Work & Co vs Clay: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Clay (4.0/5) edges ahead of Work & Co (3.8/5) overall. Clay is the better choice for B2B SaaS, AI, fintech — big-tech credibility, low profile. Work & Co is the stronger option for premium brands, design paired with strong engineering. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Work & Co vs Clay: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Work & Co | Clay |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2013 | 2015 |
| HQ | Dumbo, Brooklyn, NY, USA | San Francisco, CA, USA |
| Team size | 425+ | Boutique-to-mid (unconfirmed; not published by the company) |
| Rating | 3.8 / 5 | 4.0 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | An engineering-heavy studio with a client roster (Apple, IKEA, Nike, Disney) unusually strong for its size, now operating inside Accenture Song | 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 | Fixed project, dedicated team | Fixed project |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | Figma, React, Next.js | Figma, Framer, Webflow |
| Industries served | Consumer products, Enterprise transformation, Healthcare | SaaS / B2B software, Financial services / fintech, Consumer products |
Work & Co vs Clay: overview
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.
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: Work & Co vs Clay
| Capability | Work & Co | Clay |
|---|---|---|
| Product design | ✓ | ✓ |
| UX research | ✗ | ✓ |
| Branding | ✗ | ✓ |
| Web development | ✓ | ✗ |
| Mobile development | ✓ | ✗ |
| Design systems | ✗ | ✗ |
Tech stack comparison: Work & Co vs Clay
| Framework / platform | Work & Co | Clay |
|---|---|---|
| Figma | ✓ | ✓ |
| Webflow | N/A | ✓ |
| React | ✓ | N/A |
| Framer | N/A | ✓ |
| Adobe Creative Suite | N/A | ✓ |
| Design systems/Storybook | N/A | N/A |
| After Effects | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Work & Co vs Clay
| Criterion | Work & Co | Clay |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Fixed project, Dedicated team | Fixed project, Retainer |
| Rate transparency | Minimum disclosed | Minimum disclosed |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Work & Co vs Clay
| Dimension | Work & Co | Clay |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Consumer products, Enterprise transformation, Healthcare | SaaS / B2B software, Financial services / fintech, Consumer products |
| Best use cases | Flagship consumer app redesign for a global brand, E-commerce platform rebuild requiring heavy front-end engineering | 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 |
Work & Co vs Clay: pros and cons
| 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 |
| 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 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.
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: Work & Co vs Clay
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | Work & Co |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | Work & Co |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Work & Co (Not published) vs Clay (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Work & Co |
| 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: Work & Co vs Clay
| Use case | Work & Co fit | Clay fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Flagship consumer app redesign for a global brand | Strong | Limited | Work & Co |
| E-commerce platform rebuild requiring heavy front-end engineering | Strong | Limited | Work & Co |
| AI or fintech product design for a Series A-C startup | Limited | Strong | Clay |
| 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: Work & Co 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.
Work & Co (3.8/5) is worth a look if you need e-commerce platform rebuild requiring heavy front-end engineering. If your situation matches that, Work & Co is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Work & Co vs Clay FAQ
Is Work & Co better than Clay?
Clay (4.0/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Work & Co's strongest advantage: client roster — Apple, IKEA, Google, Nike, Disney — is exceptional relative to a roughly 425-person studio. 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 Work & Co and Clay differ in pricing?
Work & Co uses fixed project, dedicated team 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: Work & Co or Clay?
Work & Co 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 Work & Co and Clay?
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. 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 (425+ vs Boutique-to-mid (unconfirmed; not published by the company)), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Consumer products, Enterprise transformation vs SaaS / B2B software, Financial services / fintech).
Verify all details directly with each agency before making a decision.