How to review a web agency portfolio before choosing a partner

Review a web agency portfolio by matching its projects to your actual constraints, then inspecting what the agency was responsible for. Attractive pages can establish visual range. They cannot, by themselves, establish technical ownership, maintainability, or a business outcome.

When comparing a web agency portfolio in Costa Rica with US or other regional options, use the same evidence questions. Geography does not replace a clear explanation of the work.

Ask what is genuinely comparable

Choose projects that resemble the decision you face: a publishing workflow, a bilingual service site, a store, or a custom application. Industry resemblance can help, but a familiar logo is weaker evidence than a comparable operational constraint.

Ask who owns content updates, which systems connect to the site, and what the agency actually delivered. Distinguish branding, UX/UI, frontend implementation, backend work, and ongoing support. A portfolio entry should not make a partial contribution look like ownership of the entire product.

Also ask whether the live site has changed since delivery. A current defect is worth discussing, but it is not automatically evidence of what the original team shipped.

Read technology facts at their proper scale

For a concrete 5e Labs example, our work for IrmaWP includes branding, UX/UI, a WordPress website, and a Laravel application with AI. For OkFlow, the scope includes full branding, a Next.js website and application, Supabase, and integrated AI.

Those facts describe work and technology. They do not establish faster operations, revenue growth, or the quality of every underlying implementation. Ask to discuss the relevant workflow and architectural tradeoff rather than treating a stack name as proof of suitability.

The same restraint applies to “AI.” Find out what the integration does, which human task it supports, and how failures are handled. The label alone says little about whether your project needs it.

Inspect a live task, not just the homepage

Try a representative action on a narrow screen. Follow a service inquiry, locate an article, or inspect a product choice. Record the exact point where information or interaction becomes unclear.

Use a small review table:

Evidence	What to inspect	What it cannot establish alone
Live journey	Labels, navigation, errors, mobile behavior	Historical conversion results
Case description	Scope, constraints, responsibility	Every technical detail
Accessibility spot check	Keyboard access and visible focus	Full conformance
Performance report	Tested URL, conditions, field or lab data	The experience of every visitor

W3C’s Easy Checks are an initial accessibility review, not a complete evaluation. Web Vitals documentation also helps distinguish performance dimensions. Avoid reducing either subject to a badge or one unqualified score.

Hypothetical comparison: a publisher choosing a partner

Imagine a bilingual publisher comparing a cinematic campaign site with a less dramatic editorial platform. This is a hypothetical selection exercise.

The campaign site may demonstrate stronger art direction. The editorial platform may provide more relevant evidence if the publisher needs editors to publish and correct articles throughout the day. Neither should win automatically. Ask each agency to explain how its demonstrated work addresses the publishing workflow and who would own the integration.

Write down your hardest user task and request one portfolio walkthrough centered on it. Bring that same task to a web development conversation with 5e Labs, so the comparison remains about the work you need rather than the most impressive screenshot.