Smart Hydroponic Container Farming Systems Vertical Container Farming Hydroponic Growing System

Name: Smart Hydroponic Container Farming Systems Vertical Container Farming Hydroponic Growing System
Brand: WEIFANG SAINPOLY AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.
SKU: 2211189445

Shandong, ChinaWEIFANG SAINPOLY AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.

US$13,000.00-18,000.00

1 Piece

Product profile

Customization

Available

Building Materials

Steel Structure

Cover Material

Rust Proof Iron Sheet

Cultivation Method

A Frame

Heating Method

Continuous Heating

Layer

Single

Location

Indoor

Size

Small

Suitable

Vegetables

Usage

Production Greenhouse

Application

Vegetable,Tomato,Fruit,Flower

Advantage

Independent Management, Modernization

Ventilation

Internal Circulation, Air Conditioning Cooling

Optional System

Cooling System, Irrigation System,Heater,Lights

Basic Component

Container, Air Circulation, Planting Rack. Growth

Trademark

Sainpoly

Origin

China

Company profile

Importers and ExportersYears of Export Experience

WEIFANG SAINPOLY AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.

Shandong, China

CertifiedBusiness Type: Manufacturer/Factory & Trading Company CertifiedR&D Capacity: ODM Service Available & OEM Service Available CertifiedCustomization Options: Customization from Designs CertifiedExport Year: 10 years CertifiedNearest Port: Qingdao PortAverage Response Time: ≤2.48h

AI-Powered supplier vetting

SummaryWeifang Sainpoly Greenhouse Equipment Co., Ltd. is a limited company offering greenhouse products, with 29 employees and no stated parent group. It provides design customization, ODM, OEM for well-known brands, and has launched new products in the past year, supported by three R&D engineers. CE compliance is reported. The supplier has inventory capability and offers equipment installation, but lacks an overseas warehouse, overseas showroom, and a valid manufacturing-capacity contract with related subcontractors. Service documentation is weak: no written assessment or corrective-action procedures, and complaint handling has procedures but no written records. Financial information identifies reporting years but provides no substantive financial performance evidence. Customer evidence includes OEM work for well-known brands, while no Fortune 500 cooperation is reported and repeat-buyer preference is 10%–30%.

Supplier typeThe supplier is a limited company with no stated affiliation to a larger company group, offering greenhouse products. Its stated business scope also includes agricultural structures, landscaping, agricultural machinery maintenance, and related agricultural and plastic-product sales.

CertificationsCE certification is explicitly reported for the product, providing evidence of conformity with the stated applicable standards. No additional certifications are identified in the provided information.

After-Sales capabilityThe supplier offers equipment installation and has a complaint-handling procedure, but it has no overseas warehouse or showroom. Service governance is weak because assessment and corrective/preventive-action procedures lack written records, and complaint handling also lacks written records.

R&D capabilityThe supplier reports new products during the past year, provides ODM services, and employs three R&D engineers. However, it has no available SDK, so its innovation capability is evidenced for product development and design services but not for SDK-based integration.

Production capacityThe supplier has in-stock capability, reports one-month lead times in both peak and off-season periods, and identifies ten qualified service-capability suppliers. However, it has no valid manufacturing-capacity contract with related subcontractors, which creates a documented production-governance weakness.

Customization capabilityBoth R&D and general design-service information state customization from customer designs, and the supplier also reports ODM availability. This directly supports capability to develop or manufacture customized greenhouse products.

Client casesThe supplier reports OEM service for well-known brands, providing explicit customer-case evidence. It reports no cooperation with Fortune 500 companies, and repeat-buyer preference is stated at 10%–30%, so the customer track record is present but not broadly demonstrated.