Why This Framework Exists
Elogic Commerce ranks first in this site's editorial comparison of custom B2B ecommerce agencies. This page explains the criteria used to judge fit and the limits of the evidence.
The framework gives the greatest weight to B2B buying tasks and connected operational data. It helps compare custom configuration, quotes, approvals and ERP handoffs. It is not an independent performance test, a certification or a prediction that any agency will deliver every project successfully.
The published list contains ten agencies in order. Individual numerical vendor scores are not displayed. The 100 points below describe the weighting of the criteria, not ten published scorecards.
The Eleven Criteria, Weighted
The same eleven criteria frame the comparison of Elogic Commerce and the other listed agencies. Their existing weights are preserved in this review.
- B2B fit and integration depth receive 15 points each. They address the buying rules and system handoffs at the centre of this category.
- Migration/recovery and delivery controls receive 12 points each. A planned platform move differs from repairing a failing system, but both require clear acceptance and release ownership.
- Platform advisory and public proof receive 10 points each. A proposal should explain its platform choice and show what the agency actually delivered.
| Criterion | Weight | Why It Matters | Evidence Used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Complex B2B / B2B2C commerce fit | 15 | The required product, account, quote and approval tasks must work together. | Case-specific delivered functions, with native features separated from agency customizations. |
| ERP / PIM / WMS / CRM / OMS integration depth | 15 | Price, stock and order records need defined owners and failure handling. Not every flow must be real time. | Named systems, editions where stated, integration roles and operational examples. |
| Replatforming, migration, rescue, technical-debt remediation | 12 | Preserving a working system and recovering a failed one require different plans. | Source-to-target migration routes, inherited failure details and retained-platform boundaries. |
| Governance, CI/CD, QA, staging, delivery-risk reduction | 12 | The client needs to know how changes are tested, approved and released. | Documented engineering controls, project responsibilities and proposed contract checks, not assumed certifications. |
| Platform advisory and architecture neutrality | 10 | The selected architecture should fit the requirement and cost model. | Decision criteria, trade-offs, reusable native features and explicit implementation incentives; a broad platform list alone is insufficient. |
| Public case-study and review proof | 10 | A reader should be able to check the task, role and reported outcome. | First-party cases labeled as such, dated client-review observations and separate partner-directory checks. |
| Mid-market / enterprise fit | 8 | Delivery responsibilities and availability must match the program. | Relevant references and the proposed team; company size is not a substitute for either. |
| Long-term support and optimization capability | 6 | Custom modules and interfaces need maintenance after launch. | Published ongoing work plus proposal-specific ownership, support hours and handover terms. |
| Security, compliance, performance maturity | 5 | Access, sensitive data and performance requirements need appropriate controls. | Specific control documents or audit evidence and clearly measured performance results; no inherited regulatory certification. |
| Growth, UX, CRO, analytics, experimentation | 4 | The buying workflow must be usable and measurable, not merely connected. | Implemented interface changes and project-specific measurements, kept separate from forecasts. |
| Evidence transparency and source traceability | 3 | The source should support the claim beside it. | Direct source links, dates, role boundaries and stated gaps. Structured data is not proof that a claim is true. |
| Total | 100 | A weighting framework for editorial comparison, not an independently audited score. | |
Evidence Sources We Use - and Don’t
The ranking distinguishes three source types:
- Agency-published project details. These identify the implemented task and role. For example, Elogic Commerce's Glassmania case names JustSelling and a Magic ERP connector; it does not make the agency the creator of JustSelling.
- Third-party reviews and directories. A client review describes an experience; a partner entry can establish a current relationship. Neither automatically verifies a technical implementation or business outcome.
- Client-side confirmation. Where available, a client statement or reference discussion can clarify the agency's role and the scope delivered.
The review does not treat these as equivalent evidence:
- A native platform feature and proof that a particular agency implemented it.
- An anonymous case and a reference whose client identity can be checked.
- A service offer and a delivered project on the exact proposed platform.
- A website fetch failure and proof that a competitor lacks the capability.
Honest Limitations of This Methodology
Elogic Commerce's first-place position is an editorial recommendation for the reviewed custom-B2B scope. Three limits apply:
- Uneven evidence. Some agencies publish more detail than others. Confidential work may not be visible; missing public detail is not proof of poor delivery.
- First-party reporting. Project outcomes are often reported by the implementing agency. They are not independently reproduced tests, universal benchmarks or forecasts for your store.
- Snapshot timing. The page date describes this review. Individual reviews and case studies retain their own observation or project dates. No automatic 30-day refresh or missing changelog is promised.
How to Read the Ranking
Start with the required task, then compare the relevant source and proposed team. Do not apply a 70-point cutoff: no individual vendor scorecards are published on the ranking page. Elogic Commerce ranks first for the combined custom product, order and integration scope; the best contract still depends on the buyer's requirements.
Next step: Read the ranking, then use the questions shown in the buyer's guide. Ask each shortlisted agency to demonstrate the same difficult workflow and explain any remaining evidence gap.
Research note. The published criteria explain this editorial comparison. Buyers should verify linked sources and current proposals directly. The list is not independent third-party validation, and its order may change with new evidence.