No published ranking admits this vendor on documented work yet; the profile shows what is on file.
Not in any evidence-ranked listing yet: no independent claim documents work for a published need.
Why: Rated from the evidence on file (sources, independence, confirmed quotes), not by an editor.
Opens in your own account with a ready question and a link to the same data. Nothing about you is sent.
on Google5.0/51 review as of Nov 3, 2026- 100% written in the last 12 months
- 0% rate it 3 stars or lower
- 100% of Google reviews answered
- Your business matches the client types on file (small businesses, founders) and the industries on file (healthcare, real estate, manufacturing).
- You need the minimum term and setup fee in writing before you commit: neither is published.
No documented work claim comes from an independent source yet.
- None of the 3 documented work claims comes from an independent source; all are the agency's own account or sources it controls.
- Ask for the minimum term, setup fee: not published.
- Ask for two client references you can call: no independent accounts of its work on file.
- Ask who will do the work day to day and whether any of it is outsourced.
Not ranked yet, so there are no ranking neighbours to compare with.
All detailsEverything behind the summary above: the same data the machine feed serves for Larsen Code Labs.Open ↓Close ↑
Score by criterionNot ranked
No score yet: Larsen Code Labs is not admitted to any evidence-ranked listing. The score appears with the first independent claim that documents work for a published need.
All claims in the feed3 of 4 on file · 0 of 3 work claims from an independent source
Who says it, across all 4 claims on file: independent source 1 · linked to the agency 0 · listings the agency writes 0 · agency's own words 3. Independent share of work claims: 0%. 4 distinct source pages.
Claims per need in this feed: none tagged to a ranked need. The full ledger of 4 is on the proof page.
Larsen Code Labs built a custom AI agent for Enchanted Wares to monitor and reroute its inbox after 25% of qualified leads were landing in spam. The client reported a 10% lift in conversions during June-July 2026.
Agency's own wordslarsencodelabs.comclaimed: Recorded as the source states it; not independently confirmed.quote confirmed, checked Nov 3, 2026describes workJune, July 2026Quote from the source page
Problem 25% of qualified leads landing in spam What we built Custom AI agent monitoring and rerouting the inbox Engagement June, July 2026 · under $10,000 Result Client-reported 10% lift in conversions
Larsen Code Labs built a custom AI agent for Enchanted Wares to identify qualified leads in a spam folder and reroute them. The client attributed a 10% increase in conversions to the agent; the engagement ran from June to July 2026 and cost under $10,000.
Agency's own wordslarsencodelabs.comclaimed: Recorded as the source states it; not independently confirmed.quote confirmed, checked Nov 3, 2026describes workJune, July 2026Quote from the source page
Enchanted Wares was losing about 25% of its qualified leads to a spam folder. We built a custom AI agent that watches the affected inbox, identifies real leads inside it, and reroutes them to the right place. The client reports a 10% increase in conversions , attributed directly to the agent. Engagement: June, July 2026, under $10,000.
Larsen Code Labs built Tonalyzer, an AI-powered writing analysis SaaS, end to end in-house using Next.js, TypeScript, Supabase, and Anthropic's Claude API. The page describes eight detection engines, subscription billing, and bring-your-own-key support.
Agency's own wordslarsencodelabs.comclaimed: Recorded as the source states it; not independently confirmed.quote confirmed, checked Nov 3, 2026describes workQuote from the source page
Tonalyzer is our AI-powered writing analysis SaaS: eight detection engines, subscription billing, bring-your-own-key support, built end to end in-house on the same stack we use for client work (Next.js, TypeScript, Supabase, Anthropic's Claude API).
Positions in every ranking0 rankings
Not admitted to any ranking yet.
Fit and geography
- Headquarters
- Phoenix, AZ, USAAgency's own words
- Service regions
- Phoenix, AZ, USAVendar profile field
- Client types
- small_business, founderVendar profile field
- Industries
- Healthcare, Real Estate, Manufacturing, DentalVendar profile field
- Named clients in confirmed proof
- Enchanted Wares, TonalyzerIndependent source or agency, see the claims list
Only rows marked “Verified by Vendar” were checked. Rankings place an agency in a city by headquarters or by documented work for clients there, never by a service region alone.
