Frog vs Work & Co: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Work & Co (3.8/5) edges ahead of Frog (3.7/5) overall. Work & Co is the better choice for premium brands, design paired with production-grade engineering. Frog is the stronger option for Enterprises, digital plus physical product design, one team. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Frog vs Work & Co: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Frog | Work & Co |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1969 | 2013 |
| HQ | San Francisco, CA, USA | Dumbo, Brooklyn, NY, USA |
| Team size | 2,000+ | 425+ |
| Rating | 3.7 / 5 | 3.8 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Still designs physical hardware (IoT, automotive, medical devices) alongside software — a combined scope most of its peers have abandoned | A client roster (Apple, IKEA, Nike, Disney) that outsizes its ~425-person headcount, delivered through an engineering-heavy design-and-build model |
| Pricing model | Project-based, enterprise consulting engagements | Fixed project, dedicated team |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | Figma, Adobe Creative Suite, Miro | Figma, React, Next.js |
| Industries served | Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Healthcare | Consumer products, Enterprise transformation, Healthcare |
Frog vs Work & Co: overview
Frog
The frog name has carried through several owners since its 1969 start as Esslinger Design — Aricent, then Altran, then Capgemini, which folded the studio into Capgemini Invent in 2019. Since then, Capgemini has consolidated Fahrenheit 212, Idean, and June21 under the same brand, landing at roughly 2,000 people across 35 studios. The trait that still separates frog from most names on this list: it designs physical products — IoT devices, automotive interiors, medical hardware — with the same team that handles software, a combination getting rarer every year.
Work & Co
Five co-founders — Gene Liebel, Felipe Memoria, Joe Stewart, Mohan Ramaswamy, and Marcelo Eduardo — launched Work & Co from Dumbo, Brooklyn in May 2013. The studio has since added offices across the US, Latin America, and Europe, but headcount (roughly 425) hasn't grown to match its client list: Apple, IKEA, Google, Mercedes-Benz, Pfizer, GoFundMe, Nike, and Disney have all hired this team. Its engineering-heavy delivery model — design and front-end build under one roof — is a large part of why. Work & Co joined Accenture Song in 2023.
Services and capabilities: Frog vs Work & Co
| Capability | Frog | Work & Co |
|---|---|---|
| Product design | ✓ | ✓ |
| UX research | ✓ | ✗ |
| Branding | ✗ | ✗ |
| Web development | ✗ | ✓ |
| Mobile development | ✗ | ✓ |
| Design systems | ✓ | ✗ |
Tech stack comparison: Frog vs Work & Co
| Framework / platform | Frog | 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 |
| After Effects | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Frog vs Work & Co
| Criterion | Frog | 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: Frog vs Work & Co
| Dimension | Frog | Work & Co |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Healthcare | Consumer products, Enterprise transformation, Healthcare |
| Best use cases | IoT and connected hardware product design, Automotive and smart-home interface design | Flagship consumer app redesign for a global brand, E-commerce platform rebuild requiring heavy front-end engineering |
| Typical project type | Fixed project | Fixed project |
Frog vs Work & Co: pros and cons
| Frog | |
|---|---|
| + | Combined software-and-hardware design capability spanning IoT, automotive, and medical devices |
| + | 35 studios worldwide support genuine multi-region enterprise delivery |
| + | Over five decades of design history and case studies to draw on |
| + | Capgemini Invent backing adds broader technology-consulting resources on top of design |
| - | Now a Capgemini Invent brand rather than an independent studio — a structural fact worth disclosing to clients |
| - | Multiple legacy agencies (Fahrenheit 212, Idean, June21) were folded into the frog name, risking inconsistent team continuity |
| - | Large consulting-firm overhead can slow faster-moving engagements relative to boutique studios |
| Work & Co | |
|---|---|
| + | Client roster (Apple, IKEA, Google, Nike, Disney) is exceptional relative to a ~425-person studio |
| + | Engineering-heavy delivery keeps design and build under one roof, reducing hand-off risk |
| + | Offices across the US, Europe, and Latin America support genuine multi-region delivery |
| + | Consistent track record shipping flagship consumer digital products |
| - | Now part of Accenture Song, sharing a parent with the Accenture Song listing elsewhere on this site |
| - | Its premium client base implies premium pricing, though no minimum is published |
| - | Less vertical specialization in fintech or healthcare than boutiques built around a single niche |
Who should choose Frog?
A typical fit: IoT and connected hardware product design.
Still designs physical hardware (IoT, automotive, medical devices) alongside software — a combined scope most of its peers have abandoned. Minimum engagement starts at Not published. Works best with clients in Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Healthcare.
Who should choose Work & Co?
A typical fit: flagship consumer app redesign for a global brand.
A client roster (Apple, IKEA, Nike, Disney) that outsizes 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: Frog vs Work & Co
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | Frog |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | Work & Co |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Frog (Not published) vs Work & Co (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Frog |
| 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: Frog vs Work & Co
| Use case | Frog fit | Work & Co fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| IoT and connected hardware product design | Strong | Limited | Frog |
| Automotive and smart-home interface design | Strong | Limited | Frog |
| Flagship consumer app redesign for a global brand | Limited | Strong | Work & Co |
| E-commerce platform rebuild requiring 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: Frog 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 outsizes its ~425-person headcount, delivered through an engineering-heavy design-and-build model.
Frog (3.7/5) is worth a look if you need automotive and smart-home interface design. If your situation matches that, Frog is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Frog vs Work & Co FAQ
Is Frog better than Work & Co?
Work & Co (3.8/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Frog's strongest advantage: combined software-and-hardware design capability spanning IoT, automotive, and medical devices. Work & Co's strongest advantage: client roster (Apple, IKEA, Google, Nike, Disney) is exceptional relative to a ~425-person studio.
How do Frog and Work & Co differ in pricing?
Frog uses project-based, enterprise consulting engagements 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: Frog or Work & Co?
Frog 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 Frog and Work & Co?
Frog's primary differentiator is: still designs physical hardware (IoT, automotive, medical devices) alongside software — a combined scope most of its peers have abandoned. Work & Co's primary differentiator is: a client roster (Apple, IKEA, Nike, Disney) that outsizes 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 agency before making a decision.