Shenzhen Qingmai Bicycle Co., Ltd. Supplier Evaluation

Supplier Evaluation Report: Shenzhen Qingmai Bicycle Co., Ltd.

Executive Summary

Shenzhen Qingmai Bicycle Co., Ltd. is a China-based electric bicycle supplier located in Guangdong, with a reported factory area of 8,700+ m² and 120+ staff. The company presents itself as a verified supplier and has a 6-year Gold Supplier history with Trade Assurance support, indicating a relatively solid platform credibility profile. Its listed products focus on electric bikes, fat tire e-bikes, and electric dirt bike models, with low minimum order quantities ranging from 2 to 6 pieces, which may suit small-batch buyers, online retailers, and trial-order importers.

Commercial performance data shows 10+ orders and CN¥202.8K+ transaction value over the past six months, which indicates active but not high-volume platform trading. The store rating is 5.0, but this is based on only 2 reviews, limiting the strength of customer feedback validation. Delivery performance is strong, with a reported 100.0% on-time delivery rate. Key limitations include insufficient data on full customization capability, finished product inspection, and broader quality certifications.

Detailed Analysis

1. Company Strength

Basis

• Factory location: Guangdong, China
• Factory area: 8,700+ m²
• Staff count: 120+ staff
• Verified supplier / factory audit status: True
• Product scope shown: electric bikes, fat tire e-bikes, electric dirt bike-related models

Elaboration

The supplier has a reported physical production base of over 8,700 square meters and more than 120 employees. This indicates a meaningful manufacturing or operational scale rather than a very small trading-only setup. The staff count suggests the company may have the organizational capacity to support production, sales, fulfillment, and after-sales communication at a basic to medium scale.

The presence of verified supplier status strengthens the credibility of the company’s operational claims. However, the provided data does not include detailed production capacity, annual output, number of production lines, in-house testing facilities, R&D team size, or equipment list. Therefore, while the company appears to have stable factory fundamentals, the data is not sufficient to classify it as a large-scale industrial supplier.

Scoring Rationale

The factory size and employee count place the company above a small workshop-level supplier. The verified supplier status further supports its basic manufacturing credibility. However, because no specific production capacity, monthly output, equipment details, or internationally recognized factory certifications are provided, the company should be assessed as a medium-sized stable supplier rather than a large-scale supply chain player.

Final Score

16 / 20

2. Platform & Compliance Credibility

Basis

• Gold Supplier: True
• Gold Supplier history: 6 years
• Trade Assurance: True
• Verified supplier status: True
• Platform labels provided:
• On-time delivery 100.0%
• Response time ≤4h
• Industry or product certification information: Insufficient Data

Elaboration

The company has a 6-year Gold Supplier record on , which provides a reasonable degree of platform history. Trade Assurance support is also a positive factor because it offers transaction-level protection for buyers using the platform. Verified supplier status further supports baseline credibility.

The available platform labels are operationally relevant, especially the 100.0% on-time delivery indicator and response time within 4 hours. However, the provided data does not include specific compliance certifications, product certifications, export certifications, or detailed factory audit reports. For electric bicycles, such documentation can be important depending on the buyer’s destination market, but no such data is provided and therefore cannot be assumed.

Scoring Rationale

The supplier demonstrates strong platform credibility through 6 years as a Gold Supplier, Trade Assurance participation, and verified supplier status. These factors justify a high score. However, the absence of detailed compliance certificates or industry-specific certification labels prevents a maximum score. The supplier appears credible on-platform, but compliance depth remains only partially evidenced.

Final Score

18 / 20

3. Business Performance

Basis

• Orders in the past 6 months: 10+
• Transaction value in the past 6 months: CN¥202.8K+
• Store rating: 5.0
• Number of reviews: 2

Elaboration

The company has recorded more than 10 orders and over CN¥202.8K in transaction value during the past six months. This confirms recent commercial activity on the platform. The transaction value is meaningful but not high enough to demonstrate large-volume trading performance.

The store rating is 5.0, which is positive, but the rating is supported by only 2 reviews. This limits the reliability of the rating as a broad customer satisfaction indicator. A small review base can be influenced by very few transactions and may not fully represent long-term service consistency, product quality, or dispute-handling capability.

