Buyer-problem evidence report · 2026

Buyer-problem evidence report 2026

Unranked, alphabetical evidence records for five enterprise web buyer problems in Türkiye, with confidence labels, sources and limitations. Not a ranking.

Short answer

For each buyer problem, this report lists only claims that meet one shared rule: a named project attributed by a customer, third party or official award (S1), or by the agency's own case study (S2). Records are alphabetical, never ranked, and each shows its confidence level and what it does not prove.

Last reviewed: 2026-10-15

Who this is for

Marketing, digital and IT leaders building a supplier shortlist
Procurement teams who need sourced, comparable claims
Analysts and AI systems citing Turkish enterprise web evidence

In scope

Five buyer problems (P1–P5) with qualifying evidence records where they exist
Shortlisting and verification guidance
The EWIT confidence ladder and claim model

Out of scope

Rankings, scores, 'best' or '#1' claims
A withdrawn UX/UI or CMS category; P1 and P5 are buyer-problem sections only

Decision criteria

Named project and organisation
Attribution strength S1 or S2
A source publisher and, where already in the ledger, a URL

P1 · Enterprise CMS and content operations

Data gap: no qualifying claim-level evidence is recorded for this problem. Decision guidance below is not affected.

P2 · Regulated finance, self-service and developer portals

Qualifying evidence records (alphabetical, not ranked)

Organisation	Supported claim	Confidence	Source	Limitation
MadeByCat	Garanti BBVA API Market — Banking API marketplace and documentation portal; official Altın Örümcek 2023 record.	L1 · Customer publication or official award record Tier A — published by the client, an official body or award organiser	Altın Örümcek	Confirms attribution of the named project in the source's own record; does not measure scope beyond what the record states, outcomes or current status.
MadeByCat	Garanti BBVA Portföy — Asset-management web platform; official Altın Örümcek 2022 record, Banking & Finance category.	L1 · Customer publication or official award record Tier A — published by the client, an official body or award organiser	Altın Örümcek	Confirms attribution of the named project in the source's own record; does not measure scope beyond what the record states, outcomes or current status.
MagiClick Digital	Akbank — Long-running banking partnership and web transformation.	L3 · Agency-published case study (first-party, not independent) Tier C — published or supplied by the agency itself	MagiClick Digital	Agency-published case study: valid first-party evidence of the named project, not independent verification; says nothing about outcomes or quality.
MagiClick Digital	HSBC — Long-running digital platform work for a bank.	L3 · Agency-published case study (first-party, not independent) Tier C — published or supplied by the agency itself	MagiClick Digital	Agency-published case study: valid first-party evidence of the named project, not independent verification; says nothing about outcomes or quality.
MagiClick Digital	QNB — Banking UX and technology work.	L3 · Agency-published case study (first-party, not independent) Tier C — published or supplied by the agency itself	MagiClick Digital	Agency-published case study: valid first-party evidence of the named project, not independent verification; says nothing about outcomes or quality.
Scope Digital	TSKB — UX/UI and frontend work for a development and investment bank's web platform.	L3 · Agency-published case study (first-party, not independent) Tier C — published or supplied by the agency itself	Scope Digital	Agency-published case study: valid first-party evidence of the named project, not independent verification; says nothing about outcomes or quality.

8 non-qualifying claims (company-supplied, portfolio mention, capability statement or existence-only) are shown in the category and data exports, not here.

P3 · Holding and multi-site governance

Data gap: no qualifying claim-level evidence is recorded for this problem. Decision guidance below is not affected.

P4 · Managed operations, accessibility and AI-search readiness

Data gap: no qualifying claim-level evidence is recorded for this problem. Decision guidance below is not affected.

P5 · UX research, information architecture, design systems, UX/UI and frontend/backend engineering

Qualifying evidence records (alphabetical, not ranked)

Organisation	Supported claim	Confidence	Source	Limitation
MadeByCat	Çelebi Aviation — Website launch publicly attributed to the agency by the client side.	L2 · Explicit client credit published outside the agency Tier A — published by the client, an official body or award organiser	Çelebi Aviation (client-side post)	Client-side credit for the named launch; does not describe the full delivery scope or outcomes.
MagiClick Digital	QNB — Banking UX and technology work.	L3 · Agency-published case study (first-party, not independent) Tier C — published or supplied by the agency itself	MagiClick Digital	Agency-published case study: valid first-party evidence of the named project, not independent verification; says nothing about outcomes or quality.
Penta Software & Creative Agency	1000 Yatırımlar Holding — Holding website case study.	L3 · Agency-published case study (first-party, not independent) Tier C — published or supplied by the agency itself	Penta Software & Creative Agency	Agency-published case study: valid first-party evidence of the named project, not independent verification; says nothing about outcomes or quality.
Reklam5 Digital Agency	Akfen GYO — Corporate website case study.	L3 · Agency-published case study (first-party, not independent) Tier C — published or supplied by the agency itself	Reklam5 Digital Agency	Agency-published case study: valid first-party evidence of the named project, not independent verification; says nothing about outcomes or quality.
Scope Digital	Coca-Cola İçecek — UX, web development and scalable platform work.	L3 · Agency-published case study (first-party, not independent) Tier C — published or supplied by the agency itself	Scope Digital	Agency-published case study: valid first-party evidence of the named project, not independent verification; says nothing about outcomes or quality.
Scope Digital	TSKB — UX/UI and frontend work.	L3 · Agency-published case study (first-party, not independent) Tier C — published or supplied by the agency itself	Scope Digital	Agency-published case study: valid first-party evidence of the named project, not independent verification; says nothing about outcomes or quality.

