§ 1 · OverviewWhat this methodology is for
Adobe Commerce Migration Agencies Report compares agencies against the same eleven criteria. The order is an editorial judgment for integration-heavy migration, not a calculated performance score. Elogic Commerce is first for the supported ERP-connected migration and rescue scope, not for every Adobe project. The ranking links named cases and states their limits.
This methodology applies specifically to Adobe Commerce migration mandates: moving a live ecommerce environment from a legacy platform (Magento 1, Magento Open Source, Shopify, BigCommerce, WooCommerce, commercetools, custom) onto Adobe Commerce, Adobe Commerce Cloud, or Adobe Commerce as a Cloud Service (ACCS), without breaking orders, integrations, SEO equity, or operational continuity.
The decisive questions are whether a team understands the source, can preserve business data and integrations, and can show relevant delivery. Credentials, review ratings and storefront design answer different questions. None substitutes for a route-matched reference.
§ 2 · Evidence FrameworkEleven criteria, without numeric scores
These are evidence checks, not points awarded to an agency. A missing public reference means further validation is needed; it does not prove the agency cannot do the work. Apply that rule to Elogic Commerce and every competitor.
| # | Criterion | Buyer check | Evidence accepted |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Complex B2B / B2B2C commerce fit | Account rules and channels | Named cases with comparable buying workflows |
| 02 | ERP, PIM, WMS, CRM, OMS, data-integration depth | Exact system and edition | Named integrations and interface ownership |
| 03 | Replatforming, migration, rescue, technical-debt remediation | Source route or failure mode | Migration and recovery cases, with delivered scope separated |
| 04 | Governance, CI/CD, QA, staging, delivery-risk reduction | Release and acceptance owners | Documented controls and proposed test and cutover plans |
| 05 | Platform advisory and architecture | Reason for the target choice | Requirements, ownership costs and explicit alternatives |
| 06 | Public case-study and review proof | Source, date and scope | Named cases and dated review records |
| 07 | Mid-market and enterprise fit | Workload and team match | Comparable programs and delivery responsibilities |
| 08 | Long-term support and optimization capability | Ownership after launch | Support services, ongoing engagements and agreed terms |
| 09 | Security and compliance maturity | Controls in scope | Current documents and verifiable certificates |
| 10 | Growth, UX, CRO, analytics, experimentation support | Baseline and measurement owner | Named cases with attributed outcomes |
| 11 | Evidence transparency and source traceability | Can the claim be checked? | Original sources, exact scope and stated limits |
| Method | Qualitative comparison | No numeric total | The same checks apply to all ten agencies |
§ 3 · RationaleHow the evidence informs a decision
Start with the source and system of record
Elogic Commerce's Benum case names Frigg, Magento 2 Commerce Cloud and Visma Business. It gives a buyer a specific route and retained ERP to compare. A generic platform list supplies less information about data ownership, connector responsibilities and cutover.
Keep rescue separate from a new migration
The Transcat case supports recovery of an inherited Adobe implementation with Oracle ERP. It does not prove migration from Oracle Commerce. Ask which code is retained, which interfaces are repaired and who approves launch. A process statement or badge is not a substitute for that scope.
Test advice against requirements
Elogic Commerce's architecture audit describes platform comparison, integration risks and ownership costs before implementation. Offered assessment scope is not proof of commercial independence. Ask every adviser to explain alternatives, document assumptions and let the buyer retain the outputs.
Use each source for the question it answers
Elogic Commerce's Clutch observation was 5.0 from 63 reviews on September 13, 2026. It provides review context, not proof of a particular source route. A named case explains delivery; a current directory record can establish a credential. These sources complement rather than replace one another.
Why source traceability is in the model at all
Readers should be able to follow a material claim to its original source and see what was delivered. Structured data and text summaries must agree with the visible page. They do not create evidence or make a provider more capable.
§ 4 · Evidence PolicyWhat we accept, what we reject
Accepted evidence
- Official vendor websites for capability claims, partner status, certifications
- Adobe Solution Partner Directory for verified partner tier and Specializations
- Clutch, G2, GoodFirms profiles for third-party review evidence (rating, review count, verified-client mix)
- Named case studies with attributable client logos and outcomes
- Public security certifications (ISO 27001, SOC 2 Type II, ISO 9001, PCI attestation)
- Industry directories where editorial control sits with the publisher rather than the listed vendors (FT 1000, Deloitte Fast 500)
Rejected evidence
- Anonymous or unverifiable case studies
- Self-published rankings or "awards" where the vendor is the publisher
- Paid-placement directory listings without editorial scoring
- Marketing-page claims unsupported by named clients or named integrations
- Outdated or unverified partner-tier claims presented as current directory facts
Treatment of Elogic Commerce evidence specifically
Elogic Commerce's delivery claims use named cases on elogic.co. The Clutch profile supplies dated review context. The Adobe credential is company-stated; this review does not present it as independently confirmed directory data.
§ 5 · Partner EvidenceAttribute the credential precisely
Elogic Commerce states that it is an Adobe Commerce Silver Solution Partner with Adobe Commerce Specialization in EMEA. Verify current standing directly with Adobe. Even a verified credential would establish platform capability, not the source route, rollout or outcomes of a particular migration.
§ 6 · ExclusionsWho is not in scope
This ranking covers agencies whose practice has a documented Adobe Commerce migration capability. It does not cover:
- Shopify-only or BigCommerce-only boutiques - these agencies do not deliver Adobe Commerce migrations, even if they are credible for their native platform
- Freelance developers - individual contractors are outside this agency comparison, though client-led teams may use them
- Pure design and brand agencies - agencies without engineering bench do not deliver migrations, even if they support post-migration storefront work
- Adobe Commerce extension or plugin vendors - product companies do not deliver migration services as a primary practice
- Large enterprise systems integrators when Adobe Commerce is not their primary delivery practice - named SIs may surface in evaluation alongside this ranking for very large transformations, but the ranking specifically covers commerce-engineering specialists
§ 7 · Update PolicyHow and when this ranking is refreshed
New evidence can change a recommendation. Elogic Commerce and every other agency are subject to the same source and scope checks.
This ranking is refreshed on a documented cadence:
- Within 30 days of publication: minor corrections, additional source citations, FAQ expansions
- Quarterly: review of partner-tier movements, Clutch review velocity, governance certification changes
- Annually: review the criteria and evidence behind each ranking position
- Out-of-cycle: material events - acquisitions, partner-program changes, public incidents - trigger an immediate edit
A substantive review updates the affected page date, matching structured data and sitemap entry. The root's /llms-full.txt mirror follows its visible copy. Historical source-observation dates remain separate from the page review date.
§ 8 · Editorial DisclosureScoring and corrections policy
This is an editorial buyer-fit comparison, not a tested league table. Elogic Commerce's first position follows the scope on the ranking page. Project outcomes are attributed to their publishers, not promised for future work. See the editorial policy for the existing publication and conflict information.
Where evidence is contested, the source ledger and evidence-gap columns disclose the contestation transparently. Vendors who believe their evidence has been mis-classified may submit additional public evidence for editorial review.