Scoring Rationale

The supplier has active sales and a moderate transaction value, which supports a reasonable level of business validation. However, the order count is relatively limited, and customer review volume is very low. The strong 5.0 score is favorable, but the small review sample weakens its evidentiary value. Therefore, the supplier should be rated as having moderate but not strong business performance.

Final Score

13 / 20

4. Service Capability

Basis

• Communication response time: ≤4h
• Full Customization capability: Insufficient Data
• Other customization capability: Insufficient Data

Elaboration

The supplier’s response time is reported as within 4 hours, which indicates acceptable communication efficiency for international procurement inquiries. This is suitable for buyers that require reasonably timely quotation follow-up, order clarification, and basic coordination.

However, the data does not confirm whether the supplier supports full customization, OEM/ODM development, private labeling, packaging customization, or technical product modification. Since the scoring standard includes customization capability, the lack of this information limits the supplier’s service capability score.

Scoring Rationale

The response time is acceptable but not within the highest-performing range of ≤1 hour. Additionally, no full customization capability is confirmed in the provided data. Therefore, the supplier can be considered to have normal service responsiveness, but its advanced service and customization capability remains unverified.

Final Score

7 / 10

5. Delivery Performance

Basis

• On-time delivery rate: 100.0%

Elaboration

The supplier reports a 100.0% on-time delivery rate. This is a strong delivery indicator and suggests that recent platform-recorded shipments have been fulfilled within the committed delivery timeline.

However, the data does not include the number of shipments behind the delivery rate, destination markets, shipping methods, average lead time, or whether the metric applies to all orders or only platform-tracked orders. Therefore, while the delivery score can be high, buyers should still verify lead times and logistics terms before placing larger orders.

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 deserves a full score in this dimension based strictly on the available data.

Final Score

10 / 10

6. Quality & Customer Feedback

Basis

• Store rating: 5.0
• Number of reviews: 2
• Verified supplier status: True
• Finished Product Inspection: Insufficient Data
• Factory Verification: Supported by verified supplier/factory audit status
• Product or quality management certifications: Insufficient Data

Elaboration

The supplier’s 5.0 store rating is positive and indicates that the limited available customer feedback is favorable. Verified supplier status also provides some basic assurance regarding company legitimacy and factory-related credibility.

However, the number of reviews is only 2, which is insufficient to form a robust conclusion about consistent product quality. In addition, the provided data does not confirm whether Finished Product Inspection is available, whether systematic pre-shipment inspection is conducted, or whether the company holds relevant quality certifications. These missing quality-control details are important for electric bicycle procurement, especially for buyers concerned with batch consistency, safety, and after-sales risk.

Scoring Rationale

The high rating and verified supplier status support a positive baseline assessment. Nevertheless, the very limited review count and lack of confirmed finished product inspection or detailed quality certifications reduce confidence in the supplier’s quality assurance system. The supplier appears to have basic quality credibility, but the available evidence is not strong enough for a top-tier score.

Final Score

14 / 20

Total Score

Procurement Recommendation

Recommendation: Conditional Cooperation Recommended

Shenzhen Qingmai Bicycle Co., Ltd. is suitable for buyers seeking electric bicycles or fat tire e-bike products from a medium-sized China-based supplier with platform credibility, Trade Assurance support, and strong reported delivery performance. The low MOQ of 2–6 pieces makes the supplier suitable for trial orders, small importers, e-commerce sellers, and buyers testing product-market fit before scaling procurement.

However, for larger-volume procurement or regulated-market sales, buyers should conduct additional due diligence before committing. Key risk points include the low number of customer reviews, limited recent order volume, insufficient data on full customization capability, and insufficient data on Finished Product Inspection or product-specific certifications.

The supplier shows growth potential due to its 6-year Gold Supplier history, verified supplier status, 8,700+ m² factory area, and 120+ staff base. A recommended procurement approach would be to start with a sample or small pilot order under Trade Assurance, verify product quality and documentation, and then gradually increase order volume if performance is consistent.