Clay vs Big Human: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Clay (4.0/5) edges ahead of Big Human (4.0/5) overall. Clay is the better choice for B2B SaaS, AI, fintech — big-tech credibility, low profile. Big Human is the stronger option for Startups/consumer brands, small senior studio, product builders. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Clay vs Big Human: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Clay | Big Human |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2015 | 2011 |
| HQ | San Francisco, CA, USA | New York, NY, USA |
| Team size | Boutique-to-mid (unconfirmed; not published by the company) | ~35 |
| Rating | 4.0 / 5 | 4.0 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | An unusually large enterprise client roster (Coinbase, Meta, Google, Slack) for a studio that doesn't publish its own founding year or team size | A compact 35-person studio with its own consumer product hits (HQ Trivia, Vine) behind it, not just client work |
| Pricing model | Fixed project | Fixed project, dedicated team |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | Figma, Framer, Webflow | Figma, React, Node.js |
| Industries served | SaaS / B2B software, Financial services / fintech, Consumer products | Consumer products, Media & entertainment, Financial services / fintech |
Clay vs Big Human: overview
Clay
Clay — clay.global, not to be confused with the unrelated AI sales-data company at clay.com — keeps an unusually low public profile for a studio whose client list includes Coinbase, Uber, SendGrid, MoneyLion, Meta, Google, Slack, Snapchat, Amazon, Toyota, and Samsung. Neither its founding year nor its team size is published or independently confirmed, which is itself worth flagging to prospective clients doing due diligence. What is clear from its portfolio is deep, repeated experience across B2B, SaaS, AI, and fintech product design, based out of San Francisco with significant NYC-based client work.
Big Human
Big Human has operated out of New York since 2011, staying deliberately compact at roughly 35 people rather than scaling into a large agency. Its portfolio includes work for Whistle, Rockefeller Center, Gemini, and Netflix, and the studio's own product history includes HQ Trivia and Vine — genuine consumer hits it helped build rather than just designed for. The team spans design, strategy, and development, taking on projects from early-stage startups through Fortune 500 companies.
Services and capabilities: Clay vs Big Human
| Capability | Clay | Big Human |
|---|---|---|
| Product design | ✓ | ✓ |
| UX research | ✓ | ✗ |
| Branding | ✓ | ✓ |
| Web development | ✗ | ✓ |
| Mobile development | ✗ | ✓ |
| Design systems | ✗ | ✗ |
Tech stack comparison: Clay vs Big Human
| Framework / platform | Clay | Big Human |
|---|---|---|
| Figma | ✓ | ✓ |
| Webflow | ✓ | N/A |
| React | N/A | ✓ |
| Framer | ✓ | N/A |
| Adobe Creative Suite | ✓ | N/A |
| Design systems/Storybook | N/A | N/A |
| After Effects | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Clay vs Big Human
| Criterion | Clay | Big Human |
|---|---|---|
| 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: Clay vs Big Human
| Dimension | Clay | Big Human |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | SaaS / B2B software, Financial services / fintech, Consumer products | Consumer products, Media & entertainment, Financial services / fintech |
| Best use cases | AI or fintech product design for a Series A-C startup, Consumer app design for a high-growth B2B SaaS brand | Consumer app design for an early-stage or growth-stage startup, Brand-plus-product design bundle for a media or entertainment client |
| Typical project type | Fixed project | Fixed project |
Clay vs Big Human: pros and cons
| Clay | |
|---|---|
| + | Client list — Coinbase, Uber, Meta, Google, Slack, Snapchat, Amazon — is exceptional for a studio that doesn't publish its own size |
| + | Deep, repeated experience across B2B, SaaS, AI, and fintech product design |
| + | San Francisco base with substantial NYC-based client engagement history |
| + | Combines UX, branding, and web/product design under one team |
| - | Founding year isn't published or independently confirmed by any source outside the company |
| - | Team size isn't published either, making capacity planning harder for larger programs |
| - | Easily confused online with the unrelated AI company Clay (clay.com) — confirm you're looking at clay.global |
| Big Human | |
|---|---|
| + | Built and shipped its own consumer hits — HQ Trivia and Vine — evidence of product instinct beyond client design work |
| + | Client list spans Whistle, Rockefeller Center, Gemini, and Netflix despite a compact ~35-person team |
| + | Small team size keeps client relationships direct rather than layered through account management |
| + | 14 years of continuous operation in New York since 2011 |
| - | A ~35-person team caps capacity for very large, multi-workstream programs |
| - | Pricing and minimum engagement size aren't published |
| - | Single-office (New York) footprint offers less multi-region delivery than larger studios on this list |
Who should choose Clay?
A typical fit: AI or fintech product design for a Series A-C startup.
An unusually large enterprise client roster (Coinbase, Meta, Google, Slack) for a studio that doesn't publish its own founding year or team size. Minimum engagement starts at Not published. Works best with clients in SaaS / B2B software, Financial services / fintech, Consumer products.
Who should choose Big Human?
A typical fit: consumer app design for an early-stage or growth-stage startup.
A compact 35-person studio with its own consumer product hits (HQ Trivia, Vine) behind it, not just client work. Minimum engagement starts at Not published. Works best with clients in Consumer products, Media & entertainment, Financial services / fintech.
Decision matrix: Clay vs Big Human
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | Clay |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | Big Human |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Clay (Not published) vs Big Human (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Clay |
| 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: Clay vs Big Human
| Use case | Clay fit | Big Human fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| AI or fintech product design for a Series A-C startup | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Consumer app design for a high-growth B2B SaaS brand | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Consumer app design for an early-stage or growth-stage startup | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Brand-plus-product design bundle for a media or entertainment client | Limited | Strong | Big Human |
| Fixed-price product build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Dedicated design team augmentation | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: Clay vs Big Human
Clay (4.0/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Product Design projects. An unusually large enterprise client roster (Coinbase, Meta, Google, Slack) for a studio that doesn't publish its own founding year or team size.
Big Human (4.0/5) is worth a look if you need brand-plus-product design bundle for a media or entertainment client. If your situation matches that, Big Human is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Clay vs Big Human FAQ
Is Clay better than Big Human?
Clay (4.0/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Clay's strongest advantage: client list — Coinbase, Uber, Meta, Google, Slack, Snapchat, Amazon — is exceptional for a studio that doesn't publish its own size. Big Human's strongest advantage: built and shipped its own consumer hits — HQ Trivia and Vine — evidence of product instinct beyond client design work.
How do Clay and Big Human differ in pricing?
Clay uses fixed project pricing with a minimum engagement of Not published. Big Human 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: Clay or Big Human?
Big Human 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 Clay and Big Human?
Clay's primary differentiator is: an unusually large enterprise client roster (Coinbase, Meta, Google, Slack) for a studio that doesn't publish its own founding year or team size. Big Human's primary differentiator is: a compact 35-person studio with its own consumer product hits (HQ Trivia, Vine) behind it, not just client work. They also differ in team size (Boutique-to-mid (unconfirmed; not published by the company) vs ~35), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (SaaS / B2B software, Financial services / fintech vs Consumer products, Media & entertainment).
Verify all details directly with each agency before making a decision.