Frog vs Cyber-Duck: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Frog (3.7/5) edges ahead of Cyber-Duck (3.7/5) overall. Frog is the better choice for enterprises needing digital plus physical hardware design. Cyber-Duck is the stronger option for public-sector UK orgs, proven public-trust client list. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Frog vs Cyber-Duck: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Frog | Cyber-Duck |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1969 | 2005 |
| HQ | San Francisco, CA, USA | Elstree, Hertfordshire, UK |
| Team size | 2,000+ | 90+ |
| Rating | 3.7 / 5 | 3.7 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Still designs physical hardware (IoT, automotive, medical devices) alongside software, inside Capgemini Invent's enterprise consulting scale | A UX and development practice built on public-sector and regulated-industry trust (Bank of England, Cancer Research UK, GOV.UK), now backed by CACI |
| Pricing model | Project-based, enterprise consulting engagements | Project-based (not published) |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | Figma, Adobe Creative Suite, Miro | Figma, Sketch, React |
| Industries served | Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Healthcare | Financial services / fintech, Healthcare, Enterprise transformation |
Frog vs Cyber-Duck: overview
Frog
Three ownership changes separate today's frog from its 1969 start as Esslinger Design in Germany — Aricent, then Altran, then Capgemini, which folded the studio into Capgemini Invent in 2019. Capgemini has since merged Fahrenheit 212, Idean, and June21 into the same brand, landing at roughly 2,000 people across 35 studios. What survives all that consolidation: frog still designs physical hardware — IoT, automotive, medical devices — alongside software, a combination most peers on this list no longer offer.
Cyber-Duck
Danny Bluestone founded Cyber-Duck in 2005 in Elstree, Hertfordshire, building a UX and software development practice that grew to 90+ staff across the UK and Europe before CACI acquired it, an ownership change worth disclosing. Client relationships include the Bank of England, Cancer Research UK, GOV.UK Verify partner CitizenSafe, the Commonwealth of Nations, Sport England, and Mitsubishi Electric — a client list skewed toward public-sector and regulated-industry work.
Services and capabilities: Frog vs Cyber-Duck
| Capability | Frog | Cyber-Duck |
|---|---|---|
| Product design | ✓ | ✓ |
| UX research | ✓ | ✓ |
| Branding | ✗ | ✗ |
| Web development | ✗ | ✓ |
| Mobile development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Design systems | ✓ | ✗ |
Tech stack comparison: Frog vs Cyber-Duck
| Framework / platform | Frog | Cyber-Duck |
|---|---|---|
| Figma | ✓ | ✓ |
| Webflow | N/A | N/A |
| React | N/A | ✓ |
| Framer | N/A | N/A |
| Adobe Creative Suite | ✓ | ✓ |
| Design systems/Storybook | ✓ | N/A |
| After Effects | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Frog vs Cyber-Duck
| Criterion | Frog | Cyber-Duck |
|---|---|---|
| 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: Frog vs Cyber-Duck
| Dimension | Frog | Cyber-Duck |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Healthcare | Financial services / fintech, Healthcare, Enterprise transformation |
| Best use cases | IoT and connected hardware product design, Automotive and smart-home interface design | Government or public-sector digital service UX, Regulated-industry (banking, healthcare charity) product design |
| Typical project type | Fixed project | Fixed project |
Frog vs Cyber-Duck: pros and cons
| Frog | |
|---|---|
| + | Rare combined software-plus-physical-hardware design capability in this list |
| + | 35 global studios support multi-region enterprise programs |
| + | More than five decades of brand history and design case studies |
| + | Access to Capgemini Invent's broader technology-consulting bench |
| - | Operates as a Capgemini Invent brand today, not an independent company — worth disclosing to prospective clients |
| - | Absorbed several legacy agencies (Fahrenheit 212, Idean, June21) under one brand, which can mean inconsistent staffing |
| - | Consulting-firm process overhead can slow fast-moving engagements relative to boutique companies |
| Cyber-Duck | |
|---|---|
| + | Client list (Bank of England, Cancer Research UK, GOV.UK Verify, Commonwealth of Nations) demonstrates genuine public-sector trust |
| + | 90+ staff across the UK and Europe supports mid-size delivery capacity |
| + | Two decades of continuous operation since 2005 |
| + | CACI acquisition provides access to a larger UK consulting and data-analytics organization |
| - | Acquired by CACI — no longer an independently owned agency, worth disclosing to prospective clients |
| - | Public-sector-heavy client list may be a less direct fit for consumer or startup-stage clients |
| - | Pricing and minimum engagement size aren't published |
Who should choose Frog?
A typical fit: IoT and connected hardware product design.
Still designs physical hardware (IoT, automotive, medical devices) alongside software, inside Capgemini Invent's enterprise consulting scale. Minimum engagement starts at Not published. Works best with clients in Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Healthcare.
Who should choose Cyber-Duck?
A typical fit: government or public-sector digital service UX.
A UX and development practice built on public-sector and regulated-industry trust (Bank of England, Cancer Research UK, GOV.UK), now backed by CACI. Minimum engagement starts at Not published. Works best with clients in Financial services / fintech, Healthcare, Enterprise transformation.
Decision matrix: Frog vs Cyber-Duck
| 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 | Check each company's engagement model |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Frog (Not published) vs Cyber-Duck (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 Cyber-Duck
| Use case | Frog fit | Cyber-Duck fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| IoT and connected hardware product design | Strong | Limited | Frog |
| Automotive and smart-home interface design | Strong | Limited | Frog |
| Government or public-sector digital service UX | Limited | Strong | Cyber-Duck |
| Regulated-industry (banking, healthcare charity) product design | Limited | Strong | Cyber-Duck |
| Fixed-price product build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Dedicated design team augmentation | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: Frog vs Cyber-Duck
Frog (3.7/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Product Design projects. Still designs physical hardware (IoT, automotive, medical devices) alongside software, inside Capgemini Invent's enterprise consulting scale.
Cyber-Duck (3.7/5) is worth a look if you need regulated-industry (banking, healthcare charity) product design. If your situation matches that, Cyber-Duck is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Frog vs Cyber-Duck FAQ
Is Frog better than Cyber-Duck?
Frog (3.7/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Frog's strongest advantage: rare combined software-plus-physical-hardware design capability in this list. Cyber-Duck's strongest advantage: client list (Bank of England, Cancer Research UK, GOV.UK Verify, Commonwealth of Nations) demonstrates genuine public-sector trust.
How do Frog and Cyber-Duck differ in pricing?
Frog uses project-based, enterprise consulting engagements pricing with a minimum engagement of Not published. Cyber-Duck uses project-based (not published) 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 Cyber-Duck?
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 company before shortlisting.
What are the main differences between Frog and Cyber-Duck?
Frog's primary differentiator is: still designs physical hardware (IoT, automotive, medical devices) alongside software, inside Capgemini Invent's enterprise consulting scale. Cyber-Duck's primary differentiator is: a UX and development practice built on public-sector and regulated-industry trust (Bank of England, Cancer Research UK, GOV.UK), now backed by CACI. They also differ in team size (2,000+ vs 90+), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Enterprise transformation, Consumer products vs Financial services / fintech, Healthcare).
Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.