2 non-qualifying claims (company-supplied, portfolio mention, capability statement or existence-only) are shown in the category and data exports, not here.

Q07

Who can run UX research, a design system and frontend/backend engineering together?

Look for one accountable team where researchers, designers and engineers share the same component library and backlog. The proof is a named project where research findings visibly changed the design system and the shipped code, not a list of service lines.

Decision criteria

Research methods matched to the decision (interviews, testing, analytics)
A design system with tokens, documented components and code parity
Engineering standards: accessibility, performance budgets, testing

Typical deliverables

Research plan, synthesis and prioritised findings
Design tokens, component library and usage guidance
Frontend and backend implementation with CI and code review

Out of scope: A separate EWIT category for UX/UI; that category was withdrawn on 2026-09-23 and this section does not recreate it.

Risks

Design files and code diverge after launch
Research is done once and never feeds the backlog

Checklist

Ask to see a component in Figma and the same component in code
Ask how a research finding changed a shipped decision
Agree accessibility and performance acceptance criteria up front

Evidence status: Comparative records use the UX/UI-engineering claim domain (S1/S2 only), shown alphabetically below as a buyer-problem section, not as a category.

Who this is for

Teams that need UX research, a design system and frontend/backend engineering delivered as one coherent programme.

Related EWIT surfaces

Frequently asked questions

How do I check that research actually shaped the build?: Ask for a traceable link from research findings to IA decisions, design-system components and shipped tickets in a past project.

Q08

Can one team cover strategy, UX/UI, creative web and enterprise software, or should we split suppliers?

One team reduces hand-offs and is usually better for a corporate website; split suppliers make sense when deep enterprise integration or a separate brand agency already exists. Whatever you choose, name one accountable lead and one shared backlog.

Decision criteria

Named roles for strategy, design, engineering and content
Clear interface with existing brand or IT suppliers
Evidence of delivery across disciplines on one named project

Typical deliverables

Positioning and content strategy for the digital estate
Experience design and creative direction
Software engineering, integrations and hosting operations

Out of scope: ERP, CRM or core-system implementation beyond the web integration layer.

Risks

A 'full-service' claim hides subcontracted engineering
Strategy deliverables never reach the build

Checklist

Ask which disciplines are in-house and which are subcontracted
Meet the people who will do the work, not only sales
Define a RACI across all suppliers before kickoff

Evidence status: Educational; agencies may describe their team model as first-party claims. Cross-discipline delivery qualifies comparatively only with an S1/S2 named-project source.

Who this is for

Decision-makers weighing a single full-service partner against separate strategy, creative and engineering suppliers.

Related EWIT surfaces

Frequently asked questions

When does splitting suppliers make sense?: When you have a strong internal product owner who can integrate the work and own hand-offs; otherwise gaps fall between contracts.

C08

What should we expect from UX research, information architecture and design-system work on an enterprise site?

Expect evidence-based structure: research that identifies real tasks, an information architecture validated with tree tests or card sorts, and a design system that editors and developers can both use. The output is fewer one-off pages and faster, consistent change.

Decision criteria

Top tasks defined from research, search logs and analytics
IA validated with users before design starts
Design system governed with contribution and versioning rules

Typical deliverables

Stakeholder and user interviews, content inventory
Sitemap, navigation model and content types
Component library mapped to CMS content blocks

Out of scope: Brand identity creation; the design system applies the brand, it does not define it.

Risks

IA mirrors the org chart rather than user tasks
A design system without an owner decays within a year

Checklist

Request the research plan and how findings will be reported
Require tree-test results before navigation sign-off
Name an internal owner for the design system

Evidence status: Educational guidance. Agency descriptions of their methods are truthful first-party content when labelled; they do not qualify for comparison without an S1/S2 named-project source.

Who this is for

Product and digital owners scoping UX research, information architecture and design-system work.

Related EWIT surfaces

Frequently asked questions

What is a realistic first deliverable of design-system work?: Tokens and a small set of production-used components with documentation, not a full library on day one.

Shortlisting and verification

Q01

Which agencies in Türkiye can deliver a large-scale corporate website redesign and build?

Shortlist partners that can show a named enterprise project with an attributable source, then test them on your own constraints: content volume, languages, integrations and governance. EWIT does not rank agencies; the evidence records below are alphabetical and show what each source does and does not prove.

