Changzhou Taiqi Refrigeration Technology Co., Ltd. Supplier Evaluation

Executive Summary

Changzhou Taiqi Refrigeration Technology Co., Ltd. is a China-based supplier located in Jiangsu, with a reported factory area of 2,900+ sqm and 30+ staff. The supplier appears to operate at a small-to-medium production scale, supported by verified supplier status and platform credibility indicators including 2 years as a Gold Supplier and Trade Assurance availability. Its listed products are mainly cold storage-related components such as pressure balance windows, sliding door guide wheels, and upper guide parts, with low MOQs of 1–2 sets, making it potentially suitable for small-batch procurement or trial orders. Commercial performance is still limited, with 8 orders and CN¥47.3K+ transaction value over the past six months, though the store rating is high at 4.9 based on 7 reviews. The main procurement concern is delivery reliability, as the on-time delivery rate is only 60.0%. Overall, this supplier may be suitable for low-volume buyers, sample testing, and cautious initial cooperation, but not yet ideal for high-volume or time-critical procurement.

Detailed Analysis

1. Company Strength

Basis:
The supplier reports a factory area of 2,900+ sqm, 30+ staff, and verified supplier status. The factory is located in Jiangsu, China.

Elaboration:
The available data indicates that the company has a physical production base and a basic operating team. A 2,900+ sqm factory and 30+ staff suggest the supplier has more than a trading-only profile, but the scale remains relatively modest compared with larger industrial manufacturers. Verified supplier status provides some support for the existence and basic legitimacy of the operation, but there is no additional data on production lines, monthly capacity, machinery, R&D capability, or factory audit details.

Scoring Rationale:
This supplier demonstrates basic production capability and has a verified supplier indicator, which supports a moderate score. However, the factory size and workforce are not large, and the absence of detailed production capacity data limits confidence in its ability to support large or complex procurement programs. It fits the category of a smaller factory with foundational manufacturing capability rather than a large-scale stable supply chain.

Final Score: 12 / 20

2. Platform & Compliance Credibility

Basis:
The supplier is listed as an Gold Supplier for 2 years, supports Trade Assurance, and is marked as a verified supplier. Platform labels include “Response time ≤3h” and “On-time delivery 60.0%.”

Elaboration:
The supplier has several core platform trust indicators, including Gold Supplier status, Trade Assurance, and supplier verification. These factors improve transactional security and reduce basic supplier screening risk. However, the Gold Supplier history is relatively short at 2 years, and no additional third-party certifications, management system certificates, product compliance certifications, or industry-specific certifications are provided in the data.

Scoring Rationale:
The supplier has essential platform credibility signals, but the compliance profile is not complete. Trade Assurance and verified supplier status are positive, while the short Gold Supplier duration and lack of documented certification details prevent a higher rating. The platform credibility is acceptable for initial cooperation but not strong enough to be considered fully established or long-term proven.

Final Score: 15 / 20

3. Business Performance

Basis:
Over the past six months, the supplier recorded 8 orders and CN¥47.3K+ in transaction value. The store rating is 4.9, with 7 reviews.

Elaboration:
The supplier has demonstrated actual transaction activity, but the order volume and transaction value remain relatively low. A 4.9 store rating is positive, indicating satisfactory buyer feedback among available reviewers. However, the review count is only 7, which means the feedback base is limited and may not fully represent consistent long-term performance across many customers or order types.

Scoring Rationale:
The supplier shows some commercial validation, but the business performance is not yet strong. The low six-month order count and modest transaction amount suggest limited market activity on the platform. The high rating helps offset this weakness, but the small number of reviews reduces statistical confidence. This supports a score in the lower-middle range rather than a strong business performance rating.

Final Score: 12 / 20

4. Service Capability

Basis:
The reported communication response time is ≤3h. No data is provided on Full Customization support.

Elaboration:
A response time within 3 hours indicates acceptable communication efficiency and suggests the supplier is reasonably responsive to buyer inquiries. This is useful for quotation clarification, sample discussions, and small-order coordination. However, the data does not confirm whether the supplier supports Full Customization, OEM/ODM service, engineering modification, packaging customization, or technical design support.

Scoring Rationale:
The response speed is positive, but it does not meet the strongest service benchmark of ≤1 hour. Since customization capability is not documented, the supplier cannot be rated as having strong service capability. The score reflects normal responsiveness with insufficient evidence of advanced customization support.

Final Score: 7 / 10

5. Delivery Performance

Basis:
The reported on-time delivery rate is 60.0%.

Elaboration:
Delivery reliability is the weakest visible performance area for this supplier. A 60.0% on-time delivery rate means a significant proportion of orders may not have shipped on schedule based on the available platform data. For buyers with strict project timelines, replenishment schedules, installation windows, or customer delivery commitments, this creates a clear operational risk.

Scoring Rationale:
According to the scoring framework, an on-time delivery rate below 70% should receive below 5 points. While the supplier may still be usable for flexible or non-urgent orders, the available data does not support confidence in time-sensitive procurement. This dimension materially lowers the overall supplier evaluation.

Final Score: 4 / 10

6. Quality & Customer Feedback

Basis:
The supplier has a store rating of 4.9 and 7 reviews. Verified supplier status is indicated. No data is provided on Finished Product Inspection. No specific product quality certifications are provided.

Elaboration:
The 4.9 rating is a positive signal and suggests that existing reviewers were generally satisfied. However, the small review base limits the reliability of this quality indicator. Verified supplier status supports basic supplier credibility, but it is not the same as confirmed product inspection capability or formal quality management certification. Finished Product Inspection information is Insufficient Data.

Scoring Rationale:
The supplier has favorable but limited customer feedback. The high rating supports a reasonable quality perception, but the low number of reviews and lack of confirmed Finished Product Inspection or formal quality certification prevent a higher score. The supplier may be acceptable for trial procurement, but buyers should conduct sample checks and define inspection requirements before larger orders.

Final Score: 12 / 20

Total Score

Company Strength: 12 / 20
Platform & Compliance Credibility: 15 / 20
Business Performance: 12 / 20
Service Capability: 7 / 10
Delivery Performance: 4 / 10
Quality & Customer Feedback: 12 / 20

Total Score: 62 / 100

Procurement Recommendation

Cooperation is conditionally recommended for low-volume procurement, sample orders, and non-urgent purchasing scenarios. The supplier may be suitable for buyers seeking cold storage-related components with low MOQ requirements and basic platform protection through Trade Assurance.

This supplier is not currently ideal for high-volume, time-critical, or strict delivery-schedule procurement due to the reported 60.0% on-time delivery rate. Key risks include limited transaction history, low review count, insufficient data on Finished Product Inspection, insufficient data on customization capability, and weak delivery reliability.

The supplier’s growth potential lies in its verified supplier status, acceptable response time, high store rating, and existing transaction record. Before scaling cooperation, buyers should request samples, confirm lead times in writing, use Trade Assurance, define inspection standards, and monitor delivery performance closely during initial orders.