Doberman vs UXDA: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
UXDA (4.3/5) edges ahead of Doberman (3.8/5) overall. UXDA is the better choice for Banks, fintech — exclusively financial-services UX. Doberman is the stronger option for Nordic/European enterprises, service design backed by EY network. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Doberman vs UXDA: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Doberman | UXDA |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1998 | 2015 |
| HQ | Stockholm, Sweden (also Oslo and Copenhagen) | Riga, Latvia |
| Team size | 100+ (within EY's global network) | 25+ |
| Rating | 3.8 / 5 | 4.3 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Nearly three decades of Nordic service-and-product-design work, now backed by EY's global consulting network after its majority-stake acquisition | The only studio in this roster built exclusively around financial-services UX, with 150+ banking and fintech platforms shaped across 39 countries |
| Pricing model | Enterprise consulting engagement (project-based or retainer) | Fixed project, retainer |
| Min. engagement | Not published | $30K (per company website; independently unverifiable) |
| Primary tech stack | Figma, Miro, Adobe Creative Suite | Figma, Sketch, Design systems/Storybook |
| Industries served | Financial services / fintech, Enterprise transformation | Financial services / fintech |
Doberman vs UXDA: overview
Doberman
Doberman started in Stockholm in 1998 and grew into a 100+ person design and innovation firm with studios in Stockholm, Oslo, and Copenhagen before EY acquired a majority stake, folding it into EY's much larger consulting network. Its client list spans Google, Swedish banks, and public-sector organizations, and Doberman positions itself around service and product innovation rather than pure visual design — helping organizations design new services and customer experiences, not just interfaces.
UXDA
Alex Kreger co-founded UXDA (Financial UX Design) in 2015, building a deliberately narrow 25-person team from Riga, Latvia. A decade later, UXDA has shaped or governed 150+ banking and fintech digital platforms in 39 countries — a level of single-vertical repetition none of the generalists in this list can claim, since there's no branding or consumer-product work on offer. Every engagement here is financial-services UX.
Services and capabilities: Doberman vs UXDA
| Capability | Doberman | UXDA |
|---|---|---|
| Product design | ✓ | ✓ |
| UX research | ✓ | ✓ |
| Branding | ✓ | ✓ |
| Web development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Mobile development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Design systems | ✗ | ✗ |
Tech stack comparison: Doberman vs UXDA
| Framework / platform | Doberman | UXDA |
|---|---|---|
| Figma | ✓ | ✓ |
| Webflow | N/A | N/A |
| React | N/A | 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: Doberman vs UXDA
| Criterion | Doberman | UXDA |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | $30K (per company website; independently unverifiable) |
| Engagement models | Fixed project, Retainer | Fixed project, Retainer |
| Rate transparency | Minimum disclosed | Minimum disclosed |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Accessible |
Target audience comparison: Doberman vs UXDA
| Dimension | Doberman | UXDA |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Financial services / fintech, Enterprise transformation | Financial services / fintech |
| Best use cases | Service design for a Nordic bank or public-sector organization, Product innovation engagement backed by a large consulting network | Bank digital platform redesign, Fintech app UX for a regulated market |
| Typical project type | Fixed project | Fixed project |
Doberman vs UXDA: pros and cons
| Doberman | |
|---|---|
| + | Nearly three decades of continuous operation since 1998, longer than most European boutiques on this list |
| + | Three-city Nordic studio footprint (Stockholm, Oslo, Copenhagen) |
| + | EY's majority-stake backing provides access to a much larger global consulting network |
| + | Client list includes Google alongside major Swedish banks and public-sector organizations |
| - | Majority acquired by EY, so clients are hiring into a large consulting network rather than an independent boutique |
| - | Nordic-centered office footprint may mean less overlap with US or APAC business hours |
| - | Team size figures blend Doberman's own ~100 staff with EY's much larger combined network, making direct capacity comparison harder |
| UXDA | |
|---|---|
| + | Exclusive financial-services focus builds domain expertise generalist studios simply can't match |
| + | 150+ banking and fintech platforms shaped across 39 countries over a decade |
| + | Small, senior 25+ team keeps client relationships direct rather than layered through account management |
| + | A decade of continuous, single-vertical operation compounds domain knowledge over time |
| - | The exclusive fintech focus is a real limitation for any client outside financial services |
| - | $30K minimum engagement (per company website; independently unverifiable) runs higher than most 25-person boutiques |
| - | Small team size (25+) caps capacity for very large, multi-workstream programs |
Who should choose Doberman?
A typical fit: service design for a Nordic bank or public-sector organization.
Nearly three decades of Nordic service-and-product-design work, now backed by EY's global consulting network after its majority-stake acquisition. Minimum engagement starts at Not published. Works best with clients in Financial services / fintech, Enterprise transformation.
Who should choose UXDA?
A typical fit: bank digital platform redesign.
The only studio in this roster built exclusively around financial-services UX, with 150+ banking and fintech platforms shaped across 39 countries. Minimum engagement starts at $30K (per company website; independently unverifiable). Works best with clients in Financial services / fintech.
Decision matrix: Doberman vs UXDA
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | Doberman |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | Check each company's engagement model |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Doberman (Not published) vs UXDA ($30K (per company website; independently unverifiable)) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Doberman |
| 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: Doberman vs UXDA
| Use case | Doberman fit | UXDA fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Service design for a Nordic bank or public-sector organization | Strong | Limited | Doberman |
| Product innovation engagement backed by a large consulting network | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Bank digital platform redesign | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Fintech app UX for a regulated market | Limited | Strong | UXDA |
| Fixed-price product build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Dedicated design team augmentation | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: Doberman vs UXDA
UXDA (4.3/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Product Design projects. The only studio in this roster built exclusively around financial-services UX, with 150+ banking and fintech platforms shaped across 39 countries.
Doberman (3.8/5) is worth a look if you need product innovation engagement backed by a large consulting network. If your situation matches that, Doberman is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Doberman vs UXDA FAQ
Is Doberman better than UXDA?
UXDA (4.3/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Doberman's strongest advantage: nearly three decades of continuous operation since 1998, longer than most European boutiques on this list. UXDA's strongest advantage: exclusive financial-services focus builds domain expertise generalist studios simply can't match.
How do Doberman and UXDA differ in pricing?
Doberman uses enterprise consulting engagement (project-based or retainer) pricing with a minimum engagement of Not published. UXDA uses fixed project, retainer pricing with a minimum engagement of $30K (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: Doberman or UXDA?
Doberman is the larger team and typically the better enterprise-scale choice. For very large programmes, verify team size and compliance coverage directly with each agency before shortlisting.
What are the main differences between Doberman and UXDA?
Doberman's primary differentiator is: nearly three decades of Nordic service-and-product-design work, now backed by EY's global consulting network after its majority-stake acquisition. UXDA's primary differentiator is: the only studio in this roster built exclusively around financial-services UX, with 150+ banking and fintech platforms shaped across 39 countries. They also differ in team size (100+ (within EY's global network) vs 25+), minimum engagement (Not published vs $30K (per company website; independently unverifiable)), and primary industries served (Financial services / fintech, Enterprise transformation vs Financial services / fintech).
Verify all details directly with each agency before making a decision.