SYPartners vs Projects by IF: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Projects by IF (4.0/5) edges ahead of SYPartners (3.9/5) overall. Projects by IF is the better choice for Tech/public-sector, trust- and policy-aware design. SYPartners is the stronger option for large orgs, design within culture/strategy transformation. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
SYPartners vs Projects by IF: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | SYPartners | Projects by IF |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1994 | 2016 |
| HQ | San Francisco, CA, USA (also New York, Los Angeles, and Abu Dhabi) | London, UK |
| Team size | ~196 | Not published |
| Rating | 3.9 / 5 | 4.0 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | A transformation consultancy — not a pure product-design shop — with a client list (Obama Foundation, Starbucks, IBM, Airbnb) most boutiques on this list can't approach | 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 (not published) | Project-based (not published) |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | Figma, Adobe Creative Suite, Miro | Figma, Miro, Adobe Creative Suite |
| Industries served | Enterprise transformation, Financial services / fintech, Healthcare | Enterprise transformation, Healthcare, Financial services / fintech |
SYPartners vs Projects by IF: overview
SYPartners
Founded in 1994 and headquartered across San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, and Abu Dhabi, SYPartners runs about 196 people focused on leadership, strategy, and culture transformation — with design as one tool among several rather than the sole offering. Client relationships span AARP, Airbnb, BlackRock, IBM, the Obama Foundation, Pfizer, and Starbucks, including work on Starbucks' 2018 anti-bias training. Clients looking for pure interface design work should look elsewhere on this list; SYPartners is better understood as a transformation consultancy that happens to use design as a primary tool.
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: SYPartners vs Projects by IF
| Capability | SYPartners | Projects by IF |
|---|---|---|
| Product design | ✓ | ✓ |
| UX research | ✓ | ✓ |
| Branding | ✓ | ✗ |
| Web development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Mobile development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Design systems | ✗ | ✗ |
Tech stack comparison: SYPartners vs Projects by IF
| Framework / platform | SYPartners | 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 | N/A |
Pricing comparison: SYPartners vs Projects by IF
| Criterion | SYPartners | Projects by IF |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Fixed project, Retainer, Dedicated team | Fixed project, Retainer |
| Rate transparency | Minimum disclosed | Minimum disclosed |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: SYPartners vs Projects by IF
| Dimension | SYPartners | Projects by IF |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Enterprise transformation, Financial services / fintech, Healthcare | Enterprise transformation, Healthcare, Financial services / fintech |
| Best use cases | Enterprise leadership or culture transformation with a design component, Large organization change management paired with product or brand design | Public-sector or government digital service design, Trust-and-safety product design for a technology platform |
| Typical project type | Fixed project | Fixed project |
SYPartners vs Projects by IF: pros and cons
| SYPartners | |
|---|---|
| + | Three decades of continuous operation since 1994 |
| + | Client list (Obama Foundation, Starbucks, IBM, Airbnb, BlackRock, Pfizer) reflects work at the highest levels of large organizations |
| + | 196-person team supports substantial multi-workstream engagements |
| + | Four-office footprint (San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, Abu Dhabi) supports large, distributed programs |
| - | Positioned around leadership and culture transformation, not pure product/UI design — a mismatch for clients wanting only interface work |
| - | Enterprise-scale client list implies enterprise-level pricing, though no minimum is published |
| - | Broad transformation-consulting scope means less concentrated product-design specialization than boutiques built around it |
| 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 SYPartners?
A typical fit: enterprise leadership or culture transformation with a design component.
A transformation consultancy — not a pure product-design shop — with a client list (Obama Foundation, Starbucks, IBM, Airbnb) most boutiques on this list can't approach. Minimum engagement starts at Not published. Works best with clients in Enterprise transformation, Financial services / fintech, Healthcare.
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: SYPartners vs Projects by IF
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | SYPartners |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | SYPartners |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: SYPartners (Not published) vs Projects by IF (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | SYPartners |
| 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: SYPartners vs Projects by IF
| Use case | SYPartners fit | Projects by IF fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enterprise leadership or culture transformation with a design component | Strong | Limited | SYPartners |
| Large organization change management paired with product or brand design | Strong | Limited | SYPartners |
| 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: SYPartners 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.
SYPartners (3.9/5) is worth a look if you need large organization change management paired with product or brand design. If your situation matches that, SYPartners is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
SYPartners vs Projects by IF FAQ
Is SYPartners better than Projects by IF?
Projects by IF (4.0/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. SYPartners's strongest advantage: three decades of continuous operation since 1994. 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 SYPartners and Projects by IF differ in pricing?
SYPartners uses project-based (not published) 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: SYPartners or Projects by IF?
SYPartners 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 SYPartners and Projects by IF?
SYPartners's primary differentiator is: a transformation consultancy — not a pure product-design shop — with a client list (Obama Foundation, Starbucks, IBM, Airbnb) most boutiques on this list can't approach. 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 (~196 vs Not published), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Enterprise transformation, Financial services / fintech vs Enterprise transformation, Healthcare).
Verify all details directly with each firm before making a decision.