R/GA vs Work & Co: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Work & Co (3.8/5) edges ahead of R/GA (3.7/5) overall. Work & Co is the better choice for premium brands, design plus production-grade engineering. 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 Work & Co: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | R/GA | Work & Co |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1977 | 2013 |
| HQ | New York City, NY, USA | Dumbo, Brooklyn, NY, USA |
| Team size | ~2,000 | 425+ |
| Rating | 3.7 / 5 | 3.8 / 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 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, retainer for ongoing programs | Fixed project, dedicated team |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | Figma, Adobe Creative Suite, After Effects | Figma, React, Next.js |
| Industries served | Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Media & entertainment | Consumer products, Enterprise transformation, Healthcare |
R/GA vs Work & Co: 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.
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: R/GA vs Work & Co
| Capability | R/GA | Work & Co |
|---|---|---|
| Product design | ✓ | ✓ |
| UX research | ✓ | ✗ |
| Branding | ✓ | ✗ |
| Web development | ✗ | ✓ |
| Mobile development | ✗ | ✓ |
| Design systems | ✗ | ✗ |
Tech stack comparison: R/GA vs Work & Co
| Framework / platform | R/GA | 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 | N/A |
| After Effects | ✓ | N/A |
Pricing comparison: R/GA vs Work & Co
| Criterion | R/GA | 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: R/GA vs Work & Co
| Dimension | R/GA | Work & Co |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Media & entertainment | Consumer products, Enterprise transformation, Healthcare |
| Best use cases | Consumer platform redesign tied to a brand relaunch, Enterprise digital product with a marketing/campaign component | Flagship consumer app redesign for a global brand, E-commerce platform rebuild with heavy front-end engineering |
| Typical project type | Fixed project | Fixed project |
R/GA vs Work & Co: 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 |
| 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 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 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: R/GA vs Work & Co
| 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 | Work & Co |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: R/GA (Not published) vs Work & Co (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 Work & Co
| Use case | R/GA fit | Work & Co fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consumer platform redesign tied to a brand relaunch | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Enterprise digital product with a marketing/campaign component | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| 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: R/GA 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.
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 Work & Co FAQ
Is R/GA better than Work & Co?
Work & Co (3.8/5) 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. Work & Co's strongest advantage: client roster (Apple, IKEA, Google, Nike, Disney) is exceptional relative to headcount.
How do R/GA and Work & Co differ in pricing?
R/GA uses project-based, retainer for ongoing programs 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: R/GA or Work & Co?
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 Work & Co?
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. 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.