Magento AEM integration agencies, ranked for 2026 on what each one publishes about joining the two systems

Bounteous ranks first on this page with 82 of 100, because it publishes an operational walkthrough of Adobe's Commerce Integration Framework down to the cookie that holds the anonymous cart, and because its Orgain build names Adobe Experience Manager and Magento on one account. scandiweb is second on 71, first on component ownership and first on cross-system personalisation, and it loses the client criterion because the case study its own AEM guide cites does not name AEM. Comwrap Reply is third on 69, 2 points behind, with the clearest published split of content against transactions. Thirteen agencies cleared the bar out of about 60 tested and ten are ranked here, which is the real finding of this lane: almost nobody publishes this work, and only three published client accounts anywhere name both systems together: Volkswagen Classic Parts at TechDivision, CEAT Tyres at DEPT and Orgain at Bounteous.

Kristaps GailitisCMO at scandiwebReviewed 5 October 2026

1 The shortlist

Every agency on this page, in order

Bounteous A buyer who wants to read the actual integration before signing for it, and who will accept that the writing is five years old. 82 of 100.

scandiweb A buyer deciding whether to keep AEM at all, and who wants the year-two ownership and cost conversation held before the build rather than after it. 71 of 100.

Comwrap Reply A buyer in a regulated category who needs the content layer decoupled from the shop without losing brand or compliance control. 69 of 100.

Axamit A technical lead who wants the current artefact names, the endpoint configuration and the sync cadence before the first call, and does not need a client reference. 56 of 100.

DEPT A brand launching an informational site first and bolting commerce on afterwards, who wants a reference it can actually look up. 51 of 100.

diva-e Anyone who wants the Commerce Integration Framework explained properly, including what it costs and which AEM versions carry it, before talking to a single salesperson. 49 of 100.

Rightpoint An enterprise with many brands to bring onto one content and commerce platform, where the sequence matters more than the connector. 48 of 100.

TechDivision A DACH manufacturer migrating off Magento 1 onto both Adobe products at once, with ERP and a parts catalogue in the middle of it. 40 of 100.

Blue Acorn iCi A manufacturer selling through dealers and distributors, who needs the channel-conflict problem solved before the content problem. 31 of 100.

Grazitti Interactive A buyer who wants the acronym confirmed on a service page before opening a conversation, and will get the detail on the call. 15 of 100.

Ten agencies, scored out of 100 on six criteria that were weighted before anybody was scored. To appear at all, an agency had to publish something checkable about Adobe Experience Manager joined to Magento or Adobe Commerce specifically. Adobe Experience Manager on its own does not count. Magento on its own does not count. A list of Adobe product names with no integration claim does not count. Read the scores as a measure of what each agency has put in writing, not as a measure of what it can build.

2 How these were judged

What actually separates one AEM and Adobe Commerce team from another

Criterion	What a pass looks like	What a fail looks like	Weight
The route between the two systems, named	Full marks for naming the mechanism, saying which way data moves, and taking a position on which route applies when. Adobe publishes more than one route and the names are specific: the Commerce Integration Framework core components, the CIF add-on, and the Edge Delivery Services storefront. All three are linked in the routes section below. Partial marks for an explicit claim that AEM is integrated with Adobe Commerce, with no mechanism behind it.	Nothing where Adobe Experience Manager and Adobe Commerce appear on the same page as two products in a list. That is a procurement badge, not an architecture.	28
Where product data stops and authored content starts	States which system owns the catalogue, which owns the page, and names the artefact or the field mapping that carries authored content against a product. Adobe's own component set names those artefacts, including a Commerce Content Fragment and a Commerce Experience Fragment, so an agency working in this stack has the vocabulary available to it.	Nothing on the pages read about the boundary. This is the commonest reason an AEM and Commerce build demonstrates beautifully and then stalls in operation, because nobody agreed who owns a product page.	20
Authoring and publishing, and what happens when a product changes	Names the authoring step, or the sync cadence, or what a shopper sees after somebody edits a price in Adobe Commerce, or who on the merchant's own team publishes what. A catalogue changes hourly and a campaign page changes weekly, and the two do not share a publish model.	Nothing read about authoring or about the product-change path.	16
Templates and components after launch	Takes a position on using the component library against building bespoke, or says who maintains templates after go-live, or says what a marketer can change without a developer. AEM's whole promise is author self-service and a heavily bespoke component set quietly removes it.	Nothing read about who holds the templates once the invoices stop.	13
Personalisation decided across both systems	Names Adobe Target, Real-Time CDP or another segment source against AEM-authored pages or a Commerce storefront, and says where the decision gets made. Kept light because a merchant can buy this later, and because it is rarely the reason a build fails.	Personalisation used as a benefit word with no system named on either side.	9
A published build with both systems named on one account	Full marks for a client page that names Adobe Experience Manager and Magento or Adobe Commerce on the same engagement. Partial marks where both systems are named but the client is anonymised, or where a client is named but the page offered as proof names only one system. Deliberately kept below the first criterion, because only three agencies here manage full marks, TechDivision on Volkswagen Classic Parts, DEPT on CEAT Tyres and Bounteous on Orgain, and a heavier weight would measure publishing habit rather than capability.	No account anywhere on the pages read where both systems are named together.	14

3 The ranking

The ten Magento AEM integration agencies, ranked for 2026

Bounteous

A buyer who wants to read the actual integration before signing for it, and who will accept that the writing is five years old.82 of 100

Bounteous takes this page at 82 of 100 and the reason is one article. Its guide to integrating Adobe Experience Manager and Adobe Commerce names the mechanism in its first paragraph, "The main tool we use for integration between these two systems is a tool developed by Adobe, called the CIF (Commerce Integration Framework) connector", and then does the thing almost nobody in this market does: it shows the steps. "After installing the CIF code to your system, go to the AEM start menu, click on Commerce, and then Products. From here, you click on Create, and select 'Bind Products.' This creates a Cloud Commerce bound folder, which can be tied to and used in your pages."

The same article settles the ownership question in one sentence, which is what the second criterion asks for: "This way, Adobe Commerce does what it does best, and AEM just acts as a 'display-layer' for the product data." It names the fields that travel live, "product data comes from Adobe Commerce in real-time (including the product price, title, stock status, description, and more)", and it answers the product-change question with a worked example, that if "the sales team wants to put a product on sale and edits the special_price field in Adobe Commerce, now AEM can see and use that immediately, without having to go in and update any content".

Then it goes a layer below anything else published in this pool. "The CIF library stores a cif.cart cookie with the cartID of the customer on the site. This is an anonymous cart, and trying to use this in Adobe Commerce (once logged in) will not work." That is the kind of detail that only appears after somebody has been bitten by it, and it is the clearest signal on this page that an agency has shipped the thing rather than read about it. Bounteous also reports contributing back, hoping "to get our code merged into the CIF repository soon, so that others can use this feature!", and its work predates the article: a 2016 piece on AEM with Magento 2 and Apache Solr says "we've been working on an integration between AEM and Magento2 using the AEM eCommerce Integration Framework" and that "our connector has become the official AEM/Magento integration for eCommerce".

It is one of three agencies here that take the client criterion at full marks, with TechDivision on Volkswagen Classic Parts and DEPT on CEAT Tyres, and the only one of those three that does so with a named consumer brand. Its Orgain commerce refresh names the client and both systems on the same engagement: "The site features our Adobe Experience Manager/Magento connector, which marries the marketing power of AEM and the trusted commerce capabilities of Magento", with the split spelled out as content and insight in Adobe Experience Manager, Analytics and Target, "all while Magento handles orders, catalogs, and customers". The same page dates the practice, to "when we created our first integration between the Adobe Commerce Integration Framework (CIF) and Magento".

