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 strong engineering. Frog is the stronger option for enterprises needing digital plus physical product design. 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 | Combines physical hardware design (IoT, automotive, medical devices) with software product design, a pairing most competitors on this list have dropped | An engineering-heavy studio with a client roster (Apple, IKEA, Nike, Disney) unusually strong for its size, now operating inside Accenture Song |
| 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
Frog's lineage runs back to 1969 as Esslinger Design in Germany before the frog design brand took shape; ownership passed through Aricent and Altran before Capgemini folded the studio into Capgemini Invent in 2019. Capgemini has since merged additional shops — Fahrenheit 212, Idean, June21 — into the frog name, bringing the practice to roughly 2,000 people across 35 studios. What still sets it apart from most of this list is scope: frog designs physical products (IoT devices, automotive interiors, medical hardware) alongside software, a combination fewer and fewer studios still offer.
Work & Co
Five co-founders — Gene Liebel, Felipe Memoria, Joe Stewart, Mohan Ramaswamy, and Marcelo Eduardo — started Work & Co in May 2013 out of Dumbo, Brooklyn, and the studio has since opened offices across the US, Latin America, and Europe. What's unusual is the client list relative to headcount: Apple, IKEA, Google, Mercedes-Benz, Pfizer, GoFundMe, Nike, and Disney have all hired a studio of roughly 425 people. Work & Co is now part of Accenture Song, a detail worth surfacing alongside the design credentials.
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 | Connected hardware and IoT product design, Automotive or 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 | |
|---|---|
| + | Rare hardware-plus-software design capability spanning IoT, automotive, and medical devices |
| + | 35 global studios give real multi-region enterprise coverage |
| + | More than five decades of design history and case studies to draw from |
| + | Capgemini Invent backing opens access to broader technology-consulting resources beyond design |
| - | Operates as a consulting-firm brand inside Capgemini Invent rather than an independent studio — worth factoring into vendor evaluations |
| - | Multiple legacy agencies (Fahrenheit 212, Idean, June21) were absorbed into the frog name, which can mean inconsistent team continuity between projects |
| - | Large consulting-firm overhead can slow smaller, faster-moving engagements relative to boutique studios |
| Work & Co | |
|---|---|
| + | Client roster — Apple, IKEA, Google, Nike, Disney — is exceptional relative to a roughly 425-person studio |
| + | Engineering-heavy delivery model keeps design and build under one roof, cutting hand-off risk |
| + | 425+ people across the US, Europe, and Latin America give genuine multi-region coverage |
| + | Strong track record on premium consumer digital product launches |
| - | Now part of Accenture Song, the same parent as Accenture Song's own listing here — worth noting for buyers comparing the two |
| - | Premium client roster implies premium pricing, though no minimum engagement figure is published |
| - | Less vertical specialization in fintech or healthcare than boutiques built specifically around those industries |
Who should choose Frog?
A typical fit: connected hardware and IoT product design.
Combines physical hardware design (IoT, automotive, medical devices) with software product design, a pairing most competitors on this list have dropped. 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.
An engineering-heavy studio with a client roster (Apple, IKEA, Nike, Disney) unusually strong for its size, now operating inside Accenture Song. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Connected hardware and IoT product design | Strong | Limited | Frog |
| Automotive or 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. An engineering-heavy studio with a client roster (Apple, IKEA, Nike, Disney) unusually strong for its size, now operating inside Accenture Song.
Frog (3.7/5) is worth a look if you need automotive or 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: rare hardware-plus-software 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 roughly 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: combines physical hardware design (IoT, automotive, medical devices) with software product design, a pairing most competitors on this list have dropped. Work & Co's primary differentiator is: an engineering-heavy studio with a client roster (Apple, IKEA, Nike, Disney) unusually strong for its size, now operating inside Accenture Song. 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.