MetaLab vs Cyber-Duck: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
MetaLab (4.1/5) edges ahead of Cyber-Duck (3.7/5) overall. MetaLab is the better choice for well-funded SaaS/fintech, full-stack design partner. 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.
MetaLab vs Cyber-Duck: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | MetaLab | Cyber-Duck |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2006 | 2005 |
| HQ | Victoria, British Columbia, Canada (remote-first) | Elstree, Hertfordshire, UK |
| Team size | 160+ | 90+ |
| Rating | 4.1 / 5 | 3.7 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | A Slack/Uber/Coinbase/Midjourney-caliber portfolio built by a 160-person studio, delivered full-stack from research through design systems | 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 | Fixed project, dedicated team | Project-based (not published) |
| Min. engagement | $150K+ (per industry roundups; independently unverifiable) | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | Figma, Framer, Design systems/Storybook | Figma, Sketch, React |
| Industries served | SaaS / B2B software, Financial services / fintech, Consumer products | Financial services / fintech, Healthcare, Enterprise transformation |
MetaLab vs Cyber-Duck: overview
MetaLab
Andrew Wilkinson founded MetaLab in 2006; since January 2017 it has operated as a subsidiary of his holding company Tiny, worth disclosing since the studio is no longer independently owned. From Victoria, British Columbia, a remote-first team of 160+ people across 17 countries built products for Slack, Uber, Coinbase, Robinhood, Nike, Midjourney, and Headspace. Engagements run full-stack — research, strategy, UX, UI, and design systems — inside one team rather than split across vendors.
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: MetaLab vs Cyber-Duck
| Capability | MetaLab | Cyber-Duck |
|---|---|---|
| Product design | ✓ | ✓ |
| UX research | ✗ | ✓ |
| Branding | ✓ | ✗ |
| Web development | ✗ | ✓ |
| Mobile development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Design systems | ✓ | ✗ |
Tech stack comparison: MetaLab vs Cyber-Duck
| Framework / platform | MetaLab | Cyber-Duck |
|---|---|---|
| Figma | ✓ | ✓ |
| Webflow | ✓ | N/A |
| React | ✓ | ✓ |
| Framer | ✓ | N/A |
| Adobe Creative Suite | N/A | ✓ |
| Design systems/Storybook | ✓ | N/A |
| After Effects | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: MetaLab vs Cyber-Duck
| Criterion | MetaLab | Cyber-Duck |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | $150K+ (per industry roundups; independently unverifiable) | Not published |
| Engagement models | Fixed project, Dedicated team | Fixed project, Retainer |
| Rate transparency | Minimum disclosed | Minimum disclosed |
| Price tier | Accessible | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: MetaLab vs Cyber-Duck
| Dimension | MetaLab | Cyber-Duck |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | SaaS / B2B software, Financial services / fintech, Consumer products | Financial services / fintech, Healthcare, Enterprise transformation |
| Best use cases | SaaS product design from research through design system, Fintech app redesign for a funded startup | Government or public-sector digital service UX, Regulated-industry (banking, healthcare charity) product design |
| Typical project type | Fixed project | Fixed project |
MetaLab vs Cyber-Duck: pros and cons
| MetaLab | |
|---|---|
| + | Portfolio includes Slack, Uber, Coinbase, Robinhood, and Midjourney — exceptional for a 160-person company |
| + | Remote-first across 17 countries enables round-the-clock delivery coverage |
| + | Full-stack engagement model spans research, strategy, UX, UI, and design systems in one team |
| + | Nearly two decades under the same founding brand |
| - | Became a Tiny subsidiary in 2017 — worth disclosing even though the founding team and brand remain |
| - | Reported $150K+ typical minimum (per industry roundups; independently unverifiable) is out of reach for early-stage startups |
| - | High-profile client roster can mean longer lead times for new engagements |
| 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 MetaLab?
A typical fit: SaaS product design from research through design system.
A Slack/Uber/Coinbase/Midjourney-caliber portfolio built by a 160-person studio, delivered full-stack from research through design systems. Minimum engagement starts at $150K+ (per industry roundups; independently unverifiable). Works best with clients in SaaS / B2B software, Financial services / fintech, Consumer products.
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: MetaLab vs Cyber-Duck
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | MetaLab |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | MetaLab |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: MetaLab ($150K+ (per industry roundups; independently unverifiable)) vs Cyber-Duck (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | MetaLab |
| 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: MetaLab vs Cyber-Duck
| Use case | MetaLab fit | Cyber-Duck fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| SaaS product design from research through design system | Strong | Limited | MetaLab |
| Fintech app redesign for a funded startup | Strong | Limited | MetaLab |
| 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: MetaLab vs Cyber-Duck
MetaLab (4.1/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Product Design projects. A Slack/Uber/Coinbase/Midjourney-caliber portfolio built by a 160-person studio, delivered full-stack from research through design systems.
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
MetaLab vs Cyber-Duck FAQ
Is MetaLab better than Cyber-Duck?
MetaLab (4.1/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. MetaLab's strongest advantage: portfolio includes Slack, Uber, Coinbase, Robinhood, and Midjourney — exceptional for a 160-person company. 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 MetaLab and Cyber-Duck differ in pricing?
MetaLab uses fixed project, dedicated team pricing with a minimum engagement of $150K+ (per industry roundups; independently unverifiable). 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: MetaLab or Cyber-Duck?
MetaLab 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 MetaLab and Cyber-Duck?
MetaLab's primary differentiator is: a Slack/Uber/Coinbase/Midjourney-caliber portfolio built by a 160-person studio, delivered full-stack from research through design systems. 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 (160+ vs 90+), minimum engagement ($150K+ (per industry roundups; independently unverifiable) vs Not published), and primary industries served (SaaS / B2B software, Financial services / fintech vs Financial services / fintech, Healthcare).
Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.