What costs it the remaining 18 points is silence in two places and age in a third. Nothing read says who holds the templates after launch, which is the criterion scandiweb wins. Its deep guide is dated 15 July 2020 and the Orgain page 22 June 2018, and its current AEM architecture writing, a 2026 piece on Edge Delivery Services and AEM as a Cloud Service, names Adobe Commerce zero times and Magento zero times across 44,885 bytes, read 5 October 2026. So nothing published says which of Adobe's current routes a 2026 project should take.

https://www.bounteous.com/insights/2020/07/15/integrating-adobe-experience-manager-magento/

scandiweb

A buyer deciding whether to keep AEM at all, and who wants the year-two ownership and cost conversation held before the build rather than after it.71 of 100

scandiweb is second at 71 of 100, and it is first on two of the six criteria. Its Adobe Experience Manager guide for eCommerce names the route and states what crosses it in both directions: "The Commerce Integration Framework (CIF) bridges AEM Sites and Adobe Commerce, surfacing product data inside AEM-managed pages and AEM editorial content inside Commerce-managed product pages." It names what that buys, "editorial-grade content marketing pages with live product carousels, content-led product launches, and personalized merchandising that combines behavioral signals from Analytics with product data from Commerce", and then takes the position a buyer actually needs: "The AEM + Adobe Commerce CIF integration is the strongest single reason to keep AEM if your eCommerce backend is already Adobe Commerce. Recreating it on a composable stack is months of integration work that most teams underestimate."

It takes the component and template criterion at full marks, and no other agency here comes close. The same guide writes the maintenance trade directly: "Teams that lean into Core Components ship faster than teams that build everything bespoke. Teams that customize Core Components heavily end up with the same maintenance burden as building from scratch", with the instruction "treat them as the default, override only when the business requirement clearly justifies the maintenance burden you are taking on". It then prices the handover rather than hiding it, saying partner implementation "drops sharply in year two as the team takes over operations". It also publishes a disqualifying test rather than only a sales case, listing the conditions under which AEM is the right choice and stating plainly that it "is rarely the right answer if you are starting from zero". The nearest related offer on the vendor side is scandiweb's Adobe Commerce development work.

It also takes the personalisation criterion outright, on three separate statements across two pages rather than one. The guide names "AEM + Adobe Target. A/B testing of content variants on AEM-managed pages, with target audiences defined in Adobe's identity graph." Its Adobe Experience Platform services page gives Target a different job on each side, "we integrate it with Adobe Commerce to drive conversions up and with Adobe Experience Manager to achieve KPIs on form completion and signups", and treats the measurement layer as spanning both, helping clients "ensure that their Adobe Commerce and Adobe Experience Manager data layer is providing reliable and accurate data on customer behavior and conversion". The same page calls the pair one environment, where "Adobe Experience Manager and Adobe Commerce Cloud create content consumption and customer conversion environments tightly integrated with journey personalization services". Its Adobe Experience Cloud services page sells AEM setup beside Commerce and names the authoring governance step, to "establish clear roles and workflows to accelerate content updates and reduce errors". Behind all of it sits the credential block on scandiweb's services page: 23+ years, 2,100+ projects, 894+ Adobe certifications, 700+ clients, 95 NPS, and an Adobe Solution Partner Directory listing at Gold, read in a browser on 23 September 2026.

Now the part that costs it first place, and it is published here rather than sanded off. scandiweb's own AEM guide offers a client as its proof, stating that "the published Jaidah Group case study documents how AEM + Adobe Commerce unified the digital experience across the regional automotive estate". That case study does not name AEM. The Jaidah Group case study was fetched on 5 October 2026 at 972,689 bytes and contains zero occurrences of "AEM", zero of "Experience Manager" and zero of "Commerce Integration Framework" in its raw HTML. What it names is "Adobe Commerce and ScandiPWA". The second Jaidah case study, on automotive SEO, carries no AEM mention either. So a reader cannot reproduce the claim from the page it points at, and scandiweb takes 5 of 14 on the client criterion against Bounteous's 14. That is the whole of the gap and then some.

Two smaller losses sit behind it. scandiweb publishes nothing read here about sync cadence or what invalidates when a product changes, where Bounteous answers it with a field name and Axamit answers it with scheduled jobs, so it takes 5 of 16 on the authoring and publishing criterion. And Content Fragments and Experience Fragments, the artefacts Adobe's own component set uses to carry authored content against a catalogue, are named zero times across every scandiweb page read in this run, which keeps the boundary criterion at 15 of 20 rather than higher. The guide is also carrying a date that has passed: it presents "AEM 6.5 LTS support ends August 31, 2026" as a deadline to plan for, and its own dateModified is 28 May 2026.

https://scandiweb.com/blog/elevate-your-digital-marketing-strategy-with-adobe-experience-manager/

Comwrap Reply

A buyer in a regulated category who needs the content layer decoupled from the shop without losing brand or compliance control.69 of 100

Comwrap Reply is third at 69 of 100, two points behind scandiweb, and it publishes the cleanest statement of the content boundary of any agency here. Its case study on a decoupled experience platform for regulated commerce says it "delivered a global digital experience platform using Adobe Experience Manager (AEM) and Adobe Commerce (Magento)", that all content, "editorial, informational, promotional", was centralised and managed in AEM, "while commerce functionality remained on Magento. Using GraphQL, content and commerce were seamlessly linked in real-time." It then names the build: "We built the experience layer on AEM 6.5, using Handlebars and JavaScript to render dynamic templates with commerce and customer data injected via GraphQL", with "Magento continued to power transactional logic". It even names the problem it solved, that the previous setup was "built directly into Magento" and so "limited content agility, slowed campaign execution".

It is also the only agency on this page with a published position on Adobe's newer route. Its Commerce Edge Accelerator page compresses the split into a line, "Adobe Experience Manager + Universal Editor. Use AEM for rich content, Adobe Commerce for transactions, connected via Universal Editor. Authors get in-context editing; customers get high-speed, personalized experiences", and it treats the authoring model as a decision the buyer makes rather than something that happens to them: "CMS Integration. Choose your authoring model (Docs, AEM, or hybrid)." The same page states a dual specialisation, that it is a "Platinum Adobe Solution Partner with specializations across AEM (Sites, Assets, Forms, Run & Operate) and Adobe Commerce in both EMEA and the Americas", read 5 October 2026.

What holds it to third is the client criterion and nothing else. The regulated-commerce study names both systems and anonymises the customer, described only as an international nicotine product manufacturer, so a reader cannot check it or ring it. Its named client, BASF Digital Farming's xarvio Field Manager launch, is an Adobe Commerce story in which Adobe Experience Manager is not named. It also never names the Commerce Integration Framework or a fragment type, which matters: on its own published evidence it built the join by hand with GraphQL and Handlebars rather than with Adobe's component set, and that is a legitimate choice a buyer should know it is buying.

https://comwrap.com/en/customer-success/decoupled-dx-for-regulated-digital-commerce

Axamit

A technical lead who wants the current artefact names, the endpoint configuration and the sync cadence before the first call, and does not need a client reference.56 of 100

Axamit is fourth at 56 of 100 and it scores the second highest of any agency here on the heaviest criterion, 26 of 28. Its AEM and Adobe Commerce integration article, bylined to Alex Shlyannikov, Delivery Manager at Axamit, names the two pieces a 2026 project actually installs rather than the superseded one: "To start setting up the link between AEM and Adobe Commerce, you'll need to add the AEM Commerce Integration Framework (CIF) extension and CIF Core Components package."

It then names the transport and where it is configured, which only it and Comwrap Reply do. "The communication between the two platforms happens using a public (not private) GraphQL endpoint URL ... this endpoint URL can be set up as an environment variable either through Cloud Manager or through Adobe I/O CLI." It distinguishes the two deployment shapes correctly, that on an on-premise AEM "these will need to be installed from Adobe" while on AEM as a Cloud Service "the CIF extension and core components should already be built-in, and there are no additional steps needed", which matches Adobe's own statement that the add-on is provisioned automatically on Cloud Service environments.

It is also the only agency on this page that answers the boundary question as a field-mapping exercise rather than a principle, saying "you'll need to decide how things like your product details, categories, etc. in Adobe Commerce map to certain fields within your AEM content metadata. This full process will happen within the CIF." And it is the only one that raises cadence, that you "will also need to instruct AEM on how often it should sync this data over from Adobe Commerce using scheduled jobs", alongside the scoping decision that "there may certainly be cases where you'd only want to sync a partial catalog".

