Best Annual Report Design Agency in India? We Scored 35 Reports

Ask a CFO why they chose their annual report agency and you'll usually hear about a pitch, a referral or last year's awards. Almost nobody has compared agencies on the finished product, because no one publishes the comparison. So we did.

We took 35 annual and integrated reports for FY2025-26 from Indian listed companies, read the agency credit on the back of each one, and scored every report on the same seven-point card we use for our individual annual report reviews. Five agencies made the cut, with seven reports each.

The five agencies at a glance

This is an independent comparison: the scores come from the published reports themselves, not from the agencies' own claims. Click an agency for its seven reports and page-by-page scores.

Averages mostly track how many of each agency's clients publish an integrated report, so read the "best at" column first.

How we did it, and what we don't know

Attribution comes from the credit printed in the report. Most agencies sign their work with a small line or logo on the inside back cover or back cover, such as "Concept, content and design by…". We only included reports that carry a credit, and we checked each one visually, because several are logos too small to show up in a text search.

We don't know the scope of each engagement. A credit tells you who the company chose to name, not what that agency was hired to do. Some credits claim concept, content and design. Others say "concept and design", "designed and produced" or simply "a creation". The company's finance team, company secretary and auditors write and approve much of any annual report, and statutory sections are sometimes typeset elsewhere. So we're going by the credit given at the back of the report, and each score is a score of the published report, not of the agency's process.

We checked each company's website for an online edition, and counted it in the digital score.

The card is the same for every report. Seven criteria, each scored 1 to 5, for a maximum of 35: strategy and narrative; integrated thinking and the capitals; BRSR and ESG integration; governance disclosure; financial storytelling; design and readability; and the digital version. Scores are editorial opinion based on the published document, calibrated against our earlier reviews (Hindustan Zinc 30, TCS 28, Titan 23, ITC 21, NTPC 20).

Seven reports per agency. To compare like with like, we used seven reports for each agency. For the two agencies where we had collected more (eight for Stirrup, nine for WyattPrism), we kept the seven highest-scoring.

The sample is ours, not a census. Seven reports per agency is enough to see patterns, not to settle an agency's reputation. Large agencies produce dozens of reports a year, and a different seven could tell a slightly different story.

The results

Read the infographic as text

1. WyattPrism. Overall 24.9/35; integrated-only 24.9/35, based on 7 of seven reports.
2. Stirrup. Overall 23.4/35; integrated-only 24.2/35, based on 6 of seven reports.
3. Adsvita. Overall 21.0/35; integrated-only 23.0/35, based on 3 of seven reports.
4. K&A. Overall 19.6/35; integrated-only 22.3/35, based on 4 of seven reports.
5. Report Yak. Overall 18.7/35; integrated-only 22.5/35, based on 2 of seven reports.

Editorial scores of published reports, not agency processes. Seven reports per agency; engagement scopes unknown. The sample retains the seven highest-scoring reports collected for Stirrup (eight collected) and WyattPrism (nine collected). It is not a census. Integrated-only samples differ in size and are not matched by company or sector; this is not a causal estimate of format's effect.

Read the last three columns before the third. The ranking by average mostly tracks how many of each agency's clients publish an integrated report. Six of Stirrup's seven reports and all seven of WyattPrism's are integrated reports. Report Yak's sample has two.

That matters because two of the seven criteria, integrated thinking and BRSR and ESG integration, reward the structure an integrated report brings: a value creation model, capitals chapters, dated materiality and ESG targets against status. Compare integrated reports with integrated reports and every agency lands between 22.8 and 25.1, so the gap between top and bottom narrows from 6.1 points to 2.3. Compare conventional annual reports with each other and they land between 17 and 20.

So the first lesson isn't about agencies at all. If you want a better report, the decision to move to an integrated format will probably do more than the choice of agency, although the agency still makes a difference of two points or so. Our guide to moving from an annual report to an integrated report covers what that involves.

Who does what best

Read the infographic as text

1. Strategy and narrative. WyattPrism: 3.4/5; Stirrup: 3.6/5; Adsvita: 3.1/5; K&A: 3.1/5; Report Yak: 3.0/5
2. Integrated thinking. WyattPrism: 4.1/5; Stirrup: 3.4/5; Adsvita: 2.9/5; K&A: 2.6/5; Report Yak: 2.1/5
3. BRSR and ESG. WyattPrism: 4.1/5; Stirrup: 3.7/5; Adsvita: 2.9/5; K&A: 2.9/5; Report Yak: 2.4/5
4. Governance. WyattPrism: 3.3/5; Stirrup: 3.0/5; Adsvita: 3.0/5; K&A: 2.9/5; Report Yak: 2.9/5
5. Financial storytelling. WyattPrism: 3.7/5; Stirrup: 3.3/5; Adsvita: 3.4/5; K&A: 3.0/5; Report Yak: 3.0/5
6. Design and readability. WyattPrism: 3.6/5; Stirrup: 3.6/5; Adsvita: 3.4/5; K&A: 3.1/5; Report Yak: 3.3/5
7. Digital version. WyattPrism: 2.6/5; Stirrup: 2.9/5; Adsvita: 2.3/5; K&A: 2.0/5; Report Yak: 2.0/5

