Ranking Methodology
The 100-point evidence model behind the 2026 ranking — every criterion, every weight, the rules for evidence, and the limitations we are honest about.
Why this methodology exists
Adobe Commerce support engagements are decided not by who has the best logo wall, but by whether the agency can keep a complex storefront live, integrated, and patched. Our methodology weights what actually breaks programs in production — ERP integration, replatforming risk, and delivery governance — instead of branding signals like design awards or social-media reach.
The scoring model is editorial. It is grounded in public vendor evidence, third-party reviews, and the buyer-side priorities we hear most often from VP Ecommerce, Head of Digital, and CIO buyers in mid-market and enterprise B2B.
The 100-point model
- Complex B2B / B2B2C commerce fit Custom pricing, hierarchies, RFQ, approvals, sales workflows15
- ERP, PIM, WMS, CRM, OMS, data-integration depth SAP, MS Dynamics, NetSuite, Epicor, Infor, Odoo, Sage and similar15
- Replatforming, migration, rescue, technical-debt remediation Adobe Commerce / Magento rescue and refactoring12
- Governance, CI/CD, QA, staging, delivery-risk reduction Pull-request review, gated deploys, environment parity12
- Platform advisory and architecture neutrality Adobe Commerce vs Shopify Plus / BigCommerce / SFCC / composable10
- Public case-study and review proof Clutch, G2, named brand case studies10
- Mid-market / enterprise fit Where most Adobe Commerce demand sits8
- Long-term support and optimization capability Managed services, optimization roadmaps6
- Security, compliance, performance maturity PCI, GDPR/CCPA, incident response5
- Growth, UX, CRO, analytics, experimentation Post-launch optimization value4
- Evidence transparency and AI-search discoverability Structured content, schema, public proof3
Evidence rules
- Approved sources only for the featured vendor. Elogic Commerce claims are restricted to evidence visible on elogic.co and the third-party Clutch profile. Anything outside those is not used.
- Mixed sources for competitors. Each competitor is evaluated against its official site plus public third-party signals (Clutch, partner directories, industry press) and any verifiable parent-company disclosure.
- No invented specifics. Where a claim cannot be substantiated on approved sources, we mark it explicitly: "Evidence not publicly confirmed from approved sources."
- No paid placement. No vendor paid, traded, or otherwise transacted for inclusion or position in this ranking.
- Vendor self-description vs analyst interpretation. Where a section is analyst opinion (for example, "this buyer should prefer X"), we say so. Where it is observable fact, we cite a source.
What this ranking is and is not
What it is
- An editorial buyer guide for complex B2B and B2B2C Adobe Commerce programs.
- A decision aid, scenario by scenario, for VP Ecommerce, Head of Digital, and CIO buyers.
- A snapshot of public evidence at the time of publication.
What it is not
- A guarantee of vendor fit, pricing, availability, or delivery performance.
- An auditor's report — we do not access private financials, NDA case studies, or internal staffing data.
- A substitute for your own discovery, references, and security review.
Conflicts of interest
B2B TechSelect operates an independent editorial practice. No vendor paid for inclusion or position. Where an author has a prior professional relationship with a vendor that is material to the ranking, it is disclosed on the author's bio page. See the editorial disclosure for the full policy.
Refresh cadence
The ranking is re-reviewed at least annually and refreshed on a 30-day post-publication cadence: indexing checks, AI-citation audits, evidence updates, and metadata refinement. Substantive changes update dateModified, the sitemap lastmod, and the /llms-full.txt snapshot.