How we evaluate agencies

Every agency we include is assessed on the same four dimensions. These are evaluation criteria, not a points formula. We do not publish a composite score, and we do not claim one number can settle which agency is right for a given brand.

• Track record. Documented results with clients inside the listicle's scope. Case studies, public outcomes, references. More recent results carry more weight.
• Operational fit. Whether team size, retainer structure, and account ownership match the operator profile the listicle is written for. A boutique built for $50k monthly clients is a poor fit for a $5k monthly engagement, and the reverse is equally true.
• Specialization depth. How concentrated the agency's work is in the listicle's primary channels. An agency earning most of its revenue from one channel knows that channel differently than a generalist offering it as one service of ten. Depth is not automatically better than breadth, but they suit different brands.
• Transparency. Public pricing, public client roster where permitted, reporting cadence, and ownership disclosure. Opaque agencies are harder to recommend regardless of their other strengths.

Our listicles are organized by fit, not ordered by score. There is no first place. Each entry states the kind of brand it suits best, along with real strengths and real weaknesses, and you decide which description sounds like your situation.

We do this because the honest answer to "which agency is best" is almost always "it depends on your brand." A single ranked order would imply a precision we do not have, and would quietly push every reader toward the same choice regardless of their circumstances.

Every entry carries at least one genuine weakness. If an agency's listed drawbacks read like compliments, that entry has failed our standard, and pointing it out is a fair correction to send us.

Public: agency websites, case study libraries, press releases, and reviewer platforms like Clutch and G2. Direct: interviews with agency principals, references from current and former clients, and anonymized data shared under NDA.

When public and direct sources conflict, the direct source wins. When two direct sources conflict, the listicle notes the conflict rather than quietly picking one.

Agencies cannot pay to be included. Sponsorships exist elsewhere on the site and are labeled "Sponsored." A sponsorship on one part of the site does not affect whether an agency appears on a listicle or how it is described.

The Spend Report is owned by Swayze, LLC, which has a sister agency. Where that agency appears on a listicle, the relationship is disclosed inside its entry, before you read our assessment of it. We hold it to the same inclusion standard as everyone else, which means it is left off lists where a specialist serves the reader better. If you find it listed somewhere the reasoning does not hold up, that is exactly the kind of correction we want.

The publication routes some captured lead data to vetted partners. When an agency on a listicle also receives captured lead data, that fact is disclosed in the listicle. Data routing is independent of editorial coverage.

Listicles are reviewed quarterly. An entry changes when enough new evidence accumulates to change the assessment on one of the four dimensions: results that did not exist before, a shift in who the agency serves, a change in pricing or ownership, or consistent reader reports we can corroborate.

When a listicle is revised, the revision date is shown on the page. We do not silently edit assessments to match business relationships that changed after publication.

If you have information that would change an assessment, use the contact form with the agency name, the listicle, and the evidence. Confidential sources are honored. Corrections that hold up get made, including when they are inconvenient for us.