Editorial scores of published reports, not agency processes. Seven reports per agency; engagement scopes unknown. The sample retains the seven highest-scoring reports collected for Stirrup (eight collected) and WyattPrism (nine collected). It is not a census. Integrated thinking includes the capitals; BRSR and ESG refers to integration. Differences of a few tenths are not meaningful on this sample.

Average score per criterion, out of 5:

Differences of a few tenths aren't meaningful on a sample this size. Differences of a full point are.

Strategy and narrative: Stirrup

Stirrup's reports most often pair a clear strategy with letters that report against it. Grasim, UltraTech, Tata Power and Wipro all score 4. Across every agency, though, the weakest part of the narrative is candour. The best letters tell bad news plainly: Kotak's MD and CEO addresses the embargo and unsecured-credit stress (K&A, PDF p. 9), Equitas's MD admits a Q1 loss and higher provisions (Adsvita), and Bajaj Finserv's Chairman discusses new-venture losses (Stirrup, PDF pp. 4–5).

Too many others don't. In reports credited to three different agencies, a qualified audit opinion or a fall in reported profit appears in the statutory section but not in the front: Tilaknagar and KRBL (Report Yak), 3i Infotech (Adsvita, consolidated opinion qualified at PDF p. 234), and Dr. Reddy's, whose leadership letter doesn't mention the 26% fall in net profit that the MD&A states (WyattPrism, PDF pp. 4 and 60). A CFO's review is rare everywhere. We found none in any of the seven Adsvita reports and only one, Sify, among Report Yak's.

Integrated thinking and ESG: WyattPrism and Stirrup

This is where the two agencies with the most integrated-report clients pull ahead. Both routinely build a value creation model with real numbers for every capital: Grasim (PDF p. 16), UltraTech (PDF p. 44) and Tata Power (PDF p. 12) for Stirrup; Adani Green, HDFC Life, Zydus and Tech Mahindra for WyattPrism. Hindustan Zinc's report, credited to WyattPrism, remains the highest-scoring report we've reviewed, with a CSRD-aligned double materiality assessment and reasonable assurance.

The best ESG pages show targets against status in one place: Dr. Reddy's goals table (WyattPrism, PDF p. 14), Vedanta's ESG scorecard (WyattPrism, PDF p. 59) and Marico's ESG spotlights against 2030 baselines (K&A, PDF p. 18). Outside the two leaders, quantified value creation models are less common. Jindal Stainless (Report Yak, pp. 56–57), Havells (K&A, PDF p. 22) and Lumax Industries (Adsvita, PDF pp. 20–21) are the strongest examples.

Governance: flat, with a few standout reports

Governance is the flattest criterion: every agency averages between 3.0 and 3.4. The statutory disclosure is complete in almost every report, and most now show director skills director by director, as a grid or a table: Federal Bank, Nestlé India, IndiGo, Ambuja Cements and Dr. Reddy's among them. The gap is the board evaluation. Most reports describe the process and stop, or add a one-line generic outcome. Only a handful say what the evaluation found and what the board will do about it: Wipro (Stirrup, PDF p. 104), Dr. Reddy's (WyattPrism, PDF p. 112), Marico (K&A, PDF p. 155), Nestlé India (K&A, PDF p. 176) and Castrol India (Report Yak, PDF p. 48). The best governance pages in the sample belong to Federal Bank (K&A), with a director-by-skill tick grid (PDF p. 76), a Board statement of responsibility for the report (PDF p. 3) and a spread on strategic trade-offs between the capitals (PDF p. 28).

Financial storytelling: WyattPrism, closely followed by Adsvita

Multi-year KPI pages are now standard, and the better ones show declines as well as gains. WyattPrism's KPI spreads (Tech Mahindra, PDF p. 12) and Adsvita's ten-year tables (SKF, PDF p. 28; also Trent and Bosch) are the most consistent. Equitas (Adsvita) and IndiGo (K&A, PDF p. 17) both chart a weak year without hiding it, which is harder and more useful than charting a good one.

Design: close, with different strengths

Design scores are the most even of all, which makes sense: these are established agencies, and every one of them can build a consistent visual system. What differs is the kind of design.

