R/GA vs Projects by IF: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Projects by IF (4.0/5) edges ahead of R/GA (3.7/5) overall. Projects by IF is the better choice for Tech/public-sector, trust- and policy-aware design. R/GA is the stronger option for large brands, product design plus brand strategy. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
R/GA vs Projects by IF: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | R/GA | Projects by IF |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1977 | 2016 |
| HQ | New York City, NY, USA | London, UK |
| Team size | ~2,000 | Not published |
| Rating | 3.7 / 5 | 4.0 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Fuses product design with marketing and brand strategy for large platforms, now independently owned for the first time in over two decades | A design practice built specifically around trust, regulation, and policy work for technology-enabled organizations, with clients spanning Google to the UK Government |
| Pricing model | Project-based, retainer for ongoing programs | Project-based (not published) |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | Figma, Adobe Creative Suite, After Effects | Figma, Miro, Adobe Creative Suite |
| Industries served | Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Media & entertainment | Enterprise transformation, Healthcare, Financial services / fintech |
R/GA vs Projects by IF: overview
R/GA
R/GA has been headquartered in New York City since 1977, expanding to ten countries that include Austin, London, São Paulo, Singapore, and Stockholm. Interpublic Group owned the firm for 23 years before an independent buyout in March 2025, backed by private equity firm Truelink Capital — recent enough that clients should ask directly how the transition has settled. Through all of it, the pitch has stayed the same: digital product design fused with marketing and brand strategy for large consumer and enterprise platforms.
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.
Services and capabilities: R/GA vs Projects by IF
| Capability | R/GA | Projects by IF |
|---|---|---|
| Product design | ✓ | ✓ |
| UX research | ✓ | ✓ |
| Branding | ✓ | ✗ |
| Web development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Mobile development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Design systems | ✗ | ✗ |
Tech stack comparison: R/GA vs Projects by IF
| Framework / platform | R/GA | Projects by IF |
|---|---|---|
| Figma | ✓ | ✓ |
| Webflow | N/A | N/A |
| React | N/A | N/A |
| Framer | N/A | N/A |
| Adobe Creative Suite | ✓ | ✓ |
| Design systems/Storybook | N/A | N/A |
| After Effects | ✓ | N/A |
Pricing comparison: R/GA vs Projects by IF
| Criterion | R/GA | Projects by IF |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Fixed project, Retainer | Fixed project, Retainer |
| Rate transparency | Minimum disclosed | Minimum disclosed |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: R/GA vs Projects by IF
| Dimension | R/GA | Projects by IF |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Media & entertainment | Enterprise transformation, Healthcare, Financial services / fintech |
| Best use cases | Consumer platform redesign tied to a brand relaunch, Enterprise digital product with a marketing/campaign component | Public-sector or government digital service design, Trust-and-safety product design for a technology platform |
| Typical project type | Fixed project | Fixed project |
R/GA vs Projects by IF: pros and cons
| R/GA | |
|---|---|
| + | Combines product design with marketing and brand strategy under one roof |
| + | Ten-country presence spans North America, Europe, Latin America, and Asia-Pacific |
| + | Nearly five decades of case studies and enterprise brand relationships |
| + | Independently owned again since its March 2025 buyout, after 23 years inside Interpublic Group |
| - | Still stabilizing operationally after a recent (2025) private-equity-backed ownership change |
| - | Marketing-first positioning means less pure product-design specialization than boutique firms |
| - | Scale and pricing suit large-brand budgets more than early-stage product teams |
| 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 |
Who should choose R/GA?
A typical fit: consumer platform redesign tied to a brand relaunch.
Fuses product design with marketing and brand strategy for large platforms, now independently owned for the first time in over two decades. Minimum engagement starts at Not published. Works best with clients in Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Media & entertainment.
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.
Decision matrix: R/GA vs Projects by IF
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | R/GA |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | Check each company's engagement model |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: R/GA (Not published) vs Projects by IF (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | R/GA |
| 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: R/GA vs Projects by IF
| Use case | R/GA fit | Projects by IF fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consumer platform redesign tied to a brand relaunch | Strong | Limited | R/GA |
| Enterprise digital product with a marketing/campaign component | Strong | Limited | R/GA |
| Public-sector or government digital service design | Limited | Strong | Projects by IF |
| Trust-and-safety product design for a technology platform | Limited | Strong | Projects by IF |
| Fixed-price product build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Dedicated design team augmentation | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: R/GA vs Projects by IF
Projects by IF (4.0/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Product Design projects. A design practice built specifically around trust, regulation, and policy work for technology-enabled organizations, with clients spanning Google to the UK Government.
R/GA (3.7/5) is worth a look if you need enterprise digital product with a marketing/campaign component. If your situation matches that, R/GA is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
R/GA vs Projects by IF FAQ
Is R/GA better than Projects by IF?
Projects by IF (4.0/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. R/GA's strongest advantage: combines product design with marketing and brand strategy under one roof. Projects by IF's strongest advantage: purpose-built around trust and regulation-aware design, a genuine specialty few boutiques on this list offer.
How do R/GA and Projects by IF differ in pricing?
R/GA uses project-based, retainer for ongoing programs pricing with a minimum engagement of Not published. Projects by IF uses project-based (not published) 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: R/GA or Projects by IF?
R/GA 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 R/GA and Projects by IF?
R/GA's primary differentiator is: fuses product design with marketing and brand strategy for large platforms, now independently owned for the first time in over two decades. 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. They also differ in team size (~2,000 vs Not published), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Enterprise transformation, Consumer products vs Enterprise transformation, Healthcare).
Verify all details directly with each firm before making a decision.