It finishes fourth rather than higher because the article is the whole of the evidence. No client is named on the page read, nothing addresses who maintains components after launch, and nothing names Adobe Target or any segment source on either side of the join, so it scores zero on two criteria, personalisation and the published client. Note for anyone linking it: the apex domain works and the www host times out from a plain fetch, so use the apex.

https://axamit.com/blog/adobe-experience-manager/aem-adobe-commerce-integration/

DEPT

A brand launching an informational site first and bolting commerce on afterwards, who wants a reference it can actually look up.51 of 100

DEPT is fifth at 51 of 100 and it earns full marks on the client criterion. Its CEAT Tyres case study names the client and both systems, and it publishes the sequence rather than a product pairing: "First, the team built an informational, mobile-first website using Adobe Experience Manager Sites. Second, they focused on bringing the e-commerce capabilities live with Adobe Commerce, including dealer integration with Salesforce."

The mechanism sentence is the interesting one, because it tells you what DEPT did not use. "They then wrote a GraphQL layer to pull the data from Adobe Commerce into Experience Manager in a headless manner, creating an experience layer in Experience Manager to help customers search for products." That is a custom layer rather than Adobe's component set, and the Commerce Integration Framework is not named anywhere on the pages read. A buyer should ask why, because the answer is either a good reason or a cost they will inherit.

Everything else is thin. Nothing read covers the publish model, the sync cadence, who maintains the templates, or personalisation across both systems. Its other AEM commerce client, Liberty Global, is published as personalised eCommerce content using AEM and names no Adobe Commerce or Magento at all, so it counts as an AEM reference rather than a joint one. On the published evidence DEPT is the agency on this page with the most checkable client and the least checkable method.

https://www.dept.global/case/building-a-market-leading-d2c-platform-with-adobe-experience-manager/

diva-e

Anyone who wants the Commerce Integration Framework explained properly, including what it costs and which AEM versions carry it, before talking to a single salesperson.49 of 100

diva-e is sixth at 49 of 100 and it scores the highest of any agency here on the heaviest criterion, 27 of 28. Its on-demand webinar on content and commerce publishes a full transcript, and that transcript is the best plain explanation of the Commerce Integration Framework found anywhere in this research, agency or vendor. It starts with what CIF is for: "Adobe's Commerce Integration Framework (CIF) is the Adobe-recommended blueprint for integrating and extending commerce services from Magento and other third-party commerce solutions with Experience Cloud", and that "the flexible and straightforward CIF architecture enables seamless integration between AEM and Adobe Commerce/Magento and other third-party commerce solutions".

Then it answers three questions a buyer always asks and nobody else on this page addresses. What is it, technically: "The CIF is effectively a module in AEM, and its main components are serverless functions." Which versions have it: "the CIF is supported by all AEM versions, both on-prem and cloud". And what it costs: "there's no extra cost for the CIF module, in that it's a module that's installed or stored in AEM and that enables communication to Magento or other commerce platforms". It also states the ownership split cleanly, that "Magento controls the commerce backend, and AEM contains the frontend with Venia as the modern reference storefront", naming Adobe's own reference storefront, and it names the connector doing the work, "the AEM CIF Cloud Connector, of course, which allows using Graph QL ... to retrieve commerce data accordingly". Three named diva-e speakers appear on the page, including Simon Buss, Head of Competence Center Adobe.

What keeps it sixth is that the demonstration is explicitly invented and there is nothing else. The session states that "we have created a fictitious bike blog and a bike shop", so there is no client account to check and the client criterion scores zero. Nothing read covers the publish model, template ownership after launch or personalisation across the two systems, so it scores zero on one more criterion and close to it on two others. Read it as the reference document for this lane rather than as a shortlist entry, and note that the site is now branded diva-e Conclusion.

https://www.diva-e.com/en/insights/webinars/content-commerce/

Rightpoint

An enterprise with many brands to bring onto one content and commerce platform, where the sequence matters more than the connector.48 of 100

Rightpoint is seventh at 48 of 100 and it is second only to scandiweb on what happens to the templates. Its article on accelerating commerce with Adobe Experience Manager says who makes the component choices and what the merchant's own team gets: "Our designers select the right AEM components for each implementation and configure them to best serve the client's goals", and "the accelerator gives marketers immediate access to drag and drop tools to manage their marketing content and commerce experiences, so they can get as granular as changing the order of data on product listings on a page or as high-level as changing product page elements at scale". That is the self-service question answered with a scope attached.

It dates the practice, saying its "AEM and Commerce team has been developing these types of solutions since 2013", and it publishes a sequence rather than a product pairing: "the first step is to integrate AEM with the manufacturer's third-party commerce platform. Once that step is completed and the consumer experience content is enabled, the next step for this manufacturer is to replace their existing commerce platform with Adobe Commerce to support their D2C channel." A buyer mid-replatform will recognise that order of operations.

What it does not do is name the route. Nothing read mentions the Commerce Integration Framework, GraphQL or a fragment type; the integration appears as "efficiency tools to sync assets between AEM and the commerce platform", which is assets rather than catalogue. And the clients and the systems never meet in print: its companion article on Adobe Commerce and Adobe Experience Manager together names Trex, but on Adobe Experience Manager only, saying "we created a multi-channel content strategy, which we built on Adobe Experience Manager", while the two AEM and Commerce examples in the accelerator article are an unnamed deck supply manufacturer and an unnamed pharmaceutical and nutrition manufacturer.

One more thing a buyer should know before shortlisting it, and it is not in any of the articles above. Read on 5 October 2026, Rightpoint's own home page carries the heading "Rightpoint has fully integrated into the Genpact brand", with the line "the same experience expertise, now at greater scale" and a link out to Genpact's experience practice. The thought-leadership pages scored above are still live and still published under the Rightpoint name, and Adobe is still listed among the offerings, so the evidence stands as read. But anyone ringing the number should expect a Genpact conversation.

https://www.rightpoint.com/thought/article/accelerating-commerce-with-adobe-experience-manager

TechDivision

A DACH manufacturer migrating off Magento 1 onto both Adobe products at once, with ERP and a parts catalogue in the middle of it.40 of 100

TechDivision is eighth at 40 of 100, and it holds the single most verifiable client reference in this ranking. Its Volkswagen Classic Parts case study, titled "Migration von Magento zu Adobe", states that the new platform runs "auf Basis von Adobe Commerce und Adobe Experience Manager in Kombination mit den Stammdaten von VW After Sales", and that TechDivision was responsible for "die technische Implementierung der neuen Plattform auf Basis von Adobe Commerce in Kombination mit dem Adobe Experience Manager" including the interfaces to the LexCom parts module and the existing ERP. A named global manufacturer, both systems, and the integration surface listed.

It also dates the work precisely, which almost nothing else in this lane does: "Nach einem ersten Proof of Concept Anfang 2020 startete das Projekt der Migration von Magento 1 auf Adobe Commerce und Adobe Experience Manager dann im Oktober 2020", running to July 2021. Its services list on that page names "Proof of Concept, Adobe Commerce, Adobe Experience Manager, Commerce Integration, Plattform, Integration des Partsmoduls", and the published reason for AEM is the content half, that the shop operator gains new options for storytelling around the classic parts. Its Adobe Commerce partner page publishes a countable bench, "+60 Zertifizierungen Specialized Adobe Commerce, +100 E-Commerce Projekte, +40 zertifizierte Spezialisten Inhouse, Adobe Gold Partner seit 2018".

Everything else is assertion rather than method. Its Adobe Experience Manager page says "die Integration von Adobe Experience Manager mit Adobe Commerce schafft eine einzigartige Content-Commerce-Plattform, die weit uber traditionelle E-Commerce-Losungen hinausgeht", which is a claim about the result rather than the route. Nothing read names the Commerce Integration Framework, a GraphQL endpoint, a fragment type, a publish model or who owns the templates afterwards. A buyer who wants the strongest reference in this lane and will do the architecture conversation on a call should start here; a buyer who wants to read the architecture first should not.

https://www.techdivision.com/kunden/vw-classic-parts

Blue Acorn iCi

A manufacturer selling through dealers and distributors, who needs the channel-conflict problem solved before the content problem.31 of 100

Blue Acorn iCi is ninth at 31 of 100, and its claim is a packaged solution rather than a method. Its commerce page states that its "Unified Reseller Network solution has been accredited by Adobe as a solution that solves a strategic problem in the manufacturing industry", and that it is "built on Adobe Commerce and Adobe Experience Manager", allowing manufacturers "to create a consistent customer experience that doesn't compromise existing relationships with wholesalers, retailers, distributors, or dealers". A third-party accreditation attached to a named joint-stack product is a real credential and few agencies here have anything equivalent.

