Sub-ranking · from the same data
How we rank: 16 criteria with published weights, scored only from what each agency publishes on its own website or in a public register. The quote, the link and the date sit beside every score; anything not published scores 0. No agency pays to be listed or for its position. Methodology
Fan Fusion leads the 2 reviewed agencies that qualify, with 8.6/10, ahead of Lookstars (2.8).
Agencies that publish a separate price for chatting only, apart from full management.
This list is a filter of the main index: qualification is a published fact, the order is the full score. It is not a separate award.
12 of 16 criteria published in full, 2 not at all. Strongest on control (10.0), weakest on verifiability (4.7).
1 of 16 criteria published in full, 9 not at all. Strongest on money (5.0), weakest on verifiability (1.3).
Swipe for all columns →
| Agency | Score | Control | Money | Service evidence | Verifiability | Commission | Tens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 Fan Fusion | 8.6 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 7.7 | 4.7 | 35–60% net (full) / 15–20% net (chat only) | 12 |
| 17 Lookstars | 2.8 | 2.2 | 5.0 | 2.5 | 1.3 | 20–30% (chat) | 1 |
Fan Fusion leads the 2 reviewed agencies that qualify, with 8.6/10, ahead of Lookstars (2.8).
Agencies that publish a separate price for chatting only, apart from full management. This list is a filter of the main index: qualification is a published fact, the order is the full score. It is not a separate award.
Right of reply: any agency listed here can point us to a public page that changes a score. We re-read it and publish the result, dated, in the updates log. See corrections and right of reply.
