Quanzhou Yida Home Appliances Industrial Co., Ltd. Supplier Evaluation

Executive Summary

Quanzhou Yida Home Appliances Industrial Co., Ltd. is a China-based supplier located in Fujian, with a reported factory area of 38,000+㎡ and 390+ staff. Based on the provided data, the company shows relatively strong physical manufacturing capacity and has supplier verification status, indicating a meaningful production foundation. Its listed products are dough stand models with MOQs mainly around 1,000 pieces, suggesting suitability for buyers with medium-to-large batch procurement needs rather than small trial orders.

On the platform side, the supplier has 2 years as an Gold Supplier, supports Trade Assurance, and carries several platform/industry labels including “Finished product inspection,” “Warranty available,” and “OEM for well-known brands.” However, commercial performance data is weak: only 1 order in the past six months, CN¥140.9+ transaction value, no store rating, and 0 reviews. Delivery data is also a major concern, with an on-time dispatch rate of 0.0%. Overall, this supplier appears to have production capacity but insufficient commercial validation and delivery reliability evidence.

Detailed Analysis

1. Company Strength

Basis:
- Factory area: 38,000+㎡
- Employees: 390+ staff
- Verified supplier: True
- Location: Fujian, China

Elaboration:
The supplier demonstrates a sizable operational footprint with a factory area exceeding 38,000㎡ and more than 390 employees. These figures indicate that the company is not a small workshop-level supplier and likely has structured production resources. The verified supplier status further supports basic supplier legitimacy within the available data.

Scoring Rationale:
The factory size and workforce suggest a strong manufacturing base, and the verified supplier status provides additional credibility. However, the data does not include detailed production line count, annual capacity, equipment list, audit report details, or factory certification documents. Therefore, while the supplier fits the profile of a relatively large and stable manufacturing entity, the score should not reach the maximum range.

Final Score: 18/20

2. Platform & Compliance Credibility

Basis:
- Gold Supplier: True
- Gold Supplier tenure: 2 years
- Trade Assurance: True
- Certification/industry labels: “Socially responsible,” “Warranty available,” “OEM for well-known brands,” “Finished product inspection”
- Verified supplier: True

Elaboration:
The supplier has core platform credibility indicators, including Gold Supplier status, Trade Assurance support, and supplier verification. The listed labels also indicate some compliance and service-related positioning, particularly finished product inspection and warranty availability. However, the Gold Supplier tenure is only 2 years, which is relatively short compared with long-established platform suppliers.

Scoring Rationale:
The supplier has several important credibility elements, especially Trade Assurance and verified supplier status. The certification/industry labels are useful but do not substitute for detailed third-party audit certificates or long platform operating history. Because the platform credibility foundation is present but not yet mature, the supplier fits the “core certifications available but shorter tenure” range.

Final Score: 16/20

3. Business Performance

Basis:
- Orders in past 6 months: 1
- Transaction value in past 6 months: CN¥140.9+
- Store rating: Insufficient Data
- Reviews: 0

Elaboration:
The supplier’s recent platform transaction record is very limited. Only one order is recorded in the past six months, and the reported transaction value is extremely low. There is no available store rating, and the review count is zero, meaning there is no customer feedback base to validate buyer satisfaction or repeat transaction performance.

Scoring Rationale:
Despite having factory scale, the supplier’s platform commercial performance is weak. The absence of reviews and store rating significantly reduces confidence in market acceptance and transaction reliability. The supplier may still be operational offline, but based strictly on the provided platform data, business validation is insufficient.

Final Score: 6/20

4. Service Capability

Basis:
- Communication response time: ≤2h
- Full Customization support: Insufficient Data

Elaboration:
A response time within two hours indicates reasonably responsive communication. This is positive for initial inquiry handling and procurement coordination. However, there is no explicit data confirming Full Customization capability, customization workflow, engineering support, sample development process, or multilingual sales support.

Scoring Rationale:
The response speed is acceptable but does not meet the strongest benchmark of ≤1 hour. Since Full Customization capability is not confirmed in the provided data, the supplier cannot be rated as having strong customization service capability. The score reflects normal communication responsiveness but limited evidence of advanced service support.

Final Score: 6/10

5. Delivery Performance

Basis:
- On-time dispatch rate: 0.0%

Elaboration:
The provided delivery performance indicator is a major weakness. An on-time dispatch rate of 0.0% suggests that, within the available platform data, there is no demonstrated punctual dispatch performance. No additional explanation, order context, or exception reason is provided.

Scoring Rationale:
According to the scoring criteria, delivery performance below 70% should receive fewer than 5 points. Since the reported rate is 0.0%, the supplier receives a very low score in this dimension. This is one of the most significant procurement risks identified in the dataset.

Final Score: 1/10

6. Quality & Customer Feedback

Basis:
- Store rating: Insufficient Data
- Reviews: 0
- Finished product inspection: Listed
- Verified supplier: True

Elaboration:
The supplier has a “Finished product inspection” label and verified supplier status, which provide some indication of quality control structure. However, the lack of store rating and absence of customer reviews means there is no buyer-side validation of product quality, consistency, packaging, after-sales handling, or defect performance.

Scoring Rationale:
The quality assurance indicators are partially positive because finished product inspection is explicitly listed. However, customer feedback is insufficient, and there is no quantified quality performance data. The supplier cannot be rated highly without reviews, ratings, inspection reports, defect rates, or certification details.

Final Score: 10/20

Total Score

57/100

Procurement Recommendation

Cooperation may be considered with caution, mainly for buyers who require factory-scale production capacity and can manage supplier verification through samples, pre-shipment inspection, and strict order controls. The supplier is more suitable for medium-to-large MOQ buyers because listed MOQs are mostly around 1,000 pieces.

Main risks include very weak recent transaction performance, 0 reviews, missing store rating, and a 0.0% on-time dispatch rate. These issues create uncertainty around delivery reliability and customer-validated quality. Growth potential exists due to the supplier’s factory size, staff scale, Trade Assurance support, and finished product inspection label, but procurement should begin with controlled trial orders and mandatory inspection before scaling.