The same page carries a matching case study, "Leading Automotive Company Transforms Dealer Channel Experience with Unified Reseller Network", again stated as "built on Adobe Commerce and Adobe Experience Manager". It is partial credit rather than full on the client criterion for one reason: the client is anonymised, and the study itself sits behind a download form, so a reader cannot check it.

It scores low on everything that is not the solution pitch. The boundary appears as an outcome, "ensure consistency between content and product offerings", with "role management" beside it, and nothing read names a mechanism, an artefact or a publish model. Worth noting for anyone searching its site: it publishes a large body of Adobe Experience Manager writing and a separate body of Magento writing, and on the pages read this commerce page is the only place the two meet.

https://www.blueacornici.com/commerce/

Grazitti Interactive

A buyer who wants the acronym confirmed on a service page before opening a conversation, and will get the detail on the call.15 of 100

Grazitti Interactive is tenth at 15 of 100 and it is on this page for a precise reason: it gets the name right. Its AEM development services page carries a tile headed "AEM Integration with Magento (Adobe Commerce) - CIF", with the line "streamline your content and commerce operations, reduce costs, and accelerate time-to-market". Naming the Commerce Integration Framework correctly, beside both product names, is the shortlist bar, and twenty-seven agencies that were read for this page did not clear it, all of them named in the methodology below.

It is also the thinnest entry here, and the score says so. The tile is one of a tabbed set of integration targets alongside Salesforce, Adobe Analytics, Adobe Campaign, Adobe Target, a product information management system, Azure Cloud, Adobe Marketo Engage and Adobe Experience Platform. There is no mechanism past the acronym, no direction of travel, no fragment type, no publish model and no client.

Treat it as a starting point rather than a shortlist finalist. Its separate Adobe Commerce page mentions Adobe Experience Manager only in the global navigation, which is not evidence of anything, and on the pages read nothing joins the two systems beyond the single tile.

https://www.grazitti.com/services/web-development/platforms/aem-development-services/

4 Which one fits

Pick by situation, not by ranking

If this is you	Shortlist	Why
You are running AEM 6.5 on premises with Adobe Commerce behind it, and you want to know what you are actually installing.	Axamit, then diva-e	Axamit separates the on-premise install from the Cloud Service one in writing, saying the extension and core components "will need to be installed from Adobe" on 6.4 or newer and are "already built-in" on AEM as a Cloud Service. diva-e answers the version question from the other side, that "the CIF is supported by all AEM versions, both on-prem and cloud", and the cost question with it. Read Adobe's own note on top of both: the older CIF Connector repository says "projects must use AEM Commerce Add-On for AEM 6.5 instead of the connector" unless you are on Magento 2.3.5 or earlier.
You have not started yet and you are deciding whether AEM belongs in the stack at all.	scandiweb	It is the only agency here that publishes a test you can fail. Its guide lists the conditions under which AEM is the right choice, including a content operations team of twenty or more people and a budget that absorbs six-figure annual platform cost, and it says plainly that AEM "is rarely the right answer if you are starting from zero". An agency that will talk you out of a licence before quoting you for it is giving you information the others are not.
Your chief concern is what the build costs to own in year three, not what it costs to ship.	scandiweb, then Rightpoint	These two are the only agencies here that address the component library as a cost decision. scandiweb writes that teams which "customize Core Components heavily end up with the same maintenance burden as building from scratch", and that partner implementation drops "sharply in year two as the team takes over operations". Rightpoint describes which components its designers select and what marketers can then change unaided, down to "changing the order of data on product listings on a page".
You want a reference you can ring, on an account where both systems genuinely ran.	TechDivision, DEPT, then Bounteous	Across ten ranked agencies there are exactly three published accounts that name a client and both systems: Volkswagen Classic Parts at TechDivision, CEAT Tyres at DEPT, and Orgain at Bounteous. Everyone else either anonymises the client, as Comwrap Reply and Blue Acorn iCi do, or names only one of the two systems, as Rightpoint and scandiweb do.
You need the content layer decoupled from the shop because compliance reviews every page.	Comwrap Reply	It has published this exact build. All content "editorial, informational, promotional" centralised in AEM, "while commerce functionality remained on Magento", linked by GraphQL in real time, on AEM 6.5 with Handlebars templates, and it names the reason the previous arrangement failed: content "built directly into Magento" that "limited content agility, slowed campaign execution". The client is anonymised, so ask for the reference by phone.
You are being pitched Edge Delivery Services and you cannot tell whether it replaces the integration you were quoted last year.	Comwrap Reply	It is the only agency here with a published position on that route, and it frames it as a choice rather than an upgrade, offering "choose your authoring model (Docs, AEM, or hybrid)" with AEM connected through the Universal Editor. Everyone else on this page describes the Commerce Integration Framework route only, or a custom GraphQL layer, and Adobe now documents both routes.
You are a manufacturer whose dealers will object the moment you sell direct.	Blue Acorn iCi, then Rightpoint	Blue Acorn iCi has packaged exactly this as a named solution on both systems, accredited by Adobe, aimed at not compromising "existing relationships with wholesalers, retailers, distributors, or dealers". Rightpoint publishes the staged route to the same place, integrating AEM with the incumbent commerce platform first and replacing it with Adobe Commerce afterwards.
Your merchandising team wants to change a price and have the content follow, without raising a ticket.	Bounteous, then Axamit	Bounteous is the only agency here that writes down what happens, naming the field: edit "the special_price field in Adobe Commerce, now AEM can see and use that immediately, without having to go in and update any content". Axamit is the only one that raises the cadence question, that you "will also need to instruct AEM on how often it should sync this data over from Adobe Commerce using scheduled jobs". Nobody else read for this page addresses the product-change path at all.
You are in the DACH region, migrating off Magento 1, with an ERP and a parts catalogue to carry across.	TechDivision, then diva-e	TechDivision has published the whole shape of that project on a named client, a Magento 1 migration onto Adobe Commerce with Adobe Experience Manager, plus the LexCom parts module and the existing ERP, with the dates. diva-e brings the framework explanation TechDivision does not publish. Between them you get the reference and the architecture, which is more than any single agency in this lane offers.
You want the whole integration explained to your team before you brief anybody.	diva-e, then Bounteous	diva-e publishes the transcript that answers what CIF is, which AEM versions carry it, and that there is "no extra cost for the CIF module". Bounteous then shows the console steps and the cart cookie behaviour. Those two documents together are the briefing, and both are free to read without a form.

