Ningbo Xiangfeng Import & Export Co., Ltd. Supplier Evaluation

Executive Summary

Ningbo Xiangfeng Import & Export Co., Ltd. is a China-based supplier located in Zhejiang, with a reported factory area of 15,000+㎡ and 150+ staff. Based on the provided data, the company appears to have a medium-scale operating base and a verified supplier status, which supports its basic manufacturing and supply-chain credibility. Its product listings are focused on stationery and school-related items, with MOQ levels mainly at 1,000 sets and one listing at 3,000 sets, indicating suitability for volume-based sourcing rather than very small trial procurement.

The supplier shows strong platform credibility, including 20 years as an Gold Supplier and Trade Assurance support. However, its recent business performance is weak, with only 1 order and CN¥273.7+ transaction value in the past six months, no available store rating, and 0 reviews. Overall, this supplier may be suitable for cautious quotation comparison, sample evaluation, or controlled low-risk sourcing, but not yet for large-scale procurement without further quality and transaction verification.

Detailed Analysis

1. Company Strength

Basis

• Factory area: 15,000+㎡
• Employee count: 150+ staff
• Verified supplier: True
• Factory province: Zhejiang, China

Elaboration

The supplier has a reported factory scale of over 15,000㎡ and more than 150 employees, which indicates a meaningful physical and labor base for production or supply-chain operations. The verified supplier status adds credibility to the company’s basic profile. However, the provided data does not include detailed production lines, monthly capacity, equipment information, export history, or specific factory audit reports.

Scoring Rationale

The company does not appear to be a small or weak supplier based on its factory area and staff size. A 15,000+㎡ facility and 150+ employees support classification as a medium-sized stable supplier. However, because there is no detailed production capacity, factory audit certificate, or operational capacity data beyond verified supplier status, it should not be scored as a top-tier large-scale supply chain.

Final Score

16 / 20

2. Platform & Compliance Credibility

Basis

• Gold Supplier: True
• Gold Supplier duration: 20 years
• Trade Assurance: True
• Verification status: Verified supplier
• Certification / industry tags: “Response time ≤5h”

Elaboration

The supplier has a strong platform history with 20 years as a Gold Supplier, which is a significant indicator of long-term platform presence. Trade Assurance support also improves buyer protection during transactions. The verified supplier status further strengthens baseline credibility. However, the certification or industry tag data is limited, as the only listed tag relates to response time rather than factory, product, management, or compliance certification.

Scoring Rationale

The long Gold Supplier history, Trade Assurance support, and verified supplier status provide a strong credibility foundation. The main limitation is the lack of detailed certification labels or compliance documentation in the provided data. Therefore, the supplier deserves a high score, but not a perfect score.

Final Score

18 / 20

3. Business Performance

Basis

• Past 6-month orders: 1
• Past 6-month transaction amount: CN¥273.7+
• Store rating: Insufficient Data
• Review count: 0

Elaboration

The supplier’s recent platform transaction performance is very limited. Only one order and a transaction value of CN¥273.7+ in the past six months suggest low visible commercial activity on the platform. In addition, the absence of a store rating and the lack of customer reviews make it difficult to validate buyer satisfaction, repeat purchasing, or market acceptance through platform data.

Scoring Rationale

Although the company has strong platform tenure, the recent commercial indicators are weak. A single order and very low transaction amount do not provide enough evidence of stable business performance. Since no rating and no reviews are available, commercial validation is insufficient. This significantly limits confidence from a procurement perspective.

Final Score

7 / 20

4. Service Capability

Basis

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

Elaboration

The supplier provides a stated response time of no more than five hours, which suggests acceptable communication availability but not top-tier responsiveness. There is no provided evidence confirming Full Customization capability, design support, private labeling, packaging customization, sampling process, or dedicated account service.

Scoring Rationale

The response time is reasonable but does not meet the strongest benchmark of response within one hour. Since customization capability is not confirmed in the data, the service capability should be treated as basic rather than advanced. The score reflects acceptable responsiveness with insufficient evidence of deeper service support.

Final Score

6 / 10

5. Delivery Performance

Basis

• On-time delivery rate: 100.0%

Elaboration

The supplier reports a 100.0% on-time delivery rate, which is a strong delivery performance indicator. Based strictly on the provided data, this places the supplier in the highest scoring range for delivery reliability. However, the data does not disclose the number of shipments behind this percentage, and recent order volume is only 1 order, so the reliability of this metric should be interpreted with caution.

Scoring Rationale

According to the scoring standard, an on-time delivery rate above 90% qualifies for 9–10 points. Since the reported rate is 100.0%, the supplier receives the maximum delivery score. The low recent order count is noted as a risk factor but does not change the delivery percentage itself.

Final Score

10 / 10

6. Quality & Customer Feedback

Basis

• Store rating: Insufficient Data
• Review count: 0
• Finished Product Inspection: Insufficient Data
• Factory Verification / Verified Supplier: True

Elaboration

Quality and customer feedback data is limited. The supplier has verified supplier status, which provides some baseline confidence in company legitimacy. However, there is no available store rating, no customer reviews, and no provided Finished Product Inspection information. This means there is insufficient evidence to assess product consistency, defect control, buyer satisfaction, or quality assurance maturity.

Scoring Rationale

The verified supplier status supports a minimum level of trust, but the absence of ratings, reviews, and finished product inspection data prevents a strong quality assessment. Because customer feedback is completely unavailable and quality inspection systems are not confirmed, the supplier should be scored conservatively.

Final Score

10 / 20

Total Score

67 / 100

Procurement Recommendation

Cooperation is conditionally recommended for cautious sourcing evaluation, quotation comparison, and sample-based assessment, but not immediately recommended for large-scale procurement without further verification.

The supplier is most suitable for buyers seeking school and stationery-related products with moderate MOQ requirements and a preference for suppliers with long platform history and Trade Assurance support. Key risks include very weak recent transaction performance, 0 customer reviews, no available store rating, and insufficient quality inspection data. Growth potential exists due to the supplier’s factory scale, 20-year Gold Supplier status, verified supplier profile, and 100% stated on-time delivery rate, but procurement decisions should be supported by samples, inspection requirements, and small initial trial orders.