Ningbo Deling Electron Technology Company Limited Supplier Evaluation

Supplier Evaluation Report

Supplier: Ningbo Deling Electron Technology Company Limited
Country/Region: Zhejiang, China
Assessment Basis: Data provided only

Executive Summary

Ningbo Deling Electron Technology Company Limited appears to be a long-established supplier with a 17-year Gold Supplier history, Trade Assurance support, and verified supplier status. The company has a reported factory area of over 15,000㎡ and more than 80 staff, indicating a medium-scale manufacturing setup with basic production stability. Its listed products focus on AC-powered gas leakage detector-related items, with low MOQ requirements of 2 pieces, which may be suitable for small-batch sourcing, product testing, or early-stage procurement validation.

Commercial performance shows moderate activity, with 20+ orders and CN¥676.1K+ transaction value over the past six months. However, the store rating of 4.2 with only 5 reviews limits the strength of customer feedback validation. The most significant concern is delivery performance, with an on-time delivery rate of only 53.3%, which represents a major operational risk for time-sensitive buyers. Overall, this supplier may be considered for cautious cooperation, especially for trial orders, but requires strict delivery and quality control confirmation before scaling procurement.

Detailed Analysis

1. Company Strength

Basis

• Factory area: 15,000+㎡
• Employees: 80+ staff
• Verified supplier: True
• Location: Zhejiang, China

Elaboration

The supplier reports a factory area exceeding 15,000㎡, which suggests a meaningful physical manufacturing footprint. The staff size of 80+ employees indicates that the company is not a micro-scale supplier, but it also does not reach the scale typically associated with large industrial manufacturers. The presence of verified supplier status provides an additional layer of credibility regarding the company’s basic operating presence.

However, the available data does not provide details on production lines, monthly output, equipment, capacity utilization, R&D team size, or specific factory audit standards. Therefore, while the company demonstrates a stable medium-sized manufacturing foundation, the available information is insufficient to confirm large-scale supply chain capability.

Scoring Rationale

The supplier has clear factory and staff data, plus verified supplier status, which supports a positive assessment of its basic manufacturing capability. The factory area is relatively strong, but the employee count suggests a medium rather than large-scale operation. Since there is no additional evidence of advanced factory certification, large production capacity, or detailed audit results, the score should not reach the top range.

Final Score

16 / 20

2. Platform & Compliance Credibility

Basis

• Gold Supplier: True
• Gold Supplier history: 17 years
• Trade Assurance: True
• Verified supplier: True
• Certification/industry labels provided:
• “Response time ≤5h”
• “On-time delivery 53.3%”

Elaboration

The supplier has a very long Gold Supplier history of 17 years, which is a strong platform credibility indicator. Trade Assurance support further improves transaction security for buyers, particularly for payment protection and order dispute mechanisms within the platform. Verified supplier status also supports the legitimacy of the company’s platform profile.

However, the provided certification or industry label information does not include recognized product certifications, management system certifications, or factory audit details. The listed labels mainly relate to response time and delivery performance rather than compliance certification. Therefore, the supplier’s platform credibility is strong, but compliance depth cannot be fully validated from the available data.

Scoring Rationale

A 17-year Gold Supplier record, Trade Assurance support, and verified supplier status justify a high score in platform credibility. However, because there is no provided evidence of product certification, quality management certification, or detailed third-party audit documentation, the score should remain slightly below the maximum.

Final Score

18 / 20

3. Business Performance

Basis

• Orders in the past 6 months: 20+
• Transaction amount in the past 6 months: CN¥676.1K+
• Store rating: 4.2
• Number of reviews: 5

Elaboration

The supplier has recorded commercial activity over the past six months, with more than 20 orders and a transaction amount exceeding CN¥676.1K. This indicates that the supplier has active buyers and some level of market acceptance on the platform. The transaction amount is meaningful relative to the limited number of reviews, suggesting that at least some orders may have had moderate value.

However, the number of reviews is very limited at only 5, which reduces the reliability of customer feedback as a performance indicator. The store rating of 4.2 is acceptable but not outstanding. The order count of 20+ is also not high enough to indicate strong or high-frequency platform demand.

