Best Product Design Firms

Frog vs Work & Co: full comparison for 2026

Quick verdict

Work & Co (3.8/5) edges ahead of Frog (3.7/5) overall. Work & Co is the better choice for premium brands, design plus production-grade engineering. Frog is the stronger option for enterprises needing digital plus physical/hardware design. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.

Frog vs Work & Co: head-to-head summary

Criterion Frog Work & Co
Founded 1969 2013
HQ San Francisco, CA, USA Dumbo, Brooklyn, NY, USA
Team size 2,000+ 425+
Rating 3.7 / 5 3.8 / 5
Primary differentiator Still designs physical hardware (IoT, automotive, medical devices) alongside software, inside Capgemini Invent's enterprise consulting scale A client roster (Apple, IKEA, Nike, Disney) that outpaces its ~425-person headcount, delivered through an engineering-heavy design-and-build model
Pricing model Project-based, enterprise consulting engagements Fixed project, dedicated team
Min. engagement Not published Not published
Primary tech stack Figma, Adobe Creative Suite, Miro Figma, React, Next.js
Industries served Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Healthcare Consumer products, Enterprise transformation, Healthcare

Frog vs Work & Co: overview

Frog

Three separate owners — Aricent, Altran, and now Capgemini — have held frog since its 1969 start as Esslinger Design in Germany; Capgemini folded it into Capgemini Invent in 2019 and later merged Fahrenheit 212, Idean, and June21 into the same brand, landing at roughly 2,000 people across 35 studios. What survives the consolidation is a genuine rarity on this list: frog still designs physical products — IoT, automotive interiors, medical devices — with the same team that handles the software layer.

Work & Co

Gene Liebel, Felipe Memoria, Joe Stewart, Mohan Ramaswamy, and Marcelo Eduardo founded Work & Co in Dumbo, Brooklyn in May 2013, later opening offices across the US, Latin America, and Europe. At roughly 425 people, the firm's client list — Apple, IKEA, Google, Mercedes-Benz, Pfizer, GoFundMe, Nike, Disney — punches well above its size, largely because design and front-end engineering are handled by the same team rather than separate vendors. Accenture Song acquired Work & Co in 2023.

Services and capabilities: Frog vs Work & Co

Capability Frog Work & Co
Product design
UX research
Branding
Web development
Mobile development
Design systems

Tech stack comparison: Frog vs Work & Co

Framework / platform Frog Work & Co
Figma
Webflow N/A N/A
React N/A
Framer N/A N/A
Adobe Creative Suite N/A
Design systems/Storybook N/A
After Effects N/A N/A

Pricing comparison: Frog vs Work & Co

Criterion Frog Work & Co
Minimum engagement Not published Not published
Engagement models Fixed project, Retainer Fixed project, Dedicated team
Rate transparency Minimum disclosed Minimum disclosed
Price tier Mid-market Mid-market

Target audience comparison: Frog vs Work & Co

Dimension Frog Work & Co
Best company size Startup to mid-market Startup to mid-market
Best industries Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Healthcare Consumer products, Enterprise transformation, Healthcare
Best use cases IoT and connected hardware product design, Automotive and smart-home interface design Flagship consumer app redesign for a global brand, E-commerce platform rebuild with heavy front-end engineering
Typical project type Fixed project Fixed project

Frog vs Work & Co: pros and cons

Frog
+ Rare combined software-plus-physical-hardware design capability in this list
+ 35 global studios support multi-region enterprise programs
+ More than five decades of brand history and design case studies
+ Access to Capgemini Invent's broader technology-consulting bench
- Operates as a Capgemini Invent brand today, not an independent firm — worth disclosing to prospective clients
- Absorbed several legacy agencies (Fahrenheit 212, Idean, June21) under one brand, which can mean inconsistent staffing
- Consulting-firm process overhead can slow fast-moving engagements relative to boutique firms
Work & Co
+ Client roster (Apple, IKEA, Google, Nike, Disney) is exceptional relative to headcount
+ Design and engineering under one roof cuts the hand-off risk of splitting vendors
+ 425+ people across the US, Europe, and Latin America give real multi-region capacity
+ Consistent record shipping flagship consumer digital products
- Now part of Accenture Song, which shares a parent with the Accenture Song entry elsewhere in this list
- A premium client base implies premium pricing even without a published minimum
- Less vertical specialization (fintech, healthcare-specific) than boutiques built around one niche

Who should choose Frog?

A typical fit: IoT and connected hardware product design.

Still designs physical hardware (IoT, automotive, medical devices) alongside software, inside Capgemini Invent's enterprise consulting scale. Minimum engagement starts at Not published. Works best with clients in Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Healthcare.

Who should choose Work & Co?

A typical fit: flagship consumer app redesign for a global brand.

A client roster (Apple, IKEA, Nike, Disney) that outpaces its ~425-person headcount, delivered through an engineering-heavy design-and-build model. Minimum engagement starts at Not published. Works best with clients in Consumer products, Enterprise transformation, Healthcare.

Decision matrix: Frog vs Work & Co

Your situation Recommended choice
You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope Frog
You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme Work & Co
Your budget is at the lower end Compare: Frog (Not published) vs Work & Co (Not published)
You need specialist depth in a specific vertical Frog
You need staff augmentation or team extension Neither; consider alternatives that offer staff aug
You need consulting before committing to a build Both may offer discovery engagements

Use case fit: Frog vs Work & Co

Use case Frog fit Work & Co fit Winner
IoT and connected hardware product design Strong Limited Frog
Automotive and smart-home interface design Strong Limited Frog
Flagship consumer app redesign for a global brand Limited Strong Work & Co
E-commerce platform rebuild with heavy front-end engineering Limited Strong Work & Co
Fixed-price product build Limited Limited Both equally
Dedicated design team augmentation Limited Limited Both equally

Verdict: Frog vs Work & Co

Work & Co (3.8/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Product Design projects. A client roster (Apple, IKEA, Nike, Disney) that outpaces its ~425-person headcount, delivered through an engineering-heavy design-and-build model.

Frog (3.7/5) is worth a look if you need automotive and smart-home interface design. If your situation matches that, Frog is a competitive option.

Related comparisons

Frog vs Work & Co FAQ

Is Frog better than Work & Co?

Work & Co (3.8/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Frog's strongest advantage: rare combined software-plus-physical-hardware design capability in this list. Work & Co's strongest advantage: client roster (Apple, IKEA, Google, Nike, Disney) is exceptional relative to headcount.

How do Frog and Work & Co differ in pricing?

Frog uses project-based, enterprise consulting engagements pricing with a minimum engagement of Not published. Work & Co uses fixed project, dedicated team pricing with a minimum engagement of Not published. Neither firm publishes a full rate card; a discovery call is required for project-specific quotes.

Which is better for enterprise: Frog or Work & Co?

Frog is the larger team and typically the better enterprise-scale choice. For very large programmes, verify team size and compliance coverage directly with each firm before shortlisting.

What are the main differences between Frog and Work & Co?

Frog's primary differentiator is: still designs physical hardware (IoT, automotive, medical devices) alongside software, inside Capgemini Invent's enterprise consulting scale. Work & Co's primary differentiator is: a client roster (Apple, IKEA, Nike, Disney) that outpaces its ~425-person headcount, delivered through an engineering-heavy design-and-build model. They also differ in team size (2,000+ vs 425+), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Enterprise transformation, Consumer products vs Consumer products, Enterprise transformation).

Verify all details directly with each firm before making a decision.