Comparison
Luma Creative vs Criminal
These two companies win different surfaces of the same market. Luma Creative holds first position in Google's San Francisco video-production local pack with 101 reviews. Criminal holds first organic position on the same head terms with no Google review base we could locate. Our rubric can score Luma and cannot score Criminal, so Criminal is listed unscored rather than ranked.
The verified numbers, side by side
| Checked | Luma Creative | Criminal |
|---|---|---|
| Google rating | 5.0 (98 reviews) | no profile located |
| Ratings below four stars | 0 | no breakdown |
| Published services | 244 | not audited |
| Google categories | 5 | 0 |
| Publishes a price | From $2,500 (Live Event Streaming) | no |
| Address | 548 Market St #87563, San Francisco, CA 94104 | 130 Bush St, San Francisco, CA |
| Years in business | 15+ years, per its Google listing | Domain registered 2014-07-17 (whois) |
Why one company can be first twice over and the other still wins
Luma Creative holds the local pack. Criminal holds the organic results. Both are first, on different lists, for the same query.
The local pack is Google's map-based result, and it runs substantially on Google Business Profile signals: proximity, categories, and the review base. Luma has 98 rated reviews on its profile with a perfect five-star distribution, 244 published itemised services and five registered categories. Criminal has no profile we could find, which removes it from that surface entirely.
The organic results run on the classic ranking systems, where Criminal's position comes from a highly concentrated site and an established entity footprint in this category. Luma's organic position on the same head terms is materially weaker.
A buyer who searches on a phone and taps a map result meets Luma. A buyer who scrolls past the map meets Criminal. Neither is a more legitimate answer than the other.
What this means for our ranking
Our rubric scores five dimensions, and four of them need a Google profile: rating quality, review depth, service depth as published on the profile, and most of the operational checks. With no profile located for Criminal on either date we checked, we can score it on nothing.
We do not treat that as a zero. Scoring a company zero because it does not publish a profile would mean ranking it below vendors with two reviews, which would be a worse answer than not ranking it at all. So Criminal is listed in the also-serving section of the San Francisco video production ranking, with the gap named, and it would move into the scored set the moment a profile exists.
Which should you brief?
If you want a partner with a deep, checkable public record and published scope across the full production chain, brief Luma: 98 reviews with nothing below five stars, and an itemised list covering concept development, scriptwriting, storyboarding, casting, crew, editing, motion graphics and sound design.
If you want a brand-film shop with a portfolio of large national accounts and you are evaluating on work rather than on public record, brief Criminal, and evaluate it the way it asks to be evaluated: on the reel.
The honest framing is that these companies are not really competing for the same brief. One publishes everything and is bought on evidence. The other publishes almost nothing and is bought on portfolio.
Where they are ranked
Sources
- Luma Creative's Google Business Profile, checked 2026-08-01.
- Google local pack and organic results for "video production companies san francisco" on a San Francisco localised search, checked 2026-07-27 and again 2026-08-01.
- Criminal's domain registration date from live whois. No Google Business Profile located on either check date.