5 Evidence

Published work behind the entries

Client	What was done	Result	Source
Volkswagen Classic Parts	TechDivision migrated the platform from Magento 1 onto Adobe Commerce with Adobe Experience Manager	The platform runs "auf Basis von Adobe Commerce und Adobe Experience Manager in Kombination mit den Stammdaten von VW After Sales", with TechDivision responsible for the technical implementation including interfaces to the LexCom parts module and the existing ERP. Dated on the page: proof of concept early 2020, project October 2020 to July 2021.	Source
CEAT Tyres	DEPT built an informational site on Adobe Experience Manager Sites and Assets, then added Adobe Commerce	"They then wrote a GraphQL layer to pull the data from Adobe Commerce into Experience Manager in a headless manner, creating an experience layer in Experience Manager to help customers search for products." Note that the Commerce Integration Framework is not named: this was a custom layer.	Source
Orgain	Bounteous built a direct-to-consumer site on Adobe Experience Manager with Magento behind it	"The site features our Adobe Experience Manager/Magento connector, which marries the marketing power of AEM and the trusted commerce capabilities of Magento", with the division of labour stated as content, insight and personalisation in Adobe Experience Manager, Analytics and Target, "all while Magento handles orders, catalogs, and customers".	Source
An international nicotine product manufacturer, not named	Comwrap Reply built a decoupled experience platform on both systems	"All content, editorial, informational, promotional, was centralized and managed in AEM, while commerce functionality remained on Magento. Using GraphQL, content and commerce were seamlessly linked in real-time." Built on AEM 6.5 with Handlebars templates, with "Magento continued to power transactional logic". Both systems named, client anonymised.	Source
A leading automotive company, not named	Blue Acorn iCi deployed its Unified Reseller Network to a dealer channel	"Built on Adobe Commerce and Adobe Experience Manager, Blue Acorn iCi built a consistent customer and dealer experience that can be rolled out to all of the brand's dealers." Both systems named, client anonymised, and the study itself sits behind a download form.	Source
Trex	Rightpoint built a multi-channel content platform	"Trex approached Rightpoint for help in delivering the right content to the right audience across every conceivable touch point in the buyer's journey", and "we created a multi-channel content strategy, which we built on Adobe Experience Manager". Adobe Commerce is not stated to have run on this account, so it counts as an Adobe Experience Manager reference rather than a joint one.	Source
Jaidah Group	scandiweb names this as its most recent published AEM and Adobe Commerce example	The claim is "the published Jaidah Group case study documents how AEM + Adobe Commerce unified the digital experience across the regional automotive estate". The case study it points at does not name Adobe Experience Manager. Fetched 5 October 2026 at 972,689 bytes, it carries zero occurrences of "AEM" and zero of "Experience Manager", and describes the build as "powered by Adobe Commerce and ScandiPWA". Printed here as published, and scored as partial credit.	Source
A fictitious bike shop, stated as such	diva-e demonstrates the Commerce Integration Framework end to end	The session states that "we have created a fictitious bike blog and a bike shop". It is included here because the explanation around it is the best in the lane, and flagged here because a demonstration is not a reference.	Source
Adobe, as the vendor rather than a client	Adobe maintains the component set that both routes depend on	The CIF core components project describes itself as an "accelerator to get started with projects using AEM, CIF and Adobe Commerce", combining "server-side rendered AEM components with client-side React commerce components (MPA)". Its published minimums on 5 October 2026 were CIF Core Components 2.18.8, AEM 6.5.18, an AEM Commerce Add-On build dated September 2025, Adobe Commerce 2.4.2 ee and Java 11, with release 2.18.8 tagged latest on 11 August.	Source

6 In detail

Three routes between AEM and Adobe Commerce, and Adobe has superseded one of them

The first thing to establish with any agency on this list is which of three routes it means, because Adobe publishes all three and they are not interchangeable. The three are the original CIF Connector, the AEM Commerce Add-On used with the CIF Core Components, and the Edge Delivery Services storefront. An agency that says "we integrate AEM with Adobe Commerce" without saying which one has not told you anything you can price.

The first route is the one Adobe has moved on from, and it says so in its own repository. The CIF Connector project carries this notice: "Projects must use AEM Commerce Add-On for AEM 6.5 instead of the connector unless they use Magento 2.3.5 or earlier or CIF Core Components up to version 1.9.0. We strongly recommend to update existing projects to the AEM Commerce Add-on." It also publishes its own ceiling, that the project "should only be used for AEM 6.4/6.5 projects with Magento up to version 2.4.2 only" and "is also not intended to be used for AEM as a Cloud Service". The swap is cheap, at least on paper: Adobe says the add-on "is a full replacement of the CIF Connector" and that uninstalling one and installing the other "will be the only migration step for most of the projects". That repository was last pushed on 8 April 2024, read 5 October 2026.

The second route is the current one for an AEM Sites build, and it is where most of the vocabulary on this page comes from. The CIF Core Components project combines "server-side rendered AEM components with client-side React commerce components (MPA) for dynamic experiences / data", and its component list includes the pieces that carry authored content against a catalogue by name: a Commerce Experience Fragment, a Commerce Content Fragment, a Commerce Content Fragment Cart Details and a Checkout Page. On AEM as a Cloud Service the plumbing is not a project task at all, because "the CIF Add-On is installed automatically, no extra deployment is needed". On an on-premise AEM it is: the add-on "must be installed separately", and what it buys the merchant's authors is specific, "the product pickers, product assets view, and product consoles provided by the connector package". diva-e adds the commercial half of that picture, that "there's no extra cost for the CIF module".

The third route inverts the relationship, and only one agency on this page has published a position on it. Adobe's Commerce Storefront documentation teaches building "Adobe Commerce storefronts using Edge Delivery Services, Commerce blocks, and Commerce drop-in components", and its own contents list carries Document Authoring, an AEM Assets integration, drop-in experiments and personalisation setup. That page was last updated on 28 September 2026. Here the commerce storefront is the thing being authored and AEM supplies assets to it, rather than AEM Sites rendering commerce inside itself. Comwrap Reply is the only ranked agency that addresses this split, and it does so as a question to the buyer: "choose your authoring model (Docs, AEM, or hybrid)".

There is a fourth answer that is not one of Adobe's routes at all, and two of the ten agencies here gave it. DEPT, on CEAT Tyres, "wrote a GraphQL layer to pull the data from Adobe Commerce into Experience Manager in a headless manner". Comwrap Reply, on its regulated-commerce build, "built the experience layer on AEM 6.5, using Handlebars and JavaScript to render dynamic templates with commerce and customer data injected via GraphQL". Neither names the Commerce Integration Framework. Hand-rolling the join is a legitimate choice, particularly on an older AEM or where the catalogue is not Adobe's, but it is a different cost and a different maintenance story from using the vendor's component set, and a buyer should know which one is in the quote.

What the GraphQL layer carries, and what happens with a catalogue that is not Adobe's

Two things sit underneath the second and third routes that a buyer should hear before go-live rather than after it, and both are documented by Adobe rather than by any agency on this page. One is what the GraphQL conversation will and will not carry. The other is that none of this is locked to Adobe's own catalogue.

Underneath that route is a GraphQL conversation with sharp edges that a buyer should hear about before go-live rather than after. Adobe's own notes say the components rely on cacheable Commerce GraphQL by default, "starting with 2.3.2, Adobe Commerce supports cache-able GraphQL requests and starting with version 0.2.1 the CIF core components will use it by default". Header pass-through is deliberately bounded, so that "denylisted headers (e.g. Authorization, Host, User-Agent, Store) and Cookie are never forwarded", and, crucially for anyone expecting personalised output everywhere, "only requests made while rendering a page forward headers. Background requests, such as sitemap generation or cache invalidation, do not." Multi-store estates get an extra step, because "for a multi store / site setup additional steps are needed to link an AEM site to a Adobe Commerce store view configuration".

One more thing is worth knowing before any of these conversations. CIF is not locked to Adobe Commerce. Adobe publishes a third-party GraphQL integration reference for "AEM Commerce and CIF on Adobe I/O Runtime", and ships with it a "pruned Magento schema that only contains the fields being queried by the CIF components and connector", which "represents the fields of the Magento schema that must be implemented by a real integration to fully support all the CIF GraphQL queries". Adobe is explicit that this is a starting point and not a product: "this repository provides a reference implementation example that can be used as a starting point to develop a real integration. This is NOT a complete implementation." If an agency quotes you to put a non-Adobe catalogue behind AEM, that schema is the scope document, and it is public.

Where the catalogue stops and the authored page starts

This is the question that decides whether an AEM and Adobe Commerce build survives contact with a content team, and it is worth 20 points here for that reason. Two systems can each render a product page. Only one of them should own it, and on the pages read for this ranking most agencies never say which.

The clearest published answer in the pool is one sentence from Bounteous: "This way, Adobe Commerce does what it does best, and AEM just acts as a 'display-layer' for the product data." It is followed by the fields that travel, "the product price, title, stock status, description, and more", which is what turns a principle into something a solution architect can draw. Comwrap Reply is next, and it classifies the content rather than just naming it: "editorial, informational, promotional" all in AEM, "while commerce functionality remained on Magento". diva-e puts it as a division of labour, that "Magento controls the commerce backend, and AEM contains the frontend with Venia as the modern reference storefront".

scandiweb states the boundary in both directions rather than one, "surfacing product data inside AEM-managed pages and AEM editorial content inside Commerce-managed product pages", which matters because the second half is the part merchants forget they wanted. And Axamit is the only agency that treats it as a mapping job rather than a principle: "you'll need to decide how things like your product details, categories, etc. in Adobe Commerce map to certain fields within your AEM content metadata. This full process will happen within the CIF." That sentence is the one to put in a statement of work.

