Ranking › Agencies › AT Agency
Agency profile · #19 of 19 on published terms
AT Agency: OnlyFans management agency review and score
A single-page React site that publishes one term, creator ownership of content in its terms, and nothing else: no commission, no term or notice, no login or payout rule, no legal entity, no location, no figures. Results are first names with rank tiles ("Top 0.05%") and a disclaimer that they are not typical.
published-terms score
In one line: Exclusivity and scarcity ("Premium OnlyFans management", "a select group of talent", "Only 2 creator spots available this month"), an SEO blog of 47 articles, and rank claims instead of numbers. Last checked 12 September 2026, under methodology v1.0: fourteen equal-weight criteria on what each agency publishes on its own site.
Checking whether AT Agency is a real, verifiable company rather than comparing its score? That question has its own page: Is AT Agency legit? What can be verified, and what cannot.
Index snapshot, 12 September 2026. OF Agency Ranking scores 19 OnlyFans management (OFM) agencies on the terms they publish, under methodology v1.0. Current #1: FantasyRise, 9.1/10.
Why Creators Inc. ranks above AT Agency
Ranked on published terms. The gap between Creators Inc. (2.1/10, #18) and AT Agency (1.6/10, #19) comes from the criteria on which their publicly documented terms and evidence differ, scored under the fourteen equal-weight criteria of methodology v1.0.
Creators Inc. scores higher on 4 criteria: Results with a verification route (10 vs 3); Verifiable legal entity (5 vs 0); Says who should not sign (5 vs 0); Longevity, documented (4 vs 0).
AT Agency scores higher on 3 criteria: Creator owns the content (5 vs 0); Content protection included and described (5 vs 0); Scale and infrastructure, published (4 vs 0).
Both score the same on 7 criteria. Net difference: 0.5 points. Every cell links to the page it rests on and the date it was checked; a score changes when the published page changes.
Scorecard, fourteen criteria
| Criterion | Score | Evidence, with source and date |
|---|---|---|
| Commission published | 0/10 Not found on the site | No rate, range or model anywhere in the site bundle. The application form asks for current monthly revenue in bands; the only percentage on the site is the 5% referral commission for people who refer a creator. The earnings calculator projects gross revenue without deducting an agency share. Source · checked 12 September 2026 |
| Creator keeps sole login | 0/10 Not found on the site | Homepage: "We're in your account every day, optimizing, responding, and executing." Terms of service, section 3: "We do not take ownership of your content, your accounts, or your brand." Who holds the credentials, and whether the creator keeps access, is not stated anywhere. Source · checked 12 September 2026 |
| Payouts go direct to the creator | 0/10 Not found on the site | Not stated on the homepage, application, terms, privacy policy or referral page. Source · checked 12 September 2026 |
| No minimum term, clear exit | 0/10 Not found on the site | No minimum term, notice period, renewal rule or contract is mentioned. The FAQ describes only the start: "we build your personalized OnlyFans management plan and begin execution within days." Source · checked 12 September 2026 |
| No commission after exit | 0/10 Not found on the site | Not stated. The referral page's note that referral commissions depend on "the creator's active relationship with AT Agency" concerns referrers. Source · checked 12 September 2026 |
| No upfront cost | 0/10 Not found on the site | Neither denied nor priced. The terms' liability clause presupposes payments from the creator to the agency: "shall not exceed the amount you have paid us in the three months preceding the claim, or €100, whichever is greater." Source · checked 12 September 2026 |
| Creator owns the content | 5/10 Partly published | Terms: "You retain full ownership of all content you create. By submitting an application, you do not grant AT Agency any ownership rights to your content, accounts, or intellectual property." Ownership is stated on a legal page; whether any license exists during management and when it ends is not stated. Source · checked 12 September 2026 |
| Verifiable legal entity | 0/10 Not found on the site | No legal form, company name, address, jurisdiction or register number. Structured data gives "AT Agency", contact@at-agency.co and +1 978 493 1784; the terms are "governed by ... applicable law" in "the competent courts of the applicable jurisdiction", with a liability cap in euros. No person is named. No register can be searched without a name and a country. Source · checked 12 September 2026 |
| Longevity, documented | 0/10 Unverifiable, provisional | No public evidence found: the .co registry's RDAP service did not answer and rdap.org lists no service for .co, the Wayback Machine holds no capture of at-agency.co, and the site publishes no founding year. The two dates on the site are own statements and sit on different pages: the terms of service carry "Last updated: January 1, 2023" and the homepage counter reads "4+ / YEARS EXPERIENCE". Provisional; the cell moves as soon as the domain record can be read. Source · checked 12 September 2026 |
| Results with a verification route | 3/10 Partly published | A carousel of result tiles giving a first name and a rank, "DELFINE / TOP 0.05% OF ALL CREATORS" and "MAYA / TOP 0.04% OF ALL CREATORS", with no figures; three anonymous testimonials; counters, "12+ / CREATORS MANAGED"; press logos without linked articles. The qualifier sits on a different page: the terms of service say those outcomes "represent individual outcomes and are not typical", which the homepage does not repeat beside the ranks. No reference offer and no dashboard demonstration. Source · checked 12 September 2026 |
| Says who should not sign | 0/10 Not found on the site | No situation in which a creator should not sign and no competitor named. Selectivity claims only ("we take on the creators we believe we can genuinely help grow", "Only 2 creator spots available this month"). Source · checked 12 September 2026 |
| Scope of the commission itemized | 5/10 Partly published | Six service areas itemized (content strategy, audience growth, fan management, monetization, brand positioning, content protection) with one-line descriptions. Whether all of it is inside the commission, and whether anything costs extra, is not stated. Source · checked 12 September 2026 |
| Scale and infrastructure, published | 4/10 Partly published | Homepage counter: "12+ / CREATORS MANAGED", beside "we work with a select group of talent". Team size and location are not published. A small operation, disclosed as such. Source · checked 12 September 2026 |
| Content protection included and described | 5/10 Partly published | "We detect and remove leaks, handle copyright takedowns" listed as a service. Inclusion in the commission, mechanism and timing not published. Source · checked 12 September 2026 |
Mean of fourteen equal-weight criteria: 1.6/10, a published-terms score, not a measure of service quality. Scoring bands per criterion are on the methodology page. The status beside each score says why it scores what it scores; a 0 means the fact is not on the agency's site, was withheld for the call, or scores 0 under the band. Machine-readable copy: ranking.json.
