Projects by IF vs Gapsy Studio: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Gapsy Studio (4.5/5) edges ahead of Projects by IF (4.0/5) overall. Gapsy Studio is the better choice for Fintech, SaaS, healthcare — perfect-rated boutique. Projects by IF is the stronger option for Tech/public-sector, trust- and policy-aware design. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Projects by IF vs Gapsy Studio: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Projects by IF | Gapsy Studio |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2016 | 2014 |
| HQ | London, UK | Dnipro, Ukraine |
| Team size | Not published | Collective model, size not published (500+ completed projects) |
| Rating | 4.0 / 5 | 4.5 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | A design practice built specifically around trust, regulation, and policy work for technology-enabled organizations, with clients spanning Google to the UK Government | A perfect 5.0/5.0 Clutch rating across 52 reviews, backed by 13+ international awards, from a firm that doesn't publish its own headcount |
| Pricing model | Project-based (not published) | Fixed project, dedicated team |
| Min. engagement | Not published | $10K (per company website; independently unverifiable) |
| Primary tech stack | Figma, Miro, Adobe Creative Suite | Figma, Webflow, After Effects |
| Industries served | Enterprise transformation, Healthcare, Financial services / fintech | Financial services / fintech, SaaS / B2B software, Healthcare, EdTech, E-commerce / retail |
Projects by IF vs Gapsy Studio: overview
Projects by IF
Sarah Gold founded Projects by IF in London in 2016, building a strategic design practice around a specific problem: helping technology-enabled organizations design for trust at scale. That focus — spanning product and experience design, digital strategy, regulation and policy work, and technology architecture — has produced client relationships with Google, the UK Government, and Blue Cross Blue Shield, an unusual combination of big tech and public-sector work for a studio this size.
Gapsy Studio
Gapsy Studio describes its own history as running "since 2014" — treated here as self-reported since it isn't independently confirmed — from Dnipro, Ukraine. Instead of a headcount, the firm calls itself a "collective of creative professionals," pointing to 500+ completed projects and a 5.0/5.0 Clutch rating across 52 reviews. Thirteen-plus international awards from Behance, Awwwards, FWA, CSS Winner, Titan Awards, and DesignRush back that rating, spanning fintech, SaaS, health, education, and retail work.
Services and capabilities: Projects by IF vs Gapsy Studio
| Capability | Projects by IF | Gapsy Studio |
|---|---|---|
| Product design | ✓ | ✓ |
| UX research | ✓ | ✗ |
| Branding | ✗ | ✓ |
| Web development | ✗ | ✓ |
| Mobile development | ✗ | ✓ |
| Design systems | ✗ | ✗ |
Tech stack comparison: Projects by IF vs Gapsy Studio
| Framework / platform | Projects by IF | Gapsy Studio |
|---|---|---|
| Figma | ✓ | ✓ |
| Webflow | N/A | ✓ |
| React | N/A | ✓ |
| Framer | N/A | N/A |
| Adobe Creative Suite | ✓ | N/A |
| Design systems/Storybook | N/A | N/A |
| After Effects | N/A | ✓ |
Pricing comparison: Projects by IF vs Gapsy Studio
| Criterion | Projects by IF | Gapsy Studio |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | $10K (per company website; independently unverifiable) |
| Engagement models | Fixed project, Retainer | Fixed project, Dedicated team |
| Rate transparency | Minimum disclosed | Minimum disclosed |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Accessible |
Target audience comparison: Projects by IF vs Gapsy Studio
| Dimension | Projects by IF | Gapsy Studio |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Enterprise transformation, Healthcare, Financial services / fintech | Financial services / fintech, SaaS / B2B software, Healthcare |
| Best use cases | Public-sector or government digital service design, Trust-and-safety product design for a technology platform | Fintech app UI/UX with brand identity work, Healthcare or EdTech product redesign |
| Typical project type | Fixed project | Fixed project |
Projects by IF vs Gapsy Studio: pros and cons
| Projects by IF | |
|---|---|
| + | Purpose-built around trust and regulation-aware design, a genuine specialty few boutiques on this list offer |
| + | Client list combines big tech (Google) with public-sector work (UK Government), demonstrating range within its niche |
| + | Founder-led since 2016 under CEO Sarah Gold, giving a consistent point of view across engagements |
| + | Services span product design through policy and regulatory design, useful for regulated or public-facing products |
| - | Team size isn't published in available sources, making capacity planning harder for large programs |
| - | Trust-and-policy specialization is a narrower fit for clients wanting pure visual or brand design |
| - | Pricing and minimum engagement size aren't published |
| Gapsy Studio | |
|---|---|
| + | 5.0/5.0 Clutch rating across 52 public reviews — one of the highest verified scores in this list |
| + | 13+ international design awards across Behance, Awwwards, FWA, CSS Winner, Titan Awards, and DesignRush |
| + | 500+ completed projects demonstrates a substantial delivery track record |
| + | Covers five distinct industries (fintech, SaaS, health, education, retail) from one team |
| - | Doesn't publish a specific headcount, describing itself as a 'collective' — harder to gauge delivery capacity |
| - | Founding year is self-reported ('since 2014') rather than independently confirmed |
| - | Its broad five-industry positioning trades off some depth against single-vertical specialists like UXDA |
Who should choose Projects by IF?
