R/GA vs Work & Co: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Work & Co (3.8/5) edges ahead of R/GA (3.7/5) overall. Work & Co is the better choice for premium brands, design paired with strong engineering. 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 Work & Co: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | R/GA | Work & Co |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1977 | 2013 |
| HQ | New York City, NY, USA | Dumbo, Brooklyn, NY, USA |
| Team size | ~2,000 | 425+ |
| Rating | 3.7 / 5 | 3.8 / 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 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, retainer for ongoing programs | Fixed project, dedicated team |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | Figma, Adobe Creative Suite, After Effects | Figma, React, Next.js |
| Industries served | Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Media & entertainment | Consumer products, Enterprise transformation, Healthcare |
R/GA vs Work & Co: 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.
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: R/GA vs Work & Co
| Capability | R/GA | Work & Co |
|---|---|---|
| Product design | ✓ | ✓ |
| UX research | ✓ | ✗ |
| Branding | ✓ | ✗ |
| Web development | ✗ | ✓ |
| Mobile development | ✗ | ✓ |
| Design systems | ✗ | ✗ |
Tech stack comparison: R/GA vs Work & Co
| Framework / platform | R/GA | 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 | N/A |
| After Effects | ✓ | N/A |
Pricing comparison: R/GA vs Work & Co
| Criterion | R/GA | 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: R/GA vs Work & Co
| Dimension | R/GA | Work & Co |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Media & entertainment | Consumer products, Enterprise transformation, Healthcare |
| Best use cases | Consumer platform redesign tied to a brand relaunch, Enterprise digital product with a marketing or campaign component | Flagship consumer app redesign for a global brand, E-commerce platform rebuild requiring heavy front-end engineering |
| Typical project type | Fixed project | Fixed project |
R/GA vs Work & Co: 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 |
| 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 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 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: R/GA vs Work & Co
| 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 | Work & Co |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: R/GA (Not published) vs Work & Co (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 Work & Co
| Use case | R/GA fit | Work & Co fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consumer platform redesign tied to a brand relaunch | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Enterprise digital product with a marketing or campaign component | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| 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: R/GA 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.
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 Work & Co FAQ
Is R/GA better than Work & Co?
Work & Co (3.8/5) 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. Work & Co's strongest advantage: client roster — Apple, IKEA, Google, Nike, Disney — is exceptional relative to a roughly 425-person studio.
How do R/GA and Work & Co differ in pricing?
R/GA uses project-based, retainer for ongoing programs 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: R/GA or Work & Co?
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 Work & Co?
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. 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.