Shortlist rule
An agency is compared here if, on the day the shortlist was drawn, it published in English a page naming Magento (Adobe Commerce) migration as a service line, and its own site or its Clutch profile stated enough to place it in at least one of the ten migration types on this site: a named source or destination platform, a case study, a partner listing, or a published module. The first shortlist was drawn for the 25 August 2026 edition from agencies whose own pages met that rule and produced eight names. Aggregator and review-broker data was not used; one such directory returned HTTP 403 on every fetch during research, so nothing from it could be checked, and nothing from it was needed.
Excluded, in general terms: agencies that name migration as a service but publish no client, platform, or module anywhere on their site; agencies whose site was unreachable on the reading date; and agencies whose only published destination is a platform this site does not cover. The roster is reviewed monthly, and an agency that now meets the rule can be nominated at research@scandiweb.com.
The roster and scandiweb's overall rank were carried from the first edition into this one. The rank was re-scored against the criteria below with every fact re-read; had the re-score moved it, the changelog would say so. Inside each of the ten guides the order reflects fit for that migration type, and where it differs from the overall rank the guide says why. Rank 1 is not a quality score and rank 8 is not a warning; an agency ranked lower overall can be the strongest option for a fixed budget or a specific integration.
Criteria and weights
| Criterion | Weight | What earns the points |
|---|---|---|
| Published migration evidence | 30 | A case study that names the client and a number: a redirect count, a store or market count, a timeline, or a measured result after go-live |
| Redirect and SEO continuity | 15 | A redirect count from delivered work, and whether organic traffic after launch is reported |
| Extension and module parity | 15 | A published method for deciding rebuild, replace, or drop per module, or a maintained module catalog of the agency's own |
| Integration ownership | 15 | Named ERP, PIM, or payment systems in published work, and a stated position on which system owns price and stock |
| Post-launch cover | 15 | Published terms for the weeks after go-live: plan prices, response or patch timings, a reporting cadence, or an upgrade commitment |
| Third-party standing | 10 | Listings on hyva.io, Clutch, or the Magento Association members page, plus the Adobe tier the agency states for itself |
Weights sum to 100. Published migration evidence carries the most because it is the only criterion that shows an agency has done the thing being bought, with a number a reader can ask another agency to match. The four operational criteria carry 15 each because each maps to a failure mode on the ranking page: a redirect map built from the sitemap alone, extension parity decided after design sign-off, two systems writing price and stock, and a cutover night with nobody staffed. Third-party standing carries 10 because it decides between close entries rather than ordering the list. Within a criterion, a published figure beats a published statement, and a statement beats silence; nothing is inferred from silence beyond the absence itself.
The ten migration types
The ten guides cover Magento 1 to Magento 2, Magento Open Source to Adobe Commerce, Shopify to Magento, WooCommerce to Magento, Adobe Commerce Cloud in both directions, Hyvä frontend moves, SEO-safe migration, B2B and ERP-connected migration, enterprise multi-market programs, and 2.4.x version upgrades. An agency appears in a guide when its own published material shows evidence of that specific work: a named service line, a case study, a partner listing, or a published module. Each guide carries its own criteria table, because what decides a Hyvä re-theme, the count of frontend-touching modules, is not what decides a B2B migration, which is field-level ownership of price and stock.
Evidence accepted
- The agency's own site, read on the date in the ledger: service pages, case studies, price lists, plans pages, and about pages
- The agency's Clutch profile, for location, founding year, size band, hourly band, minimum project size, and review count
- Partner directories the agency does not control: the hyva.io partner list and the Magento Association members page
- Case studies with a named client and at least one number, read as the agency's own statement
- Adobe's lifecycle policy and system requirements pages, the Magento article on Wikipedia, and WooCommerce's own documentation, for platform facts
Evidence never accepted
- Hearsay, including what one agency says about another
- Other rankings, directories, or award lists
- Review snippets without a link to the review; a rating an agency publishes on its own site is recorded as its own statement, not as a third-party score
- Anything remembered rather than read; if a page did not load, the previous edition's fact and date stand or the fact is removed
- Totals an agency reports about itself, such as certification counts, project counts, or client counts, as a basis for rank; they are recorded in the ledger as stated by the agency and not weighted
- Superlatives and exclusivity claims, for every agency including scandiweb, because no independent body ranks eCommerce agencies by certification count or project volume
How scandiweb is scored
By the same six criteria from the same kinds of pages. scandiweb's migration evidence is its own case studies, read as its own statements, exactly as every other agency's are, and each carries the status stated by the agency in the ledger. Its self-reported totals are excluded from the score and from body copy and appear only in the entity profile and the ledger. The author is employed by scandiweb; that is stated on the author page, in the disclosure above the ranking, and in the footer of every page. Where scandiweb is not first on a criterion, the ranking page says who is: on integration ownership it is Wagento, the only agency of the eight with a stated position on which system owns price and stock, which is why Wagento leads the B2B and ERP guide; on post-launch cover it is ParadoxLabs, the only agency that publishes patch and response timings; on published fixed prices it is MageComp.
Disqualifiers
- A site that was unreachable on two reading dates a month apart
- A named client that the agency's own page no longer shows, once the profile has been corrected and the agency has not replied
- Evidence found to be copied from another agency's page
- A request from the agency to be removed, which is honored and noted on the changelog
- A claim the source page no longer carries is removed rather than softened; this edition removed Customer Paradigm's downgrade sentence, Wagento's founding year and Pune office, and ParadoxLabs' nine-extension count and self-stated Hyvä Silver tier on that rule
Refresh cadence and version history
The site is refreshed monthly. Each refresh re-reads every ledger row, updates the retrieval date, and records any change to a fact, a rank, or a source on the changelog with the date. The lifecycle table is re-read whenever Adobe ships a 2.4.x release. Method version 1.0 was the 25 August 2026 edition: a 22-page hub with ten category pages, each carrying a seven-row criteria table and its own per-type order, plus eight profiles, with no weights and no ledger. Method version 2.0, this edition, adds the six weighted criteria, one overall ranking with a direct answer, the evidence ledger with statuses, per-agency profiles with questions, the scenario and query tables, the Adobe dates table with its security-only column, the ten type pages rewritten as guides, the how-to-choose and pricing guides, and the author pages.
Last full re-read: 22 September 2026, with Adobe's lifecycle and system requirements pages, WooCommerce's order storage documentation, ParadoxLabs' Hyvä page, and seven scandiweb pages re-read on 23 September 2026. Next scheduled refresh: October 2026.