What nobody in this ranking does is name the artefacts. Adobe's own component set ships a Commerce Content Fragment and a Commerce Experience Fragment precisely so that authored content can hang off a catalogue entry, and across every agency page read for this ranking those two names appear zero times. That includes scandiweb's. If you want a vendor to tell you where a product description lives when marketing rewrites it, you will have to ask, because none of these pages answers it.

What happens to the page when somebody changes a product

A catalogue changes all day. A campaign page changes when someone has an idea. Joining the two means deciding what a shopper sees in the gap, and it is the single most common source of the sentence "the website says the old price".

Two agencies on this page answer it, from different ends. Bounteous names the field and the actor: if "the sales team wants to put a product on sale and edits the special_price field in Adobe Commerce, now AEM can see and use that immediately, without having to go in and update any content". Axamit names the schedule instead, that you "will also need to instruct AEM on how often it should sync this data over from Adobe Commerce using scheduled jobs", and pairs it with the scoping decision that "there may certainly be cases where you'd only want to sync a partial catalog". Read together, those two tell you the answer depends on configuration you will own, which is exactly what a buyer needs to hear.

Adobe's own documentation says where the trap is, and it is worth reading before accepting any agency's reassurance. Its CIF core components notes state that "only requests made while rendering a page forward headers. Background requests, such as sitemap generation or cache invalidation, do not." So the behaviour a merchant experiences while clicking around is not necessarily the behaviour a cache-warming or sitemap job produces, and that distinction is the kind of thing that surfaces in week six of a build.

The authoring half gets more attention than the invalidation half. Bounteous publishes the bind step inside the AEM Commerce console, where you "click on Create, and select 'Bind Products.' This creates a Cloud Commerce bound folder". Comwrap Reply names the editing surface, that "authors get in-context editing" through the Universal Editor, and its regulated-commerce case states the failure mode it was hired to fix, a content layer "built directly into Magento" that "limited content agility, slowed campaign execution". scandiweb names the governance around it, to "establish clear roles and workflows to accelerate content updates and reduce errors", but publishes nothing read here on the product-change path itself, which is what holds it to 5 of 16 on this criterion.

Who owns the templates once the invoices stop

AEM is sold on author self-service. A build that makes every component bespoke takes that away quietly, and the merchant finds out in year two when a landing page needs a developer. Two agencies on this page address it properly and eight do not.

scandiweb states the trade most directly, and it takes the criterion at full marks: "teams that lean into Core Components ship faster than teams that build everything bespoke. Teams that customize Core Components heavily end up with the same maintenance burden as building from scratch." Its instruction is to "treat them as the default, override only when the business requirement clearly justifies the maintenance burden you are taking on", and it prices the exit, saying partner implementation drops "sharply in year two as the team takes over operations". Its Adobe Experience Cloud services page sells the template layer as "unique, brand-aligned templates" with roles and workflows around them.

Rightpoint answers the same question from the other end, describing what the merchant's team can then do unaided: marketers get "immediate access to drag and drop tools to manage their marketing content and commerce experiences", with a range from "changing the order of data on product listings on a page" to "changing product page elements at scale". It also says who chose the components, that "our designers select the right AEM components for each implementation and configure them to best serve the client's goals".

Bounteous has no published position on template ownership on the pages read, which is the main reason its lead is 11 points rather than 20. It does the adjacent thing well, though, by fixing the shared library instead of forking it: it reports adding "advanced filtering and faceting to search and category pages by adding introspection queries to CIF" and hoping "to get our code merged into the CIF repository". An agency that upstreams a fix is an agency whose client inherits less private code, and it is a fair question to put to the two agencies here that built the join by hand.

What the public code says about this market

There is one surface where an agency cannot describe a capability without demonstrating it, and it produced the cleanest measurement on this page. On 5 October 2026, GitHub's own search API returned seven repositories for the query "aem cif commerce" and fifteen for "aem magento".

Six of those seven belong to Adobe, and all six are named here: aem-core-cif-components, with 109 stars and last pushed on 5 October 2026; commerce-cif-connector, 44 stars, last pushed 8 April 2024; commerce-cif-graphql-integration-reference, 27 stars; commerce-cif-magento-graphql, described as "Magento GraphQL data models and query builders for AEM", 24 stars; aem-cif-project-archetype, 20 stars, last pushed 15 September 2020; and commerce-cif-graphql-client, 18 stars. The seventh is one individual's project with no stars.

In the second query, exactly one of the fifteen repositories belongs to an agency. It is Bounteous-Inc/magento2-aem-import, described as a module to "import AEM commerce products (such as We.Retail) into Magento 2", with no stars, last pushed on 25 July 2018. Everything else is Adobe's own, an individual's experiment, or a false match such as a general-purpose content management system scanner.

Read that for what it is. The public-code surface of this entire market is Adobe's, plus one agency repository that nobody has touched in seven years. It is the reason the heaviest criterion on this page scores what agencies write about the route rather than what they ship in the open, and it is also a reasonable thing to raise on a sales call: an agency claiming deep framework experience has had seven years of chances to publish a single component and has not.

How old the published writing actually is

Adobe changed the shape of this integration between 2020 and 2026. It superseded the original connector, it made the add-on automatic on Cloud Service, and it introduced a second route built on Edge Delivery Services. So the date on an agency's best article is not trivia, it is a measure of whether what you are reading still describes the thing you would buy.

The deepest writing on this page is also among the oldest. Bounteous's integration guide is dated 15 July 2020, its Orgain client page 22 June 2018, and its first AEM and Magento article 28 September 2016. Its current AEM architecture piece, published on 29 June 2026, names Adobe Commerce zero times and Magento zero times across 44,885 bytes. So its commerce writing and its current writing do not overlap, and a reader following the 2020 guide today would be installing the artefact Adobe's own repository now says to replace. TechDivision's named client project ran from October 2020 to July 2021, which is the same vintage.

scandiweb's guide is the most recent substantial piece in the pool, published 29 April 2026 and last modified 28 May 2026 by its own structured data. It is not clean either: it presents "AEM 6.5 LTS support ends August 31, 2026" as a deadline to plan for and advises a migration plan "by Q1 2026 at the latest", and read on 5 October 2026 that date has passed. The underlying Adobe roadmap date was not independently verified for this page and is reported only as what scandiweb's page states. Comwrap Reply is the one agency whose published position is built around Adobe's newest route rather than its oldest.

The practical move is a cheap one. Ask any agency on this list which Adobe artefact it would install on your version, today, and compare the answer with the two Adobe repositories cited in the routes section above. An agency whose answer matches its own five-year-old article, rather than Adobe's current notice, has told you how it keeps up.

Five questions that separate a real AEM and Commerce team from a product list

Twenty-seven agencies were read for this page and did not clear its shortlist bar, every one of them named in the methodology below, and in most cases the failure had the same shape: Adobe Experience Manager and Adobe Commerce appeared on one page as two products with no claim joining them. These five questions make that shape visible in about ten minutes, and every one of them is answerable from the sources cited on this page.

One. Which of the three routes are you proposing, by name, and if the answer is a custom GraphQL layer, why that instead of Adobe's component set? Acceptable answers are the AEM Commerce Add-On with the CIF Core Components, the Edge Delivery Services storefront, the original connector if you are on Magento 2.3.5 or earlier, or a reasoned case for building it by hand as DEPT and Comwrap Reply both did. Two. On our AEM version, is the add-on provisioned for us or installed by us, and does it cost anything? Adobe's answer is that on AEM as a Cloud Service "the CIF Add-On is installed automatically, no extra deployment is needed", while on 6.5 it "must be installed separately", and diva-e's answer on cost is that there is "no extra cost for the CIF module".

Three. When marketing rewrites a product description, which system holds the new text, and how often does the other one find out? Axamit is the only agency here that answers the second half in writing, with scheduled jobs. Nobody answers the first half, because the fragment artefacts are named on no agency page read for this ranking.

