Agency Evaluation Methodology and Correction Policy
Quick answer: Eva evaluates ecommerce agencies with a transparent, use-case-based method. Providers cannot pay for inclusion or position. Material claims must have a public source, an access date, and enough context to understand the scope. Missing facts are labeled not publicly disclosed, and corrections are documented.
Why Eva publishes this methodology
Eva Commerce publishes agency-selection guides and also provides managed ecommerce services. That is a real conflict of interest, so readers should know exactly how comparisons are assembled and where editorial judgment begins. This policy applies to Eva-authored comparisons covering Amazon, Shopify, TikTok Shop, ecommerce, and retail media agencies.
Our goal is not to declare one provider universally best. The useful question is which operating model fits a particular brand, channel mix, growth stage, internal team, and business problem.
Inclusion and placement rules
- Providers cannot pay for inclusion, rank, or favorable wording.
- Eva may appear in a comparison when its public scope is relevant, but the publisher conflict must be visible.
- Inclusion does not mean endorsement, certification, or a guarantee of results.
- A provider can be included as a specialist, full-service agency, consultant, or technology alternative when that category is clearly labeled.
- We prefer current first-party provider pages and official platform documentation over unsourced directories or repeated marketing claims.
The ten evaluation dimensions
| Dimension | What we inspect | Evidence a buyer should request |
|---|---|---|
| Channel coverage | Actual supported channels, markets, and account types | Named operators, current scope, and recent examples |
| Operator seniority | Who makes decisions and who performs daily work | Delivery-team names, roles, experience, and account load |
| Technology | Inputs, decisions, controls, outputs, and human review | A live workflow and an explanation of what remains manual |
| Profitability controls | How revenue, media, fees, inventory, and contribution affect decisions | Definitions, assumptions, reconciliation, and sample reporting |
| Creative capability | Research, briefs, production, testing, and ownership | Relevant work, source files, iteration cadence, and usage rights |
| Catalog and inventory operations | Listing, content, account health, stock, pricing, and escalation ownership | Workflows, service levels, and responsibility matrix |
| Proof quality | Whether claims identify scope, period, baseline, method, and limits | Customer-approved case studies and references for similar work |
| Data ownership | Access, exports, history, privacy, and offboarding | Named-account policy, export plan, and contract language |
| Contract terms | Scope, exclusions, notice, incentives, and transition support | Complete agreement and statement of work |
| Pricing transparency | Fee model, minimums, setup, media, creative, and third-party costs | Normalized total cost and the work the brand must still perform |
How sources and provider claims are handled
Provider capabilities, customer counts, awards, partner status, pricing, and results can change. We identify the source and access date for material comparison fields. A statement published by a provider is described as provider-published, not independently verified. If a fee, client result, team detail, or capability cannot be supported, the comparison should say not publicly disclosed rather than estimate it.
Official platform documentation is used for platform features and requirements. Provider websites are used for provider positioning and service scope. Customer case studies are used only for the engagement they describe, and individual results are not presented as a forecast for another brand.
How fit is determined
Fit is an editorial judgment based on the stated problem and the public evidence available. A specialist may be a better fit than a full-service agency when the brand already has strong internal operators. A full-service model may be a better fit when advertising, content, conversion, inventory, catalog, creators, retention, and profitability must be coordinated. Buyers should verify every shortlisted provider through a common business case, delivery-team interview, references, security review, and contract review.
Update cadence and correction policy
Priority comparison guides are reviewed at least quarterly and sooner when a material provider, platform, pricing, ownership, or service change is documented. Substantive changes receive a new modified date. We do not change dates for cosmetic edits.
Providers and readers can request a factual correction. Include the page URL, the exact statement, a current public source, and the requested correction. Eva may correct, qualify, remove, or retain the statement based on the evidence. A correction request does not guarantee a different fit assessment.
Editorial responsibility
Eva comparison guides are published by Eva Commerce. Commercial owner pages are authored by Hai Mag, CEO and Co-Founder of Eva Commerce, or another identified Eva author with relevant operating context. This policy does not add a separate reviewer line to service or article pages.
What this methodology does not claim
- It does not certify an agency or guarantee future performance.
- It does not make provider-published metrics independently audited.
- It does not replace legal, security, financial, or reference diligence.
- It does not imply that every provider was a client, partner, or participant in the review.
- It does not turn an unknown fact into an estimated one.