Age, stated and documented
| Founding, as stated by the agency | None; "Years Experience 4+" (homepage counter) |
|---|---|
| Oldest public record found | None found: no RDAP service answered for the .co domain, no Wayback capture exists; the terms are dated 1 January 2023 (own statement) |
Shown side by side on every profile and not scored as a difference: changes of legal form are ordinary. The longevity criterion scores the documented side only.
Published terms
| Commission | Not published; not even a model is named |
|---|---|
| Basis | Not published |
| Minimum term | Not published |
| Notice period | Not published |
| Commission after exit | Not published |
| Upfront cost | Not published; the terms' liability cap refers to "the amount you have paid us in the three months preceding the claim, or €100" |
| Who holds the login | Not published; "We're in your account every day" |
| Where payouts go | Not published |
| Content ownership | Creator, in the terms: "You retain full ownership of all content you create" |
| Binding agreement public | No. No creator agreement is mentioned; the terms cover website use and the application. |
What the commission covers
- Content strategy and data-driven content roadmaps
- Targeted fan acquisition
- Fan management: a team handling engagement and conversations around the clock
- Monetization of subscriptions, PPVs and custom offers
- Brand positioning
- Content protection: leak detection and copyright takedowns
Strengths
- Creator ownership of content stated on a legal page, not only in marketing copy.
- A plain disclaimer that displayed results are not typical.
Limitations
- No commission, term, notice, login, payout or upfront-cost statement of any kind.
- No legal entity, address, jurisdiction or named person.
- No public record of the agency's age could be found.
- Results are rank tiles with first names and no figures.
Claims shown, not scored
- "Only 2 creator spots available this month" is static text in the site bundle.
- A US phone number and US trade-press logos beside a euro liability cap and an undefined governing law.
- "Years Experience 4+" against legal texts dated 2023 and no archive capture at all.
- An internal chatter-training tool ("Restricted access - team only") ships inside the public site bundle.
Statements the agency makes that cannot be verified without exposing a creator or that have no public evidence route. They are shown so you can ask about them, and they do not count toward the score.
Who should choose AT Agency
A creator who is content to learn every term on the strategy call after acceptance. Not for a creator who wants any commercial term, or the company behind the agency, in writing first.
Compare
What others say
- OFAgencies: ranked #15 of 59 (checked 10 September 2026). OFAgencies is a project of the team behind OnModelStudios. Source
Sources
Every source is the agency's own published page or a public register, checked on the date shown.
Right of reply
No reply received yet. The agency can send one at any time through the right of reply and it is published here verbatim.
Notification. This agency is sent its full scorecard, with every evidence link and check date, at the address published on its own site, on the day this profile goes live. This line records the date once it is sent, and whether an answer came back.
Evidence date and corrections
Evidence date and corrections. Every score on this page rests on a page the agency itself published, quoted with the URL and the date it was read. Scores reflect the evidence available on that date. If a fact is wrong or has changed since, send the link to editors@ofagencyranking.com or, for an agency contesting its own cell, to reply@ofagencyranking.com. A correction that checks out is made within one business day, dated on the updates page and listed on the corrections page. Agencies do not approve their scores; the published methodology decides them, and the route to contest a cell never closes.
Last reviewed 12 September 2026 by OF Agency Ranking editorial team. Next scheduled check: within one month of that date, or the day the agency changes a published term.
Cite this page. OF Agency Ranking, “AT Agency Review (2026): #19 of 19 on Published Terms”, 12 September 2026, https://ofagencyranking.com/agencies/at-agency. Publisher: FantasyRise LLC (disclosure). Scores follow methodology v1.0; the underlying data is ranking.json and ranking.csv, licensed CC BY 4.0. Please keep the publisher attribution with the citation.