Chongqing Tianya Garment Co., Ltd. Supplier Evaluation

Executive Summary

Chongqing Tianya Garment Co., Ltd. is a China-based garment supplier located in Chongqing, with a reported factory area of 1,500+㎡ and 150+ staff. The supplier appears to have basic-to-medium manufacturing capacity and is marked as a verified supplier. Its product listings focus on men’s spring/autumn shirts and breathable functional apparel, with low MOQ of 1 piece and listed prices ranging from CN¥81.07–94.60. On , the company is a 1-year Gold Supplier, supports Trade Assurance, and carries service/quality-related tags including Finished Product Inspection, Full Customization, ODM service, and Warranty available. However, commercial validation is very limited: only 1 order in the past six months, CN¥137.5+ transaction value, 0 reviews, and no available store rating. This supplier may be suitable for small trial orders, sample-based sourcing, or buyers seeking flexible MOQ and customization, but it requires careful verification before bulk procurement.

Detailed Analysis

1. Company Strength — 20 Points

Basis

• Company name: Chongqing Tianya Garment Co., Ltd.
• Location: Chongqing, China
• Factory area: 1,500+㎡
• Employees: 150+ staff
• Verified supplier / factory inspection status: True

Elaboration

The supplier reports a factory area above 1,500㎡ and a workforce of more than 150 staff, indicating that it is not a micro-scale workshop and has a basic established production setup. For apparel manufacturing, this staffing level suggests the company may be able to support regular production activities, although the available data does not include monthly capacity, production lines, machinery details, export history, or major client references.

The “verified supplier” status provides some support for the existence and legitimacy of the factory, but the dataset does not provide details on the type, scope, or issuing body of the verification. Therefore, while the supplier demonstrates a measurable operating base, its production scale cannot be classified as large-scale based on the available information.

Scoring Rationale

The company has a moderate factory footprint and a relatively solid employee count, which supports a middle-level manufacturing capability. However, the absence of production capacity data, equipment details, audited factory reports, and historical large-volume fulfillment evidence prevents a higher score. The verified supplier status strengthens credibility but does not fully prove large-scale supply-chain stability.

Final Score

15 / 20

2. Platform & Compliance Credibility — 20 Points

Basis

• Gold Supplier: True
• Gold Supplier duration: 1 year
• Trade Assurance: True
• Verified supplier: True
• Certification / platform tags:
• Warranty available
• Finished product inspection
• Full customization
• ODM service available

Elaboration

The supplier has several core platform credibility indicators, including Gold Supplier status, Trade Assurance support, and verified supplier status. These are positive signals for platform-based procurement because they provide some level of transaction protection and basic supplier verification.

However, the Gold Supplier history is only 1 year, which limits the ability to evaluate long-term platform credibility. The certification and service tags are useful, especially Finished Product Inspection and Warranty available, but the data does not include internationally recognized certifications such as ISO, BSCI, OEKO-TEX, WRAP, or product-specific compliance documentation. Therefore, the compliance profile is platform-supported but not deeply validated by third-party certification data.

Scoring Rationale

The supplier meets several important credibility requirements: Gold Supplier, Trade Assurance, and verification. These elements justify a solid score. However, the short 1-year platform history and lack of detailed independent compliance certifications reduce confidence for buyers requiring mature, long-term supplier validation.

Final Score

16 / 20

3. Business Performance — 20 Points

Basis

• Orders in the past 6 months: 1
• Transaction value in the past 6 months: CN¥137.5+
• Store rating: Insufficient Data
• Number of reviews: 0

Elaboration

The supplier’s recent transaction performance is very limited. Only one order is recorded in the past six months, with a transaction amount of CN¥137.5+. This level of commercial activity does not provide enough evidence of stable market demand, repeat purchasing, or bulk order fulfillment capability.

The absence of a store rating and the presence of 0 reviews are important limitations. Without customer feedback, it is difficult to assess buyer satisfaction, service consistency, product quality after delivery, or issue-resolution ability. The available business data indicates that the supplier is still commercially under-validated on the platform.

