R/GA vs Clay: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Clay (4.0/5) edges ahead of R/GA (3.7/5) overall. Clay is the better choice for B2B SaaS, AI, fintech — big-tech credibility, low profile. R/GA is the stronger option for large brands, product design bundled with marketing. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
R/GA vs Clay: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | R/GA | Clay |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1977 | 2015 |
| HQ | New York City, NY, USA | San Francisco, CA, USA |
| Team size | ~2,000 | Boutique-to-mid (unconfirmed; not published by the company) |
| Rating | 3.7 / 5 | 4.0 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Pairs product design with marketing and brand strategy under one roof, now operating independently of a holding company for the first time in over two decades | An unusually large enterprise client roster (Coinbase, Meta, Google, Slack) for a studio that doesn't publish its own founding year or team size |
| Pricing model | Project-based, retainer for ongoing programs | Fixed project |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | Figma, Adobe Creative Suite, After Effects | Figma, Framer, Webflow |
| Industries served | Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Media & entertainment | SaaS / B2B software, Financial services / fintech, Consumer products |
R/GA vs Clay: overview
R/GA
R/GA has operated out of New York since 1977 and today works from ten countries, including offices in Austin, London, São Paulo, Singapore, and Stockholm. For 23 years it sat inside Interpublic Group before completing an independent buyout with private equity partner Truelink Capital in March 2025 — recent enough that prospective clients should ask how the transition has settled. The firm's pitch has always leaned toward pairing digital product design with marketing and brand strategy, which shows up in its enterprise and consumer platform work for large brands.
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.
Services and capabilities: R/GA vs Clay
| Capability | R/GA | Clay |
|---|---|---|
| Product design | ✓ | ✓ |
| UX research | ✓ | ✓ |
| Branding | ✓ | ✓ |
| Web development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Mobile development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Design systems | ✗ | ✗ |
Tech stack comparison: R/GA vs Clay
| Framework / platform | R/GA | Clay |
|---|---|---|
| Figma | ✓ | ✓ |
| Webflow | N/A | ✓ |
| React | N/A | N/A |
| Framer | N/A | ✓ |
| Adobe Creative Suite | ✓ | ✓ |
| Design systems/Storybook | N/A | N/A |
| After Effects | ✓ | N/A |
Pricing comparison: R/GA vs Clay
| Criterion | R/GA | Clay |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Fixed project, Retainer | Fixed project, Retainer |
| Rate transparency | Minimum disclosed | Minimum disclosed |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: R/GA vs Clay
| Dimension | R/GA | Clay |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Media & entertainment | SaaS / B2B software, Financial services / fintech, Consumer products |
| Best use cases | Consumer platform redesign tied to a brand relaunch, Enterprise digital product with a marketing or campaign component | AI or fintech product design for a Series A-C startup, Consumer app design for a high-growth B2B SaaS brand |
| Typical project type | Fixed project | Fixed project |
R/GA vs Clay: pros and cons
| R/GA | |
|---|---|
| + | Combines product design with marketing and brand strategy, useful for clients who'd otherwise need two vendors |
| + | Ten-country footprint covers North America, Europe, Latin America, and Asia-Pacific |
| + | Nearly five decades of brand history and case studies |
| + | Now independently owned following its March 2025 buyout, after 23 years inside Interpublic Group |
| - | The 2025 ownership change from Interpublic Group to a private-equity-backed independent structure is still recent and worth asking about directly |
| - | Marketing-led positioning means less pure product-design specialization than boutique studios built around design alone |
| - | Scale and pricing tend to suit large brand budgets more than startup-stage product teams |
| 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 |
Who should choose R/GA?
A typical fit: consumer platform redesign tied to a brand relaunch.
Pairs product design with marketing and brand strategy under one roof, now operating independently of a holding company 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 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.
Decision matrix: R/GA vs Clay
| 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 | Check each company's engagement model |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: R/GA (Not published) vs Clay (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 Clay
| Use case | R/GA fit | Clay fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consumer platform redesign tied to a brand relaunch | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Enterprise digital product with a marketing or campaign component | Strong | Limited | R/GA |
| 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 |
| Fixed-price product build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Dedicated design team augmentation | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: R/GA vs Clay
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.
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 Clay FAQ
Is R/GA better than Clay?
Clay (4.0/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. R/GA's strongest advantage: combines product design with marketing and brand strategy, useful for clients who'd otherwise need two vendors. 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.
How do R/GA and Clay differ in pricing?
R/GA uses project-based, retainer for ongoing programs pricing with a minimum engagement of Not published. Clay uses fixed project 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 Clay?
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 Clay?
R/GA's primary differentiator is: pairs product design with marketing and brand strategy under one roof, now operating independently of a holding company for the first time in over two decades. 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. They also differ in team size (~2,000 vs Boutique-to-mid (unconfirmed; not published by the company)), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Enterprise transformation, Consumer products vs SaaS / B2B software, Financial services / fintech).
Verify all details directly with each agency before making a decision.