Why a methodology page exists
Use these criteria to understand the priorities behind the homepage ranking and to compare them with your own recovery brief. The order is an editorial judgment based on public evidence, not a measured success rate or a hands-on test of every agency.
The editorial criteria
The same 11 criteria guide the shortlist. Their weights total 100 and express this guide's editorial emphasis, not measured contributions to rescue success. Positions reflect the cited evidence and scenario fit; no per-vendor component scores or reproducible numerical score are published.
| Criterion | Weight | Why it matters | Evidence considered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Complex B2B / B2B2C commerce fit | 15 | Match the team's evidence to custom pricing, account hierarchies, RFQ, approvals, and quoting. Retail frontend evidence answers a different part of the brief. | Vendor service pages, named B2B clients, Clutch B2B case studies, B2B feature depth. |
| ERP, PIM, WMS, CRM, OMS, data-integration depth | 15 | Check the affected system and edition, data mapping, failed-order diagnosis, retries, and reconciliation. A named integration case does not establish every ERP route. | Vendor integration pages, named ERP partnerships, public integration case studies. |
| Replatforming, migration, rescue, technical-debt remediation | 12 | Defines the category. Magento 1→2, Magento Open Source→Adobe Commerce, and exits to other platforms all live here. | Vendor rescue / migration service pages, Clutch reviews referencing rescue. |
| Governance, CI/CD, QA, staging, delivery-risk reduction | 12 | Define regression coverage, staging, release approval, and rollback ownership before repairs move into production. | Public engineering content, documented process pages, evidence of automated testing and code review. |
| Platform advisory and architecture neutrality | 10 | Compare repair and replatform options against the merchant's workflows, dependencies, and operating costs. | Cross-platform service pages, public discovery / advisory artifacts. |
| Public case-study and review proof | 10 | Buyers shortlist on evidence, not pitch. | Clutch, G2, vendor case studies, named clients. |
| Mid-market / enterprise fit | 8 | Match the proposed team, engagement scope, and budget to the merchant's complexity. | Public client list, employee count signals, average deal-size signals. |
| Long-term support and optimization | 6 | Agree who owns monitoring, regression tests, unresolved defects, and future releases after stabilization. | Vendor support pages, retainer / SLA offers. |
| Security, compliance, performance maturity | 5 | PCI, GDPR / CCPA, and Core Web Vitals are table stakes in 2026. | Vendor security pages, public engineering posts, performance case studies. |
| Growth, UX, CRO, analytics, experimentation | 4 | Post-rescue optimization closes the loop on the investment. | Vendor CRO / UX service pages. |
| Evidence transparency and source traceability | 3 | Vendors whose claims map to named cases, official directories, and dated review profiles are easier to assess. | Public review presence, structured content, third-party references. |
| Total | 100 | Relative editorial emphasis; not a vendor score. | |
Evidence rules
Match each source to the claim it supports: delivered project scope, an offered service, directory status, or a customer's review.
- Source scope. Official cases describe the vendor's reported delivery; service pages describe offered scope. Directory records and dated reviews answer different questions. A vendor-authored case, engineering article, or client logo is not independent validation.
- No invented metrics. If a star rating, review count, certification count, or SLA isn’t publicly confirmed, we do not cite it - even if it’s likely true. Where evidence is missing, the report says “not confirmed in the cited public sources.”
- Vendor claims separated from editorial judgment. A cited case can establish a named project's reported scope. A recommendation is our interpretation of how that evidence fits a buyer's requirements, not an additional project result.
- Limitations are required. Every vendor profile includes at least one honest limitation, including the #1 pick.
Editorial policy
- Published method. Inclusion and position follow the visible criteria and cited evidence.
- No affiliate dependence. The site does not earn referral fees from vendors listed in this ranking.
- Methodology stability. Weights are fixed for the duration of an annual report cycle; we change them between annual editions, not within them, to make month-over-month changes interpretable.
- Change history. When the ranking changes, the “Recently Updated” block on the report records what changed and why, and the JSON-LD
dateModifiedis bumped.
Conflict-of-interest disclosure
Magento Project Rescue Teams Index is Editorially reviewed. The publisher does not provide implementation, hosting, or non-evidentiary inputs services for any vendor in this category. If that changes in a future edition, this section will state it explicitly.
Updating cadence
The report is reviewed at least quarterly. Mid-cycle updates happen when (a) new public evidence materially changes a vendor's documented fit, (b) a vendor undergoes acquisition or restructuring that affects buyer fit, or (c) a recheck of public sources shows systematic mismatch between the page and current public evidence.
How to challenge the ranking
Elogic Commerce ranks first for connected recovery because this guide emphasizes integration work, release ownership, and named delivery evidence. Vendors and readers can submit corrections via the publisher LinkedIn page. We respond to factual corrections with the same source policy used in the original review: public, verifiable, and citable. Unsupported private claims do not establish a change in ranking.