R/GA vs Clay: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Clay (4.2/5) edges ahead of R/GA (3.8/5) overall. Clay is the better choice for b2B SaaS, AI, and fintech companies that want a boutique studio with big-tech client credibility.. R/GA is the stronger option for large consumer and enterprise brands that need product design fused with marketing-led brand strategy across multiple regions.. 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 | 3.8 / 5 | 4.2 / 5 |
| Best for | Large consumer and enterprise brands that need product design fused with marketing-led brand strategy across multiple regions. | B2B SaaS, AI, and fintech companies that want a boutique studio with big-tech client credibility. |
| 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
Founded in 1977 and headquartered in New York City, R/GA operates from ten countries including Austin, London, São Paulo, Singapore, and Stockholm. R/GA spent 23 years inside Interpublic Group before completing an independent buyout in March 2025 with private equity partner Truelink Capital — a recent ownership change worth disclosing. The firm's positioning fuses digital product and service design with marketing and technology, producing strong enterprise and consumer platform work for large brands.
Clay
Clay (clay.global) is a product design studio based in San Francisco with extensive NYC-based client work; the company does not publish a founding year in available sources, so it is tagged here as unconfirmed. Team size is likewise not independently confirmed, best treated as boutique-to-mid-size. Clay's client list includes Coinbase, Uber, SendGrid, MoneyLion, Meta, Google, Slack, Snapchat, Amazon, Toyota, and Samsung, with deep B2B, SaaS, AI, and fintech experience. Note: this is the design studio at clay.global, distinct from the unrelated AI sales-data company Clay (clay.com).
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/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 | |
|---|---|
| + | Fuses product design with marketing and brand strategy, useful for clients who need both under one vendor |
| + | Global presence across ten countries covering North America, Europe, Latin America, and APAC |
| + | Nearly five decades of brand and case-study history |
| + | Now operating independently after a 2025 buyout, following 23 years inside Interpublic Group |
| - | Recent (March 2025) ownership change from Interpublic Group to a private-equity-backed independent structure — still stabilizing post-buyout |
| - | Marketing-led positioning means less pure product-design specialist depth than boutique studios |
| - | Scale suits large brand budgets more than startup-stage product teams |
| Clay | |
|---|---|
| + | Client list (Coinbase, Uber, Meta, Google, Slack, Snapchat, Amazon) is exceptional for a studio of unconfirmed, boutique-to-mid size |
| + | Deep, specific experience across B2B, SaaS, AI, and fintech product design |
| + | San Francisco base with a strong track record of NYC-based client work |
| + | UX design plus branding and web/product design under one roof |
| - | Founding year is not independently confirmed by any source outside the company itself — treat as unconfirmed |
| - | Team size is not published or independently verifiable, making capacity planning harder for large programs |
| - | Easily confused with the unrelated AI company Clay (clay.com) when researching online — verify you are looking at clay.global |
Who should choose R/GA?
R/GA is the right choice for large consumer and enterprise brands that need product design fused with marketing-led brand strategy across multiple regions..
Combines digital product design with marketing/brand strategy under one roof, now operating independently after its 2025 buyout from IPG. Minimum engagement starts at Not published. Works best with clients in Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Media & entertainment.
Who should choose Clay?
Clay is the right choice for b2B SaaS, AI, and fintech companies that want a boutique studio with big-tech client credibility..
Deep B2B/SaaS/AI/fintech design experience with a client list (Coinbase, Uber, Meta, Google, Slack) unusually strong for an unconfirmed-size boutique. 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/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 (4.2/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Product Design projects. Deep B2B/SaaS/AI/fintech design experience with a client list (Coinbase, Uber, Meta, Google, Slack) unusually strong for an unconfirmed-size boutique. It is best for b2B SaaS, AI, and fintech companies that want a boutique studio with big-tech client credibility..
R/GA (3.8/5) is the better choice when large consumer and enterprise brands that need product design fused with marketing-led brand strategy across multiple regions.. If your situation matches those criteria, R/GA is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
R/GA vs Clay FAQ
Is R/GA better than Clay?
Clay (4.2/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. R/GA is better for large consumer and enterprise brands that need product design fused with marketing-led brand strategy across multiple regions.. Clay is better for b2B SaaS, AI, and fintech companies that want a boutique studio with big-tech client credibility..
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: combines digital product design with marketing/brand strategy under one roof, now operating independently after its 2025 buyout from ipg. Clay's primary differentiator is: deep b2b/saas/ai/fintech design experience with a client list (coinbase, uber, meta, google, slack) unusually strong for an unconfirmed-size boutique. 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.