue their creative choices rather than just listing deliverables - the StoreTrack piece explains why the product dashboard, not a character, carries the film; the Supahub piece explains a deliberate 60-second voiceover-free build. What could not be done is watch any of it.

Every portfolio and case page read here shows thumbnails or static screenshots, with no embedded or playable video, so the craft claim is described rather than demonstrated. For a video agency that is the central gap, and it is why the craft dimension is capped at Adequate no matter how good the writing around it reads.

Three specific things do not line up, and a buyer should get each in writing. First, the site quotes two incompatible prices for its own work: the FAQ says '$1,500 to $7,000' while the packages page starts at $9,900, and the Clutch profile shows a $1,000+ minimum with most engagements under $10,000. Second, the About page claims 4.9 from '120+ reviews', while the only verification-requiring base located is 14 Clutch reviews - real, and rated 4.9, but a ninth of the claimed volume and none newer than April 2024.

Third, live action is sold across the services and homepage, but the page dedicated to it is filled with work whose own titles say animated, and nothing on the site describes a crew, studio, or location capability. On the evidence available this is an animation and motion-graphics studio; treat live action as unproven until they show a reel.

Rights are the largest unanswered question and the one that ages worst. Nothing on the FAQ, services, pricing, process or quality pages states who owns the master, the project files or any raw footage, or how long the music, stock and voice licences run. That matters more here than it would for a design vendor because the packages explicitly bundle localisation and multi-channel reformatting, which is exactly the reuse pattern that a term- or territory-limited licence quietly breaks a year later.

Also worth pricing in: the one substantive reviewer criticism on Clutch is that 'having native English speakers on the team would be beneficial', which is a real consideration for a buyer commissioning English-language scripting and voiceover. None of these are grounds to walk away from a shop with published prices, a documented process and current named work - they are the four things to settle before signing.

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': 4.9, 'count': 14}

Read first-hand on clutch.co/profile/zelios: 4.9 from 14 reviews, minimum project size $1,000+, hourly rate $25-$49. Reviewers are mostly small SaaS, app and services firms (Allfred.io, Qlapse, Digiruu, Calibur, plugcontent, Only Green Tech, DESA NINJA, Premium Sound UK, Komanda), and 12 of the 14 report project spend under $10,000. The recorded criticisms are mild and specific: 'A bit more involvement in the early stages' and 'having native English speakers on the team would be beneficial'. No review reports schedule slippage or non-delivery. The base is stale - the most recent review is dated 23 April 2024 and the majority are from 2021-2022 - so nothing independently verifies the last two years of output. The company's own claim of '4.9 out of 5' from '120+ reviews' could not be traced to any platform read here.

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.

Red flags

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.