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 paired with production-grade engineering. R/GA is the stronger option for global brands, product design bundled with 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 operating independently for the first time in over two decades | 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, 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 run out of New York since 1977, expanding to ten countries with offices from Austin to Singapore. Interpublic Group owned it for 23 years until March 2025, when R/GA completed an independent buyout backed by private equity firm Truelink Capital. What hasn't changed across that ownership history is the pitch: product design fused with marketing and brand strategy, aimed at large consumer and enterprise platforms rather than single-scope product work.
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: 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 or campaign component | Flagship consumer app redesign for a global brand, E-commerce platform rebuild requiring 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 footprint spans North America, Europe, Latin America, and Asia-Pacific |
| + | Nearly five decades of enterprise brand relationships and case studies |
| + | Independently owned again since its March 2025 buyout, after 23 years inside Interpublic Group |
| - | The 2025 ownership transition to a private-equity-backed independent structure is recent enough to ask about directly |
| - | Marketing-first positioning means less pure product-design specialization than boutiques built around design alone |
| - | Pricing and scale suit large-brand budgets more than early-stage product teams |
| 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 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 operating independently 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 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: 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 or campaign component | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| 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: 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 outsizes 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 or 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 a ~425-person studio.
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 agency 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 operating independently for the first time in over two decades. 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.