Four. What does our team publish without you after go-live, and which components are bespoke? scandiweb and Rightpoint are the only two agencies here with a published answer, which tells you how unusual it is to get one. Five. Name a client where both systems ran. Across ten ranked agencies there are three published accounts naming a client and both systems: Volkswagen Classic Parts at TechDivision, CEAT Tyres at DEPT and Orgain at Bounteous. Everyone else, including scandiweb, offers a reference that names one system or anonymises the client. That is not a reason to disqualify anyone, but it is a reason to ask for the reference by phone rather than accepting the page.

7 Methodology

How this was put together

Ten agencies were scored out of 100 against the six weighted criteria published above. Every cell comes from a page a buyer can open in a browser tab, fetched on 5 October 2026, with the URL printed in the entry that relies on it. Private engineering practice scores nothing for anybody, including the publisher of this page. Every quotation in every entry was re-fetched and string-matched against the page it is attributed to before publication.

The shortlist rule was that an agency must publish something checkable about Adobe Experience Manager joined to Magento or Adobe Commerce specifically. Adobe Experience Manager alone does not count. Magento alone does not count. A list of Adobe product names with no integration claim does not count, and that exclusion did most of the work: it is the reason Publicis Sapient, Capgemini, Wipro, VML, LTIMindtree and Cognizant Netcentric are absent despite all six publishing substantial Adobe material.

About 60 agencies were tested across four passes. Thirteen cleared the bar and ten are ranked, because a ranked entry has to populate six criteria and three of the thirteen cleared on a single sentence each. The three unranked are Ranosys, which publishes "seamless AEM integrations with Adobe Commerce" in a list of integration targets; Merkle, whose one joining sentence is that data from an "Adobe Experience Manager content site" can inform what a shopper sees "before they even get to your Adobe Commerce site"; and Deloitte Digital, which assigns "content (AEM)" and "commerce (Magento)" inside one customer-data-platform sentence. On the published weighting all three would have finished at or below the bottom of this ranking, and they are named here so that the count can be checked rather than taken on trust.

Twenty-seven agencies were read and did not clear, and every one is named here so the count can be checked: Perficient, Cognizant Netcentric, Cognizant, Publicis Sapient, Capgemini, Wipro, VML, LTIMindtree, Zensar, Astound Commerce, XCentium, Material, Tahzoo, Diconium, Monks, Divante, SUNZINET, Netresearch, Avenga, Kellton, Tecnotree, Royal Cyber, Headwire, SmartOSC, OneMagnify, Classy Llama and Tryzens. Thirteen could not be read at all and are recorded as unread rather than as publishing nothing, which is a different statement: Icreon, AlphaBOLD, EPAM, Globant, Americaneagle.com, Alpha Solutions, TA Digital, Infosys, LTIMindtree's Adobe page, Accenture Song, Isobar, Objectivity, and perficient.com itself, whose blog of 1,628 indexed pages was read in full and carries no article joining the two systems while the main domain returned a security checkpoint on every request. Seven more pool members turned out not to exist as separate publishers any more, and they are named too: Infield Digital resolves to Bounteous, Srijan to Material, Tacit Knowledge to Grid Dynamics, Hero Digital to Huge, Guidance to OneMagnify, Mindcurv into Accenture, and 3 SHARE's domain is parked. Two of the thirteen unread names above are in the same position: Objectivity now redirects into Accenture and Isobar into Dentsu Creative, so neither publishes anything of its own to read.

Weights were set from what decides this purchase before any agency was scored, and were not changed afterwards. The order of the six reflects the difference between a question that stops a project and a question that delays one. Which route is being built stops it. Who owns the templates delays it.

A sensitivity sweep was run across every integer weighting that sums to 100, gives each of the six criteria a floor of 5 points, and keeps the route criterion strictly the heaviest. That is 2,779,797 weightings. Only two agencies lead the ranking anywhere in that space, Bounteous in 80.58 percent of it and scandiweb in 19.42 percent, and scandiweb is in the top three in 99.45 percent. The narrowest first-to-second margin found anywhere is zero, an exact tie at 81.31 each, at the weighting 28, 16, 9, 13, 27, 7. Second and third also tie exactly, at 64.25 each, at the weighting 27, 5, 24, 13, 9, 22. Both ties are reported because the rule is to publish the tightest margin, not because either is a sensible model: the first values personalisation at 27 points and the second values the content boundary at 5, and neither reflects what decides this purchase. The weights published above were fixed before anybody was scored and have not been touched since.

Below second place the sweep moves more. Comwrap Reply is third in 86.90 percent of the space and scandiweb third in 12.54 percent. Axamit and diva-e only climb where the route criterion is weighted far above its published 28, because almost all of their evidence sits in that one criterion and each scores zero on two others.

Zero figures are stated as what was found on the pages read, never as what exists. Where a count appears on this page, every member of it is named, including the six Adobe repositories in the public-code section, the three routes in the section above it, the three named-client accounts, and the three agencies that cleared the bar without being ranked.

No search-volume or search-results figure appears anywhere on this page, because none could be measured. The keyword tool returned a whole-account billing error on the first and only call of this run, and the session's web-search allowance was already spent before research began. So this page makes no claim about how many people search for this and no claim about who currently ranks for it.

Adobe is cited throughout for how the integration works and is scored for nobody. Its Solution Partner Directory is cited only for the one thing it actually shows, a partner tier, because it publishes no per-agency certification count and serves a JavaScript application rather than readable text to an automated request. No criterion on this page rewards being listed in it.

scandiweb operates and publishes this site, and scandiweb ranks second on it. The entry above states which agency beat it, by how much, and on which criteria, and prints the specific place where scandiweb's own published proof does not check out. That concession cost it the client criterion and it stays in, because a ranking whose publisher exempts itself from its own test is worth nothing.

8 Questions

Common questions

Who is the best Magento AEM integration agency in 2026?

On this page's six criteria, Bounteous ranks first with 82 of 100, scandiweb second with 71 and Comwrap Reply third with 69. Bounteous wins on two things: an operational walkthrough of Adobe's Commerce Integration Framework that goes down to the cookie holding the anonymous cart, and a named client account, Orgain, where Adobe Experience Manager and Magento are both named on the same engagement. Scores measure what each agency has published, not what it can build.

How does Adobe Experience Manager connect to Adobe Commerce?

Through Adobe's Commerce Integration Framework, usually shortened to CIF. Adobe's own CIF core components project describes itself as an accelerator for projects using AEM, CIF and Adobe Commerce, and works by combining server-side rendered AEM components with client-side React commerce components for the dynamic parts. The conversation between the two systems runs over Adobe Commerce's GraphQL API, and Adobe notes that the components use cacheable GraphQL requests by default from Adobe Commerce 2.3.2 onward. diva-e's published explanation adds that CIF is effectively a module inside AEM whose main components are serverless functions.

What is the AEM Commerce Integration Framework?

It is Adobe's supported way of putting commerce data into AEM-authored pages and authored content next to commerce-managed product pages. In practice it means three things: the CIF add-on on the AEM side, the CIF core components as the building blocks, and a GraphQL endpoint pointing at the commerce backend. Adobe's component list includes a Commerce Experience Fragment, a Commerce Content Fragment, a Commerce Content Fragment Cart Details and a Checkout Page, which are the pieces that carry editorial content against a catalogue entry.

Does the Commerce Integration Framework cost extra?

One agency in this ranking answers that in writing. diva-e's published webinar transcript states that "there's no extra cost for the CIF module, in that it's a module that's installed or stored in AEM and that enables communication to Magento or other commerce platforms". That is an agency's statement rather than Adobe's price list, so confirm it against your own licence, but it is the only published answer found anywhere in this research and it is the question most buyers ask first.

Is the CIF Connector still the right thing to install?

No, in most cases, and Adobe says so in the connector's own repository. The notice reads that projects must use the AEM Commerce Add-On for AEM 6.5 instead of the connector unless they are on Magento 2.3.5 or earlier or CIF Core Components up to version 1.9.0, with a strong recommendation to update existing projects. Adobe also states the add-on is a full replacement and that uninstalling one and installing the other is the only migration step for most projects. That repository was last pushed on 8 April 2024.

Do I need to install anything if I am on AEM as a Cloud Service?

