Fantasy vs UXDA: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
UXDA (4.3/5) edges ahead of Fantasy (3.8/5) overall. UXDA is the better choice for banks and fintech, exclusively financial-services UX. Fantasy is the stronger option for Consumer/tech brands, independent studio, growing AI practice. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Fantasy vs UXDA: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Fantasy | UXDA |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1999 | 2015 |
| HQ | San Francisco, CA, USA (also New York, NY) | Riga, Latvia |
| Team size | Not published | 25+ |
| Rating | 3.8 / 5 | 4.3 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Stayed independently owned for over two decades while most agencies its size sold to a holding company — with a client list (Nike, Disney, Spotify) to match the larger names on this list | The only studio on this list built exclusively around financial-services UX, with 150+ banking and fintech platforms shaped across 39 countries |
| Pricing model | Project-based (not published) | Fixed project, retainer |
| Min. engagement | Not published | $30K (per company website; independently unverifiable) |
| Primary tech stack | Figma, Adobe Creative Suite, Miro | Figma, Sketch, Design systems/Storybook |
| Industries served | Consumer products, Enterprise transformation, Automotive & mobility | Financial services / fintech |
Fantasy vs UXDA: overview
Fantasy
Fantasy — originally Fantasy Interactive — has operated independently since 1999 out of studios in San Francisco and New York, which alone sets it apart from most large agencies on this list that have since been folded into a holding company. Its client history reads like a highlight reel: Nike, Disney, Microsoft, Netflix, Spotify, Ford, Google, and Samsung, with more recent work for 23andMe and Rokid. The studio has leaned increasingly into AI-native product design in recent years, positioning itself at the intersection of AI, product strategy, and human-centered design across categories from automotive to wearables.
UXDA
Alex Kreger co-founded UXDA (Financial UX Design) in 2015, building a deliberately narrow practice from Riga, Latvia, with a 25-person multidisciplinary team. A decade in, UXDA has shaped or governed 150+ banking and fintech digital platforms across 39 countries — a level of single-vertical repetition none of the generalist studios on this list can claim. There's no branding or consumer-product work here; every engagement is financial-services UX.
Services and capabilities: Fantasy vs UXDA
| Capability | Fantasy | UXDA |
|---|---|---|
| Product design | ✓ | ✓ |
| UX research | ✓ | ✓ |
| Branding | ✓ | ✓ |
| Web development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Mobile development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Design systems | ✗ | ✗ |
Tech stack comparison: Fantasy vs UXDA
| Framework / platform | Fantasy | UXDA |
|---|---|---|
| Figma | ✓ | ✓ |
| Webflow | N/A | N/A |
| React | N/A | N/A |
| Framer | ✓ | N/A |
| Adobe Creative Suite | ✓ | N/A |
| Design systems/Storybook | N/A | ✓ |
| After Effects | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Fantasy vs UXDA
| Criterion | Fantasy | 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: Fantasy vs UXDA
| Dimension | Fantasy | UXDA |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Consumer products, Enterprise transformation, Automotive & mobility | Financial services / fintech |
| Best use cases | Consumer product design for an established or legacy-adjacent brand, AI feature design layered onto an existing product | Bank digital platform redesign, Fintech app UX for a regulated market |
| Typical project type | Fixed project | Fixed project |
Fantasy vs UXDA: pros and cons
| Fantasy | |
|---|---|
| + | Independently owned since 1999, avoiding the holding-company consolidation that's absorbed several peers on this list |
| + | Client history spans Nike, Disney, Microsoft, Netflix, and Spotify — a roster on par with much larger agencies |
| + | Increasingly positioned around AI-native product design, not just legacy interface work |
| + | Two studio locations (San Francisco, New York) support both coasts without a large global footprint to manage |
| - | Team size isn't published, making it hard to judge delivery capacity against studios that disclose headcount |
| - | Marquee client list suggests enterprise-level pricing, though no minimum engagement is published |
| - | Recent AI-native repositioning means less of a public track record in that specific specialization than its legacy design work |
| UXDA | |
|---|---|
| + | Exclusive financial-services focus builds deep domain expertise generalist studios can't match |
| + | 150+ banking and fintech platforms shaped across 39 countries over a decade |
| + | A small, senior 25-person team keeps relationships direct rather than layered through account management |
| + | A decade of single-vertical operation compounds domain knowledge project over project |
| - | Exclusive fintech focus is a liability for any client outside financial services |
| - | $30K minimum engagement (per company website; independently unverifiable) runs high for a 25-person boutique |
| - | Small team size caps capacity for very large, multi-workstream programs |
Who should choose Fantasy?
A typical fit: consumer product design for an established or legacy-adjacent brand.
Stayed independently owned for over two decades while most agencies its size sold to a holding company — with a client list (Nike, Disney, Spotify) to match the larger names on this list. Minimum engagement starts at Not published. Works best with clients in Consumer products, Enterprise transformation, Automotive & mobility.
Who should choose UXDA?
A typical fit: bank digital platform redesign.
The only studio on this list 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: Fantasy vs UXDA
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | Fantasy |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | Check each company's engagement model |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Fantasy (Not published) vs UXDA ($30K (per company website; independently unverifiable)) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Fantasy |
| 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: Fantasy vs UXDA
| Use case | Fantasy fit | UXDA fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consumer product design for an established or legacy-adjacent brand | Strong | Limited | Fantasy |
| AI feature design layered onto an existing product | Strong | Limited | Fantasy |
| Bank digital platform redesign | Limited | Strong | UXDA |
| 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: Fantasy vs UXDA
UXDA (4.3/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Product Design projects. The only studio on this list built exclusively around financial-services UX, with 150+ banking and fintech platforms shaped across 39 countries.
Fantasy (3.8/5) is worth a look if you need AI feature design layered onto an existing product. If your situation matches that, Fantasy is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Fantasy vs UXDA FAQ
Is Fantasy better than UXDA?
UXDA (4.3/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Fantasy's strongest advantage: independently owned since 1999, avoiding the holding-company consolidation that's absorbed several peers on this list. UXDA's strongest advantage: exclusive financial-services focus builds deep domain expertise generalist studios can't match.
How do Fantasy and UXDA differ in pricing?
Fantasy uses project-based (not published) 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: Fantasy or UXDA?
UXDA 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 Fantasy and UXDA?
Fantasy's primary differentiator is: stayed independently owned for over two decades while most agencies its size sold to a holding company — with a client list (Nike, Disney, Spotify) to match the larger names on this list. UXDA's primary differentiator is: the only studio on this list built exclusively around financial-services UX, with 150+ banking and fintech platforms shaped across 39 countries. They also differ in team size (Not published vs 25+), minimum engagement (Not published vs $30K (per company website; independently unverifiable)), and primary industries served (Consumer products, Enterprise transformation vs Financial services / fintech).
Verify all details directly with each agency before making a decision.