Nomensa vs Cyber-Duck: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Nomensa (3.9/5) edges ahead of Cyber-Duck (3.7/5) overall. Nomensa is the better choice for Government, banking, healthcare — accessibility built in. 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.
Nomensa vs Cyber-Duck: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Nomensa | Cyber-Duck |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2001 | 2005 |
| HQ | Bristol, UK (also London and Amsterdam) | Elstree, Hertfordshire, UK |
| Team size | 100+ | 90+ |
| Rating | 3.9 / 5 | 3.7 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Built around accessibility and psychology-informed UX from its 2001 founding, now one of Europe's largest specialist UX agencies at 100+ people | 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 (not published) | Project-based (not published) |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | Figma, Sketch, Adobe Creative Suite | Figma, Sketch, React |
| Industries served | Financial services / fintech, Healthcare, EdTech | Financial services / fintech, Healthcare, Enterprise transformation |
Nomensa vs Cyber-Duck: overview
Nomensa
Simon Norris, Sally Lincoln, and Alastair Campbell founded Nomensa in 2001 around a specific combination: psychology, user-centered design, and accessibility. Now running from Bristol, London, and Amsterdam with 100+ people, the company calls itself one of Europe's largest specialist UX agencies, serving banking, e-commerce, education, entertainment, government, and healthcare clients. Accessibility isn't an add-on service here — auditing, testing, training, and consultancy sit alongside standard UX design work.
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: Nomensa vs Cyber-Duck
| Capability | Nomensa | Cyber-Duck |
|---|---|---|
| Product design | ✓ | ✓ |
| UX research | ✓ | ✓ |
| Branding | ✓ | ✗ |
| Web development | ✗ | ✓ |
| Mobile development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Design systems | ✗ | ✗ |
Tech stack comparison: Nomensa vs Cyber-Duck
| Framework / platform | Nomensa | Cyber-Duck |
|---|---|---|
| Figma | ✓ | ✓ |
| Webflow | N/A | N/A |
| React | N/A | ✓ |
| Framer | N/A | N/A |
| Adobe Creative Suite | ✓ | ✓ |
| Design systems/Storybook | N/A | N/A |
| After Effects | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Nomensa vs Cyber-Duck
| Criterion | Nomensa | 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: Nomensa vs Cyber-Duck
| Dimension | Nomensa | Cyber-Duck |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Financial services / fintech, Healthcare, EdTech | Financial services / fintech, Healthcare, Enterprise transformation |
| Best use cases | Government or public-sector digital accessibility compliance, Banking or healthcare UX requiring built-in accessibility auditing | Government or public-sector digital service UX, Regulated-industry (banking, healthcare charity) product design |
| Typical project type | Fixed project | Fixed project |
Nomensa vs Cyber-Duck: pros and cons
| Nomensa | |
|---|---|
| + | Accessibility expertise built into the practice since 2001, not added later as a compliance afterthought |
| + | 100+ people across Bristol, London, and Amsterdam is a genuinely large specialist UX team |
| + | Serves banking, e-commerce, education, government, and healthcare — sectors where accessibility compliance matters most |
| + | Independently founded and still operating under its original leadership focus |
| - | Accessibility-and-psychology specialization may be a narrower fit for clients whose priority is pure visual design |
| - | Pricing and minimum engagement size aren't published |
| - | European office footprint (Bristol, London, Amsterdam) offers less overlap with US or APAC business hours |
| 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 Nomensa?
A typical fit: government or public-sector digital accessibility compliance.
Built around accessibility and psychology-informed UX from its 2001 founding, now one of Europe's largest specialist UX agencies at 100+ people. Minimum engagement starts at Not published. Works best with clients in Financial services / fintech, Healthcare, EdTech.
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: Nomensa vs Cyber-Duck
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | Nomensa |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | Check each company's engagement model |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Nomensa (Not published) vs Cyber-Duck (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Nomensa |
| 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: Nomensa vs Cyber-Duck
| Use case | Nomensa fit | Cyber-Duck fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Government or public-sector digital accessibility compliance | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Banking or healthcare UX requiring built-in accessibility auditing | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Government or public-sector digital service UX | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| 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: Nomensa vs Cyber-Duck
Nomensa (3.9/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Product Design projects. Built around accessibility and psychology-informed UX from its 2001 founding, now one of Europe's largest specialist UX agencies at 100+ people.
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
Nomensa vs Cyber-Duck FAQ
Is Nomensa better than Cyber-Duck?
Nomensa (3.9/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Nomensa's strongest advantage: accessibility expertise built into the practice since 2001, not added later as a compliance afterthought. 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 Nomensa and Cyber-Duck differ in pricing?
Nomensa uses project-based (not published) 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: Nomensa or Cyber-Duck?
Nomensa 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 Nomensa and Cyber-Duck?
Nomensa's primary differentiator is: built around accessibility and psychology-informed UX from its 2001 founding, now one of Europe's largest specialist UX agencies at 100+ people. 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 (100+ vs 90+), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Financial services / fintech, Healthcare vs Financial services / fintech, Healthcare).
Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.