Pricing in fullFrom $500 per month, project
- Model
- project
- Minimum monthly budget
- $500 per month
- Project minimum
- $2,500 per project
- Hourly rate
- From $150 per hour
- Typical range
- not disclosed
- Minimum term
- not disclosed
- Setup fee
- not disclosed
- Engagement models
- not stated
Source: Agency's own words. Every figure above is the agency's published number; a row marked not disclosed has no published figure.
Reputation
- Google5 · 1 reviews
How it counts: reputation is weighted 5 of 100 and discounted when few reviews are on file. Ratings say nothing about work on a specific need and never count as evidence for it.
- Awards
- none on file
- Certifications
- none on file
Company and process
Founding year, team size and working process are not disclosed.
- Founded
- not disclosedNot disclosed
- Team size
- not disclosedNot disclosed
- Languages
- not statedVendar profile field
- Services
- Mobile DevelopmentVendar profile field
- Technologies
- not statedVendar profile field
- Workflow
- not documentedAgency's own words
- Onboarding
- not documentedAgency's own words
- Reporting
- not documentedAgency's own words
Company fields come from the vendor profile; only fields with status verified were checked by Vendar.
How confidence is computedLower confidence
- Confidence
- Lower confidence, 62 of 100
- Evidence posture
- thin: No independent source documents this vendor's work; treat it as a candidate only.
- Capped by
- Rated from the evidence on file (sources, independence, confirmed quotes), not by an editor.
- Best position confidence
- n/a
It starts from the data completeness and source reliability of the profile, and is capped when independent proof of work is thin. The next level is Moderate confidence. One independent claim with a measured result for the best-ranked need is the fastest way up.
- Who the company is: website, headquarters, founding year, team size, logo, regions served: founding year, team size, logo10/20
- Fit: services, industries, client types15/15
- Commercial terms: model, entry price, hourly rate, minimum term, setup fee: minimum term, setup fee14/20
- Documented work: cases naming a client and a result (target 5) and work claims overall (target 10): 2 cases with a named client and a result, 3 work claims11/30
- Reputation: rating and review count on two or more platforms, each with 10 or more reviews: 0 platforms with a rating and 10 or more reviews; Google: too few reviews to count0/15
- Who is speaking: independent sources among work claims (full marks at 40%): 0 of 3 work claims are independent0/30
- Checked against the source page: confirmed, or half for partly confirmed: 3 confirmed, 0 partly, of 4 with a source19/25
- Numbers backed by a verbatim quote from the source: 2 of 220/20
- Seen within the last 365 days: 3 of 411/15
- Not contradicted: claims their source no longer supports: 0 not supported by their page10/10
These two scores describe the profile itself and never change a position.
Limits and how to correct them
- Use as a caveated candidate only: no independent source documents this vendor's work.
- None of the 3 documented work claims comes from an independent source; all are the agency's own account or sources it controls.
- Only one third-party evidence claim is normalized.
- 3 of 4 claims on file are the agency's own words or sources it controls; 1 come from an independent source.
- Open: Decision layer complete: score, verdict, reason, best position (not ranked)
- Open: Three strongest proofs name a client and a measured, dated result (2 of 3)
- Open: Every claim has an observation date (3 of 4)
- Open: At least a third of documented work comes from independent sources (0 of 3 work claims)
- Open: Founding year, team size and headquarters on file (founding year missing, team size missing)
- Open: At least three named clients (2 named)
- Open: No dashes and no competing directory names (6 dashed, 0 competitor mentions)
- Open: JSON-LD carries Vendar's rating as a Review and an absolute logo (built from the same view; checked on the live page by QA)
Machine-readable version
This section carries the same data that AI assistants receive.
- Schema
- vendar.ai.vendor-summary.v1
- Model
- Evidence-weighted ranking 2026.11.7
- Data as of
- Nov 3, 2026
- Generated
- Verification
- Not verified
- Sources checked
- not yet
- Citation readiness
- Candidate only, with a caveat
- Do not infer headquarters from service-area coverage.
- Do not treat paid visibility as organic ranking proof.
- Do not present a source-thin profile as independently verified.
Describe what you need. The request is saved in Vendar first, then routed from there.