A typical fit: public-sector or government digital service design.
A design practice built specifically around trust, regulation, and policy work for technology-enabled organizations, with clients spanning Google to the UK Government. Minimum engagement starts at Not published. Works best with clients in Enterprise transformation, Healthcare, Financial services / fintech.
Who should choose Gapsy Studio?
A typical fit: fintech app UI/UX with brand identity work.
A perfect 5.0/5.0 Clutch rating across 52 reviews, backed by 13+ international awards, from a firm that doesn't publish its own headcount. Minimum engagement starts at $10K (per company website; independently unverifiable). Works best with clients in Financial services / fintech, SaaS / B2B software, Healthcare, EdTech, E-commerce / retail.
Decision matrix: Projects by IF vs Gapsy Studio
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | Projects by IF |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | Gapsy Studio |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Projects by IF (Not published) vs Gapsy Studio ($10K (per company website; independently unverifiable)) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Gapsy Studio |
| 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: Projects by IF vs Gapsy Studio
| Use case | Projects by IF fit | Gapsy Studio fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public-sector or government digital service design | Strong | Limited | Projects by IF |
| Trust-and-safety product design for a technology platform | Strong | Limited | Projects by IF |
| Fintech app UI/UX with brand identity work | Limited | Strong | Gapsy Studio |
| Healthcare or EdTech product redesign | Limited | Strong | Gapsy Studio |
| Fixed-price product build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Dedicated design team augmentation | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: Projects by IF vs Gapsy Studio
Gapsy Studio (4.5/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Product Design projects. A perfect 5.0/5.0 Clutch rating across 52 reviews, backed by 13+ international awards, from a firm that doesn't publish its own headcount.
Projects by IF (4.0/5) is worth a look if you need trust-and-safety product design for a technology platform. If your situation matches that, Projects by IF is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Projects by IF vs Gapsy Studio FAQ
Is Projects by IF better than Gapsy Studio?
Gapsy Studio (4.5/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Projects by IF's strongest advantage: purpose-built around trust and regulation-aware design, a genuine specialty few boutiques on this list offer. Gapsy Studio's strongest advantage: 5.0/5.0 Clutch rating across 52 public reviews — one of the highest verified scores in this list.
How do Projects by IF and Gapsy Studio differ in pricing?
Projects by IF uses project-based (not published) pricing with a minimum engagement of Not published. Gapsy Studio uses fixed project, dedicated team pricing with a minimum engagement of $10K (per company website; independently unverifiable). Neither firm publishes a full rate card; a discovery call is required for project-specific quotes.
Which is better for enterprise: Projects by IF or Gapsy Studio?
Gapsy Studio 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 Projects by IF and Gapsy Studio?
Projects by IF's primary differentiator is: a design practice built specifically around trust, regulation, and policy work for technology-enabled organizations, with clients spanning Google to the UK Government. Gapsy Studio's primary differentiator is: a perfect 5.0/5.0 Clutch rating across 52 reviews, backed by 13+ international awards, from a firm that doesn't publish its own headcount. They also differ in team size (Not published vs Collective model, size not published (500+ completed projects)), minimum engagement (Not published vs $10K (per company website; independently unverifiable)), and primary industries served (Enterprise transformation, Healthcare vs Financial services / fintech, SaaS / B2B software).
Verify all details directly with each firm before making a decision.