Report Yak builds a distinctive theme for each client and carries it through: carved relief for Jindal Stainless, rice-grain art for KRBL, paper-cut for Amrutanjan, a cut-away heritage building for Tilaknagar (pp. 10–11). Its statutory sections were also the most consistently clean in our sample. Adsvita's covers and theme spreads are strong across the board. Stirrup and WyattPrism favour restrained, single-system layouts that hold up well across 400 to 600 pages.

The common weakness is length. Trent's report gives about 46 spreads to brand lookbook photography before the strategy begins (Adsvita). It isn't a design failure, but it's a choice that someone should have challenged.

Digital: everybody's weak spot

Read the infographic as text

1. WyattPrism. 3 of seven sampled reports had an HTML edition or microsite.
2. Stirrup. 5 of seven sampled reports had an HTML edition or microsite.
3. Adsvita. 0 of seven sampled reports had an HTML edition or microsite.
4. K&A. 0 of seven sampled reports had an HTML edition or microsite.
5. Report Yak. 1 of seven sampled reports had an HTML edition or microsite.

Nine of 35 had an online edition; 26 did not. At least ten PDFs had no bookmarks. No agency sample averaged above 2.9/5 for digital. These counts describe the article's sample and checks, not entire agency portfolios. The builders of the online editions are unknown.

No agency averages better than 2.9 out of 5 on the digital version, and this is the clearest finding in the study. Across the 35 files we found:

• at least ten PDFs with no bookmarks at all;
• bookmarks that expose production file names, such as InDesign files with version numbers, or leftover Word anchors such as "_Hlk", in reports credited to all five agencies;
• spread-only PDFs, which are awkward to read on a phone or screen reader, in most of the sample;
• broken or mislabelled links, including email-security wrapper URLs left in hyperlinks.

Online editions are rarer still. We checked every company's website: only nine of the 35 publish an HTML edition or microsite of the report. Five are credited to Stirrup (Ambuja Cements, Bajaj Finserv, Grasim, Tata Power and Wipro), three to WyattPrism (Hindustan Zinc, Adani Green Energy and Vedanta) and one to Report Yak (Castrol India). Hindustan Zinc goes furthest, with a generative AI assistant that answers questions about the report. We found no online edition for any report in our Adsvita or K&A samples. We don't know who built each online edition, so we've scored it as part of the report, like everything else. Kotak publishes a video alongside its report, which helps but isn't an edition.

For most companies, the PDF on the stock exchange website is the report, and it's the version investors, analysts and increasingly AI tools actually read. Our guide to digital annual reports covers what a good one looks like.

What slipped through

Every report had at least a few errors, and with the scope of each engagement unknown, we can't say whose they were. A sample, one from each agency's set:

• SKF India (Adsvita): the back cover still reads "© SKF Group 2024" (PDF p. 404).
• Kotak Mahindra Bank (K&A): the "06_Board of Directors" bookmark jumps to page 1 instead of the board page, and the bookmark names still carry their production file numbers.
• Jindal Stainless (Report Yak): Scope 3 emissions intensity is given as 60.03 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per rupee of turnover, a figure that can't be right for that unit (BRSR, PDF p. 175).
• Ambuja Cements (Stirrup): a merger dated 10 April 2026 is described as taking place during the reporting period, which ended on 31 March 2026 (PDF p. 3).
• Zydus Lifesciences (WyattPrism): the glossary expands "UK" as "United States" (PDF p. 445).

None of these is serious on its own. Together, they show where a final cross-check, by agency or company, most often fails: the back cover, the bookmarks, the glossary, dates and units.

Agency profiles

Each agency has its own page with all seven reports, the page references behind every score and where the work slips:

• Adsvita: covers that carry a real idea and multi-year KPI pages that show the bad years too.
• Kalolwala & Associates: governance pages, capital trade-offs and leadership letters that admit a miss.
• Report Yak: a distinctive visual theme for each client and clean statutory pages.
• Stirrup: strategy you can track, capitals with real numbers and the most online editions.
• WyattPrism: value creation models with numbers and ESG targets reported against progress.

How to read this if you're choosing an agency

Look at the section that matters most to you, not the overall average. If your report needs a stronger integrated structure, look at agencies whose clients publish integrated reports and ask to see the value creation model. If your board wants a report that looks unlike anyone else's, look at distinctive theme work. Whatever you choose, write the digital PDF into the brief, with bookmarks, single pages and working links, because no agency in our sample does it well by default. Our annual report agency scorecard has the questions to ask before you sign.

All 35 reports

Page references are to the PDF each company published. In spread-view files, one PDF page holds two printed pages; references marked "p." without "PDF" are printed page numbers.

Want your report rated?

Seven reports per agency is a start, not the last word. If you'd like us to rate your annual report and include it in the next round, send us a direct message on LinkedIn with your company name and the name of your annual report agency. Agencies are welcome to write in too.