Scoring Rationale

The supplier shows real transaction activity and a moderate transaction value, which supports a middle-range score. However, order volume is not high, customer review volume is low, and the rating is only moderate. These factors prevent the supplier from being classified as a high-performing commercial supplier.

Final Score

14 / 20

4. Service Capability

Basis

• Communication response time: ≤5h
• Full Customization: Insufficient Data
• Customization capability: Insufficient Data

Elaboration

The supplier’s response time of within 5 hours indicates a reasonable communication standard for general inquiries. This suggests that the supplier is likely able to maintain basic buyer communication and handle routine pre-sales or order-related questions within a workable timeframe.

However, there is no provided information confirming Full Customization, OEM/ODM support, private labeling, packaging customization, technical customization, or dedicated account support. Because customization capability is a key component of the service capability dimension, this lack of data limits the assessment.

Scoring Rationale

The response time is acceptable but not at the highest service level, as it does not meet the ≤1 hour benchmark for top scoring. Since there is no data proving strong customization capability, the supplier should be assessed as having basic service responsiveness but unverified customization strength.

Final Score

6 / 10

5. Delivery Performance

Basis

• On-time delivery rate: 53.3%

Elaboration

The supplier’s on-time delivery rate is significantly below the 70% threshold. This is the weakest area in the evaluation. A 53.3% on-time delivery rate suggests that nearly half of orders may not be shipped on schedule, based on the provided platform data. For buyers with fixed sales windows, project deadlines, marketplace delivery commitments, or production schedules, this creates a substantial procurement risk.

No additional data is provided regarding average lead time, delayed shipment reasons, logistics options, or corrective delivery measures. Therefore, the evaluation must rely directly on the stated on-time delivery rate.

Scoring Rationale

According to the scoring framework, an on-time delivery rate below 70% should receive below 5 points. Since 53.3% is materially below the acceptable threshold, the supplier’s delivery performance should be scored low. This does not necessarily invalidate the supplier entirely, but it requires strict delivery management if cooperation proceeds.

Final Score

3 / 10

6. Quality & Customer Feedback

Basis

• Store rating: 4.2
• Number of reviews: 5
• Verified supplier: True
• Finished Product Inspection: Insufficient Data
• Factory Verification: True

Elaboration

The supplier has a store rating of 4.2, which indicates generally acceptable customer satisfaction but not a premium feedback level. The number of reviews is only 5, which is too limited to provide strong statistical confidence in product quality or service consistency. Verified supplier status provides some reassurance regarding company legitimacy, but it does not replace direct evidence of quality control systems.

There is no provided information confirming Finished Product Inspection, product testing procedures, inspection reports, defect rates, quality certifications, or after-sales claim performance. As a result, the supplier’s quality assurance capability cannot be fully validated from the available dataset.

Scoring Rationale

The supplier has basic quality-related credibility through verified supplier status and a positive but moderate store rating. However, the very small review count and lack of confirmed Finished Product Inspection data limit confidence in consistent product quality. The score is therefore placed in the lower-middle range.

Final Score

12 / 20

Total Score

Procurement Recommendation

Recommendation: Conditional cooperation recommended, preferably starting with trial orders.

Ningbo Deling Electron Technology Company Limited shows several positive procurement indicators, including a 17-year Gold Supplier history, Trade Assurance support, verified supplier status, a factory area of 15,000+㎡, and 80+ staff. These factors suggest that the supplier has a credible operating base and basic production capability.

However, the supplier is not recommended for urgent or delivery-sensitive procurement at this stage due to the very low on-time delivery rate of 53.3%. This is the primary risk factor and should be addressed before placing larger or time-critical orders. Quality confidence is also limited because only 5 reviews are available, and there is Insufficient Data on Finished Product Inspection or formal quality assurance systems.

Suitable buyer types:
- Buyers seeking small-batch trial orders
- Importers testing gas leakage detector-related products
- Buyers who can tolerate flexible delivery schedules
- Procurement teams using Trade Assurance for added transaction protection

Main risks:
- Low on-time delivery rate
- Limited customer review base
- Insufficient data on Finished Product Inspection
- Insufficient data on customization capability

Growth potential:
The supplier has platform longevity, verified status, and moderate transaction activity. If it improves delivery reliability and provides clearer quality inspection documentation, it could become more suitable for repeat or larger-volume procurement.