No leading archviz studio publishes a public rate card

The picture

Three studios frequently named as leaders in architectural visualisation publish no pricing information on their own sites, as retrieved on 16 September 2026. MIR's site lists Booking, Finance and Career contacts and describes 'Big Projects' and 'Small Projects' by scope, not cost. DBOX's site lists a Team, an About page and a Contact page, with awards and a client roster, but no rate information. Kilograph's Contact page offers only an enquiry form asking for project information, with no published fee structure. This is a documented absence across all three sites, not an inference from silence elsewhere.

What the documents show

Each site's own navigation is the evidence: MIR's menu runs Work, Archive, About and Mirseum; DBOX's runs Team, About and Contact; Kilograph's runs Contact and its individual project pages. None contains a pricing, rates or packages page, and none of the About or Contact pages that do exist mentions a fee, day rate or package price. MIR's About page states the studio is 'currently fully staffed' and describes its selection criteria for new projects in terms of fit rather than budget, which shows the studio positions client relationships as curated rather than transactional. No document states that pricing is available on request through a channel this entry could verify; the absence is what each site's own structure shows, not a claim that no studio will quote a price privately.

What it is allowed to decide

This finding concerns market structure rather than a specific artifact, so the decision-class ladder does not attach to it directly; the underlying visualisation services these studios sell without a public rate card would, on the evidence in the sibling entries about DBOX, Kilograph and MIR, plausibly support Class 2 to Class 3 decisions at most. None of the six authorities applies to a pricing practice, and this entry does not attempt to force one; it records what a prospective client can and cannot learn from each site before making contact.

The disclosure label

A commissioning note describing this gap would read, in substance: as retrieved 16 September 2026, none of MIR, DBOX or Kilograph publishes pricing on its own site; a buyer cannot independently budget a visualisation package without direct enquiry; no decision class or authority is established by this finding, since it concerns market transparency rather than an image's technical claims; dated 16 September 2026. A procurement lead or client-side project manager preparing to commission visualisation work would plausibly assert it, since the gap is theirs to close before a brief can be costed.

• Has this studio quoted a specific figure, or only agreed to discuss scope before pricing?
• Is a public case study's cost, if quoted by a third party, confirmed by the studio itself?
• Would a published rate card change how a studio selects projects, given MIR's own stated preference for curated client fit?

A quote-only market is not evidence of overcharging or of any wrongdoing by these studios, none of which is alleged here; it is simply a gap this entry records rather than fills, leaving the figure for a reader's own enquiry rather than an invented range.