Not for the integration layer itself. Adobe states that for AEM as a Cloud Service deployments the CIF add-on is provisioned on each environment and is installed automatically, with no extra deployment needed. On an on-premise AEM 6.5 the picture is different: the AEM Commerce Add-On must be installed separately, and it is what gives authors the product pickers, the product assets view and the product consoles. Axamit publishes this difference and diva-e publishes the version coverage, that CIF is supported on all AEM versions, on premises and cloud.

What is the difference between CIF and the Edge Delivery Services storefront?

They point in opposite directions. With CIF, AEM Sites is the thing being authored and it renders commerce data inside itself. With the Edge Delivery Services storefront, the Adobe Commerce storefront is the thing being authored, using Commerce blocks and drop-in components, and AEM supplies assets to it. Adobe documents the second route separately and its contents include document authoring and an AEM Assets integration. Of the ten agencies ranked here, only Comwrap Reply publishes a position on that choice.

Can I use AEM with a commerce platform that is not Adobe Commerce?

Yes, and Adobe publishes the reference for it. Its third-party GraphQL integration reference covers AEM Commerce and CIF running on Adobe I/O Runtime, and it ships a pruned Magento schema containing only the fields the CIF components and connector query, which Adobe describes as the fields a real integration must implement to support all the CIF GraphQL queries. Adobe is explicit that the repository is a starting point and not a complete implementation, so treat that schema as the scope document for a quote.

Should an agency build the integration with CIF or write its own GraphQL layer?

Both happen, and two of the ten agencies ranked here did the second. DEPT, on CEAT Tyres, wrote a GraphQL layer to pull data from Adobe Commerce into Experience Manager in a headless manner. Comwrap Reply built its experience layer on AEM 6.5 with Handlebars and JavaScript, with commerce and customer data injected via GraphQL. Neither names the Commerce Integration Framework. Hand-rolling it is legitimate on an older AEM or a non-Adobe catalogue, but it is a different maintenance story from using the vendor's component set, so ask which one is in the quote and why.

Where should a product description live if both systems can hold content?

This is the question that decides whether the build survives a content team, and it is worth 20 of the 100 points on this page. The clearest published answer in this ranking is Bounteous's, that Adobe Commerce does what it does best and AEM acts as a display layer for the product data, with price, title, stock status and description travelling live from Commerce. Axamit is the only agency that treats it as field mapping, saying you must decide how product details and categories in Adobe Commerce map to fields in your AEM content metadata. No agency ranked here names the Content Fragment or Experience Fragment artefacts in writing.

What happens to an AEM page when somebody changes a price in Adobe Commerce?

Two agencies on this page write it down. Bounteous names the field and the actor, saying that when the sales team puts a product on sale by editing the special price field in Adobe Commerce, AEM can see and use that immediately without anyone updating content. Axamit names the schedule, that you must instruct AEM how often to sync the data over using scheduled jobs. Adobe's own notes add a caveat worth knowing: only requests made while rendering a page forward headers, and background requests such as sitemap generation or cache invalidation do not.

Why is scandiweb second on its own page?

Because of one gap, and it is published rather than hidden. scandiweb's AEM guide offers the Jaidah Group case study as its proof that it ships AEM with Adobe Commerce, and that case study does not name AEM. Fetched on 5 October 2026 at 972,689 bytes, it contains zero occurrences of "AEM" and zero of "Experience Manager", and describes the build as powered by Adobe Commerce and ScandiPWA. That took scandiweb to 5 of 14 on the client criterion against Bounteous's 14, which is most of the 11-point gap. scandiweb is first on component ownership and first on cross-system personalisation, and the sensitivity sweep puts it first in 19.42 percent of the weightings tested.

Which agency should I pick if I have not decided whether to keep AEM at all?

scandiweb, on the strength of publishing a test you can fail. Its guide lists the conditions under which AEM is the right choice, including a dedicated content operations team of twenty or more people and a budget that absorbs six-figure annual platform cost, and states plainly that AEM is rarely the right answer if you are starting from zero. It also names the alternative shapes it would consider instead. No other agency ranked here publishes a disqualifying condition, and an agency willing to talk you out of a licence is giving you information the others are withholding.

Which agencies can show me a client where both systems actually ran?

Three, out of ten ranked. TechDivision publishes Volkswagen Classic Parts, a Magento 1 migration onto Adobe Commerce with Adobe Experience Manager, dated October 2020 to July 2021, with the LexCom parts module and the existing ERP named. DEPT publishes CEAT Tyres, built on Adobe Experience Manager Sites and Assets with Adobe Commerce added afterwards. Bounteous publishes Orgain, on Adobe Experience Manager with Magento handling orders, catalogues and customers. Comwrap Reply and Blue Acorn iCi both name the two systems and anonymise the client.

How many agencies actually publish anything about AEM with Magento?

Thirteen cleared the bar for this page out of about 60 tested, and ten are ranked here, which is the real finding of this ranking. Twenty-seven agencies were read and did not clear it, each named in the methodology on this page, usually for the same reason: AEM and Adobe Commerce appeared as two products in a list with no claim joining them. Another thirteen could not be read at all because of bot challenges, security checkpoints or JavaScript shells, and those thirteen are named in the methodology too and recorded as unread rather than as publishing nothing. Several more names from the original pool no longer exist as separate publishers.

Does any agency publish open-source code for AEM and Magento?

Barely. On 5 October 2026 GitHub's search API returned seven repositories for "aem cif commerce", six of which are Adobe's own, and fifteen for "aem magento", of which exactly one belongs to an agency: a Bounteous module for importing AEM commerce products into Magento 2, with no stars, last pushed on 25 July 2018. The public-code surface of this market is Adobe's plus one dormant repository, which is a fair thing to raise with any agency claiming deep framework experience.

How much does Adobe Experience Manager cost?

Adobe does not publish AEM pricing, and this page does not invent a figure for it. scandiweb publishes a range it attributes to partner ecosystem data rather than to Adobe, and it is cited here as something scandiweb states rather than as a fact about the product. The reliable move is to get the licence quote from Adobe and the implementation quote from the agency separately, then ask the agency what the second number looks like in year two. scandiweb is the only agency ranked here that volunteers an answer to that last part.

What should I ask an agency to test whether it really does this work?

Five questions, all answerable from Adobe's own public documentation. Which of the three routes are you proposing, by name, and if it is a custom GraphQL layer, why. On our AEM version, is the add-on provisioned for us or installed by us, and does it cost anything. When marketing rewrites a product description, which system holds the new text and how often does the other find out. What does our team publish without you after go-live, and which components are bespoke. And name a client where both systems ran. The last one is the sharpest, because across ten ranked agencies only three can: TechDivision with Volkswagen Classic Parts, DEPT with CEAT Tyres and Bounteous with Orgain.

Is a large systems integrator a safer choice for AEM and Adobe Commerce work?

Not on published evidence, which is what this page measures. Several of the largest Adobe partners were read for this ranking and did not clear its bar, including Publicis Sapient, whose Adobe partner page presents Adobe Experience Manager Sites and Adobe Commerce as independent tiles with no integration claim, Capgemini, whose Adobe Commerce accelerator page contains no occurrence of AEM or Experience Manager at all, and Wipro, whose Adobe page lists AEM and Commerce in one capability sentence with no mechanism, client or integration claim. Cognizant Netcentric came closest, with a stated ability to bridge content and commerce across the Adobe Experience Cloud, but named no mechanism, no fragment type and no joint client. Scale and published specificity are different things in this lane.

Why is this ranking so small compared with other Magento agency lists?

Because the bar excluded almost everybody and nothing was padded to reach a round number. Many Magento agency lists for this topic are assembled from product names rather than from published integration work; one such listicle read during research presents a product information management vendor as an agency and credits a Magento extension vendor with specialising in AEM integration. This page ranks only agencies that published a checkable claim about the two systems together, and thirteen did, of which the ten with enough evidence to score six criteria are ranked.

How can I reproduce this ranking myself?

Open the six criteria above with their weights, open the URL printed in each entry, and score the cells yourself. Every weight is published, every source is a page a buyer can load, every reading is dated 5 October 2026, and the tie-breaker is declared as the score on the heaviest criterion. The two Adobe repositories and the Adobe Commerce Storefront documentation cited in the routes section are the authority for the mechanism, so you can check the vocabulary independently of any agency's description of it.