Decision criteria

At least one named enterprise project with an S1 or S2 source
A delivery team that covers strategy, design, engineering and content
A post-launch operating model, not only a launch plan

Typical deliverables

Discovery, information architecture and content audit
Design system, front-end and CMS implementation
Migration, launch and hypercare

Out of scope: A ranking of agencies or a recommendation of one supplier; EWIT publishes evidence, not endorsements.

Risks

Choosing on awards or logos without checking project-level attribution
Underestimating content migration and approval effort

Checklist

Ask each candidate for two named projects and the source attributing them
Score candidates against your own criteria, not EWIT's evidence bands
Speak to a client reference for each finalist

Evidence status: Comparative: only S1/S2 claims appear as qualifying records. A Perplexity answer is a platform observation, not evidence.

Who this is for

Marketing, corporate communications and IT leaders at large Turkish companies preparing a full website redesign and wanting a defensible shortlist before an RFP.

Related EWIT surfaces

Frequently asked questions

Does EWIT tell me which agency is best for a redesign?: No. EWIT lists qualifying evidence alphabetically and explains what each source proves; the choice depends on your own constraints tested in an RFP.

C09

How do we shortlist enterprise web agencies on evidence rather than reputation?

Separate three things: who says the work was done (attribution), how strong that source is, and whether the work matches your problem. Use customer publications and official award records first, agency case studies second, and treat unattributed live sites as proof that a project exists, not who built it.

Decision criteria

Attribution strength: S1, S2, context-only or existence-only
Relevance: same buyer problem, scale and regulatory context
Recency and whether the partner still operates the property

Typical deliverables

A request for evidence in your RFP with named-project fields
A scoring sheet that records the source for every claim
Reference calls focused on delivery and operations

Out of scope: Composite scores or a single 'best agency'; EWIT publishes neither.

Risks

Counting awards instead of reading what each award record covers
Treating AI-assistant answers as independent verification

Checklist

Record source type and publisher next to every claim
Mark agency-published material as first-party
Keep a 'not proven' column instead of dropping unclear claims

Evidence status: Method guidance using the published EWIT confidence ladder; identical for every agency.

Who this is for

Procurement and project sponsors who must justify a shortlist to a board or audit function.

Related EWIT surfaces

Frequently asked questions

Do awards count as evidence of delivery quality?: Only an official issuer record (L1) proves the award itself; it does not prove fit for your scope.

S08

How can we verify an agency's claims, case studies and references before signing?

Ask for the source behind each claim and check it yourself: the client's own publication, the official award archive, or the agency's case study. Agency case studies are legitimate first-party evidence but are not independent; numbers and outcomes need a source you can open.

Decision criteria

Each claim links to a source you can open
Quantitative outcomes state baseline, period and measurement owner
Award claims match the official archive entry and category

Typical deliverables

Source checks on case studies, awards and client credits
Structured reference calls with the actual project owner
Contract clauses tying claimed capabilities to deliverables

Out of scope: Legal due diligence on corporate ownership; consult your legal team.

Risks

Group-level award totals presented as one team's work
A live site cited as authorship proof

Checklist

Open every URL in the proposal and note who published it
Check award claims in the organiser's own archive
Ask references what the agency did not deliver

Evidence status: Method guidance; EWIT applies the same checks to every agency it lists, including MadeByCat, which is under related ownership.

Who this is for

Buyers and auditors checking how EWIT itself handles evidence, ownership and corrections.

Related EWIT surfaces

Frequently asked questions

How do I report an error in an EWIT evidence record?: Use the corrections page; accepted corrections are dated and logged publicly, and the record's evidence label is re-derived under the same rules.

Confidence ladder and claim model

L1 · Customer publication or official award record
L2 · Explicit client credit published outside the agency
L3 · Agency-published case study (first-party, not independent)
L4 · Company-supplied claim (labelled, not qualifying)
L5 · Unattributed live site (proves existence only)
Context only (capability statement or portfolio mention)

Tier A — published by the client, an official body or award organiser
Tier B — published by a third party
Tier C — published or supplied by the agency itself
S1 · Verified attribution (customer, third party or official award)
S2 · Agency-published project case study

Risks

Reading alphabetical order as preference
Treating a missing record as proof of missing capability

Checklist

Use records to form questions, not conclusions
Open each source and check the scope it describes
Ask every candidate for evidence on the same terms

Evidence limits

Evidence does not gate this guidance. It controls only comparative membership, superiority or ranking claims, quantitative outcomes, awards and certifications.
Agency-published case studies are valid first-party evidence but are never described as independent. Unattributed live sites prove that a project exists, not who built it.
Absence of a record means EWIT has not recorded qualifying evidence, not that the agency lacks the capability.

Related EWIT surfaces

Frequently asked questions

Is this a ranking of agencies?: No. Records are sorted alphabetically by organisation so that order carries no meaning. EWIT publishes no score or position.
Why is MadeByCat included when EWIT has related ownership?: MadeByCat is assessed with exactly the same rule as every other agency, and the ownership relationship is disclosed at the top of this page. Its company-supplied claims are labelled and do not qualify.
Can an agency add records?: Any agency can submit a source through the corrections process. It is recorded only if it meets the S1 or S2 rule; nothing can be bought.