Scoring Rationale

Although the supplier has at least one recorded transaction, the transaction volume and value are extremely low. The lack of store rating and reviews significantly weakens commercial credibility. This does not necessarily mean the supplier lacks offline business, but based strictly on the provided data, the platform-based business performance is insufficiently proven.

Final Score

6 / 20

4. Service Capability — 10 Points

Basis

• Communication response time: ≤4h
• Full customization: Available
• ODM service: Available

Elaboration

A response time of ≤4 hours indicates a reasonable communication standard, though it is not at the highest service level of ≤1 hour. The availability of Full Customization and ODM service suggests the supplier can support customized product requirements to some degree.

However, the dataset does not provide additional service indicators such as quotation speed, sample lead time, design support process, multilingual sales capability, after-sales handling, or customization case records. Therefore, the supplier appears to have basic-to-good service capability, but not enough evidence to rate it as excellent.

Scoring Rationale

The supplier demonstrates acceptable responsiveness and provides customization-related services, which are positive for buyers requiring flexible apparel sourcing. However, because response time is not within the strongest benchmark and there is no further evidence of advanced project management or customization execution history, the score remains in the medium range.

Final Score

7 / 10

5. Delivery Performance — 10 Points

Basis

• On-time delivery rate: 100.0%

Elaboration

The reported on-time delivery rate is 100.0%, which is a strong delivery indicator according to the provided scoring criteria. This suggests that the supplier has fulfilled recorded orders within the expected delivery timeline.

However, this delivery performance should be interpreted with caution because the supplier only has 1 recorded order in the past six months. A 100% on-time rate based on a very small order base is positive but not yet strong evidence of consistent delivery reliability under higher order volumes or repeated procurement cycles.

Scoring Rationale

Based on the scoring rule, an on-time delivery rate above 90% qualifies for a high score. The supplier achieves 100.0%, but because the transaction base is extremely limited, the score is kept slightly conservative rather than full marks.

Final Score

9 / 10

6. Quality & Customer Feedback — 20 Points

Basis

• Store rating: Insufficient Data
• Number of reviews: 0
• Finished Product Inspection: Available
• Verified supplier / factory inspection status: True
• Warranty available: Available

Elaboration

The supplier has several quality-related indicators, including Finished Product Inspection, Warranty available, and verified supplier status. These are positive signs that some basic quality assurance mechanism may exist.

However, there is no available store rating and no customer reviews. This creates a major information gap because buyer feedback is one of the most direct indicators of product consistency, defect rate, communication quality, and after-sales reliability. The dataset also does not provide inspection reports, defect statistics, quality control process details, or third-party certification documents.

Scoring Rationale

The presence of Finished Product Inspection and verification supports a baseline quality assurance score. However, the absence of customer ratings and reviews significantly limits confidence in actual delivered quality. The supplier has some quality system indicators but lacks market-validated feedback, making it unsuitable to score in the high range.

Final Score

12 / 20

Total Score

Procurement Recommendation

Recommendation: Conditional cooperation recommended for low-risk trial orders, samples, and small-batch procurement. Bulk purchasing is not recommended without further verification.

Chongqing Tianya Garment Co., Ltd. shows reasonable supplier fundamentals, including a 1,500+㎡ factory area, 150+ staff, verified supplier status, Trade Assurance support, and Finished Product Inspection. Its low MOQ of 1 piece and customization/ODM availability may be suitable for buyers testing product concepts, evaluating samples, or sourcing flexible small-volume apparel orders.

However, the main risks are weak commercial validation and insufficient customer feedback. The supplier has only 1 order and CN¥137.5+ transaction value in the past six months, with 0 reviews and no available store rating. This makes it difficult to confirm stable market acceptance, repeat-order capability, or consistent product quality.

Before larger cooperation, buyers should request product samples, factory verification documents, quality inspection procedures, production capacity details, and written confirmation of lead times. The supplier has growth potential due to its platform compliance foundation and customization services, but it currently remains under-validated from a procurement risk perspective.