Shandong Dengyi Building Materials Technology Co., Ltd. Supplier Evaluation

Executive Summary

Shandong Dengyi Building Materials Technology Co., Ltd. is a China-based supplier located in Shandong Province, offering aluminum composite panels, cladding plates, and related building decoration materials. The supplier shows a basic manufacturing foundation with a reported factory area of 10,000+ sqm, 30+ staff, and verified supplier status. On , it has Gold Supplier status for 2 years, supports Trade Assurance, and displays service/quality-related labels such as warranty availability and finished product inspection. However, its commercial and performance indicators are mixed. The supplier has recorded 10+ orders and CN¥270.4K+ transaction value over the past six months, but the store rating is very low at 1.6 with only 2 reviews. Delivery performance is also weak, with an on-time delivery rate of only 25.0%. Overall, this supplier may be suitable for buyers seeking low-MOQ aluminum composite panel products, but cooperation should be approached cautiously, especially for time-sensitive or quality-critical procurement.

Detailed Analysis

1. Company Strength

Basis
- Factory location: Shandong Province, China
- Factory area: 10,000+ sqm
- Employees: 30+ staff
- Verified supplier: True
- Product scope includes aluminum composite panels, cladding plates, and fire-rated panel products

Elaboration
The supplier has a reported factory area exceeding 10,000 sqm, which indicates a meaningful physical production base. However, the workforce size of 30+ staff suggests a relatively limited labor scale compared with large industrial manufacturers. The verified supplier status provides some level of factory credibility, but the data does not include detailed production lines, annual capacity, equipment lists, export markets, or factory audit reports.

Scoring Rationale
The company demonstrates more than a minimal production setup due to its factory area and verified supplier status. However, the relatively small staff size limits confidence in large-scale or complex production capacity. Since there is no data on production volume, equipment, or factory certifications beyond supplier verification, it should be assessed as a small-to-medium supplier with basic manufacturing capability rather than a large-scale stable supply chain.

Final Score
13 / 20

2. Platform & Compliance Credibility

Basis
- Gold Supplier: True
- Gold Supplier duration: 2 years
- Trade Assurance: True
- Verified supplier: True
- Certification/industry labels: Warranty available, Finished product inspection, Response time ≤3h, On-time delivery 25.0%

Elaboration
The supplier has several important platform credibility elements, including Gold Supplier status, Trade Assurance support, and verified supplier status. These features improve platform-level trust and provide buyers with some transaction protection. However, the Gold Supplier history is only 2 years, which is relatively short. The available labels show some compliance and service indicators, but the dataset does not provide internationally recognized product certifications, factory audit certificates, or third-party compliance documentation.

Scoring Rationale
The supplier has the core credibility structure in place: Gold Supplier status, Trade Assurance, and supplier verification. This supports a moderate level of trust. However, the short Gold Supplier history and lack of detailed certification evidence prevent a higher score. The presence of the very low on-time delivery label also weakens the overall credibility profile from a procurement risk perspective.

Final Score
15 / 20

3. Business Performance

Basis
- Orders in the past 6 months: 10+
- Transaction value in the past 6 months: CN¥270.4K+
- Store rating: 1.6
- Number of reviews: 2

Elaboration
The supplier has generated some recent platform activity, with 10+ orders and CN¥270.4K+ in transaction value over the past six months. This confirms that the supplier has completed transactions on the platform. However, the order count remains relatively low, and the customer feedback base is very limited. More importantly, the store rating of 1.6 is significantly weak and raises concern about buyer satisfaction, fulfillment consistency, product quality, communication, or after-sales performance, though the exact cause is not provided in the data.

Scoring Rationale
The supplier has some commercial validation through recent orders and transaction value, but the business performance is undermined by very low customer rating and only 2 reviews. The small review sample limits statistical reliability, yet the rating is still a serious negative signal. Compared with suppliers that show high order volume, strong transaction value, and stable customer ratings, this supplier’s business performance remains insufficiently proven.

Final Score
9 / 20

4. Service Capability

Basis
- Communication response time: ≤3h
- Platform label: Response time ≤3h
- Full Customization: Insufficient Data

Elaboration
The supplier’s response time of ≤3 hours indicates acceptable communication efficiency for normal inquiry handling. This is not as strong as suppliers responding within one hour, but it still suggests the supplier can maintain basic buyer communication. However, there is no data confirming Full Customization capability, design support, OEM/ODM service, sample development capability, or technical consultation capacity.

Scoring Rationale
The supplier earns credit for a reasonable response time, but the absence of confirmed customization capability limits the score. Since the scoring dimension specifically considers both response efficiency and customization support, the lack of Full Customization data prevents classification as a strong service provider. The supplier should be considered to have basic service capability based on the available information.

Final Score
6 / 10

5. Delivery Performance

Basis
- On-time delivery rate: 25.0%

Elaboration
The supplier’s reported on-time delivery rate is only 25.0%, which is far below the 70%, 80%, and 90% performance thresholds normally expected for reliable procurement. This indicates a significant delivery risk based strictly on the provided platform data. For buyers with project deadlines, construction schedules, or container consolidation requirements, this metric is a major concern.

Scoring Rationale
According to the scoring standard, an on-time delivery rate below 70% should receive below 5 points. At 25.0%, the supplier’s delivery reliability is very weak. Even if other supplier attributes are acceptable, this delivery indicator creates substantial operational risk for procurement planning.

Final Score
2 / 10

6. Quality & Customer Feedback

Basis
- Store rating: 1.6
- Reviews: 2
- Finished product inspection: Available
- Verified supplier: True
- Warranty available: Listed
- Factory Verification: Verified supplier status provided

Elaboration
The supplier has some quality-related platform indicators, including finished product inspection and warranty availability. Verified supplier status also provides a basic level of supplier credibility. However, customer feedback is weak: the store rating is only 1.6, and the number of reviews is just 2. This combination creates two issues: first, the rating is poor; second, the review base is too small to provide broad confirmation of stable quality performance.

Scoring Rationale
The presence of finished product inspection and warranty availability supports a basic quality assurance framework. However, the very low rating materially reduces confidence in actual buyer satisfaction. Since quality scoring must consider both quality systems and customer feedback, the supplier cannot be rated as strong despite having inspection-related labels. The limited review count also means quality consistency is not sufficiently validated.

Final Score
9 / 20

Total Score

Company Strength: 13 / 20
Platform & Compliance Credibility: 15 / 20
Business Performance: 9 / 20
Service Capability: 6 / 10
Delivery Performance: 2 / 10
Quality & Customer Feedback: 9 / 20

Total Score: 54 / 100

Procurement Recommendation

Cooperation is recommended only with caution. Shandong Dengyi Building Materials Technology Co., Ltd. has a basic manufacturing base, verified supplier status, Trade Assurance support, and relevant aluminum composite panel product offerings. It may be suitable for buyers seeking low-MOQ sourcing, preliminary price comparison, sample orders, or non-urgent building material procurement.

However, it is not recommended as a primary supplier for urgent, high-value, or quality-critical projects based on the current data. The main risks are the very low on-time delivery rate of 25.0%, weak store rating of 1.6, and limited review count of only 2. These indicators suggest insufficient commercial reliability and customer satisfaction validation.

Before placing any significant order, buyers should request product samples, confirm inspection standards, clarify delivery lead time in writing, use Trade Assurance, and start with a small trial order. Growth potential exists due to the factory area, verified status, and existing transaction record, but the supplier must improve delivery reliability and customer feedback performance to become a stronger long-term procurement partner.