R/GA vs Clay: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Clay (4.0/5) edges ahead of R/GA (3.7/5) overall. Clay is the better choice for b2B SaaS, AI, and fintech companies wanting a boutique with a big-tech-caliber client list.. R/GA is the stronger option for large consumer or enterprise brands wanting product design bundled with marketing-led brand strategy.. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
R/GA vs Clay: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | R/GA | Clay |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1977 | 2015 |
| HQ | New York City, NY, USA | San Francisco, CA, USA |
| Team size | ~2,000 | Boutique-to-mid (unconfirmed; not published by the company) |
| Rating | 3.7 / 5 | 4.0 / 5 |
| Best for | Large consumer or enterprise brands wanting product design bundled with marketing-led brand strategy. | B2B SaaS, AI, and fintech companies wanting a boutique with a big-tech-caliber client list. |
| Pricing model | Project-based, retainer for ongoing programs | Fixed project |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | Figma, Adobe Creative Suite, After Effects | Figma, Framer, Webflow |
| Industries served | Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Media & entertainment | SaaS / B2B software, Financial services / fintech, Consumer products |
R/GA vs Clay: overview
R/GA
R/GA has operated out of New York City since 1977 and now spans ten countries, including Austin, London, São Paulo, Singapore, and Stockholm. Twenty-three years inside Interpublic Group ended with an independent buyout in March 2025, backed by private equity firm Truelink Capital — a recent structural shift worth disclosing. Its differentiator is fusing digital product design with marketing and brand strategy for large consumer and enterprise brands.
Clay
Clay (clay.global) operates out of San Francisco with substantial NYC client history. No founding year is published, so it's tagged here as unconfirmed; team size is likewise not independently verifiable — best treated as boutique-to-mid-size. Its roster — Coinbase, Uber, SendGrid, MoneyLion, Meta, Google, Slack, Snapchat, Amazon, Toyota, Samsung — reflects deep B2B, SaaS, AI, and fintech experience. This is the design company at clay.global, distinct from the unrelated AI sales-data company also named Clay (clay.com).
Services and capabilities: R/GA vs Clay
| Capability | R/GA | Clay |
|---|---|---|
| Product design | ✓ | ✓ |
| UX research | ✓ | ✓ |
| Branding | ✓ | ✓ |
| Web development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Mobile development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Design systems | ✗ | ✗ |
Tech stack comparison: R/GA vs Clay
| Framework / platform | R/GA | Clay |
|---|---|---|
| Figma | ✓ | ✓ |
| Webflow | N/A | ✓ |
| React | N/A | N/A |
| Framer | N/A | ✓ |
| Adobe Creative Suite | ✓ | ✓ |
| Design systems/Storybook | N/A | N/A |
| After Effects | ✓ | N/A |
Pricing comparison: R/GA vs Clay
| Criterion | R/GA | Clay |
|---|---|---|
| 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: R/GA vs Clay
| Dimension | R/GA | Clay |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Media & entertainment | SaaS / B2B software, Financial services / fintech, Consumer products |
| Best use cases | Consumer platform redesign tied to a brand relaunch, Enterprise digital product with a marketing/campaign component | 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 |
R/GA vs Clay: pros and cons
| R/GA | |
|---|---|
| + | Combines product design with marketing and brand strategy, useful for clients needing both from one vendor |
| + | Ten-country presence spans North America, Europe, Latin America, and APAC |
| + | Nearly five decades of case studies and enterprise brand relationships |
| + | Now independently owned following the March 2025 buyout, after 23 years inside Interpublic Group |
| - | Still stabilizing operationally after a recent (2025) private-equity-backed ownership change |
| - | Marketing-first positioning means less pure product-design specialization than boutique companies |
| - | Scale and pricing suit large-brand budgets more than early-stage product teams |
| Clay | |
|---|---|
| + | Client list (Coinbase, Uber, Meta, Google, Slack, Snapchat, Amazon) is exceptional for a boutique-to-mid-size company |
| + | Deep, specific track record across B2B, SaaS, AI, and fintech product design |
| + | San Francisco base with strong NYC client relationships |
| + | Combines UX design, branding, and web/product design under one roof |
| - | Founding year is not independently confirmed outside the company's own materials |
| - | Team size is neither published nor independently verifiable, complicating capacity planning for large programs |
| - | Easily confused with the unrelated AI company Clay (clay.com) — confirm you're researching clay.global |
Who should choose R/GA?
R/GA is the right choice for large consumer or enterprise brands wanting product design bundled with marketing-led brand strategy..
Fuses product design with marketing and brand strategy under one roof, now independent after its 2025 buyout from IPG. Minimum engagement starts at Not published. Works best with clients in Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Media & entertainment.
Who should choose Clay?
Clay is the right choice for b2B SaaS, AI, and fintech companies wanting a boutique with a big-tech-caliber client list..
A client list (Coinbase, Uber, Meta, Google, Slack) unusually strong relative to its unconfirmed, boutique-scale headcount. Minimum engagement starts at Not published. Works best with clients in SaaS / B2B software, Financial services / fintech, Consumer products.
Decision matrix: R/GA vs Clay
| 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 | Check each company's engagement model |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: R/GA (Not published) vs Clay (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 Clay
| Use case | R/GA fit | Clay fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consumer platform redesign tied to a brand relaunch | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Enterprise digital product with a marketing/campaign component | Strong | Limited | R/GA |
| AI or fintech product design for a Series A-C startup | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| 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: R/GA vs Clay
Clay (4.0/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Product Design projects. A client list (Coinbase, Uber, Meta, Google, Slack) unusually strong relative to its unconfirmed, boutique-scale headcount. It is best for b2B SaaS, AI, and fintech companies wanting a boutique with a big-tech-caliber client list..
R/GA (3.7/5) is the better choice when large consumer or enterprise brands wanting product design bundled with marketing-led brand strategy.. If your situation matches those criteria, R/GA is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
R/GA vs Clay FAQ
Is R/GA better than Clay?
Clay (4.0/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. R/GA is better for large consumer or enterprise brands wanting product design bundled with marketing-led brand strategy.. Clay is better for b2B SaaS, AI, and fintech companies wanting a boutique with a big-tech-caliber client list..
How do R/GA and Clay differ in pricing?
R/GA uses project-based, retainer for ongoing programs 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: R/GA or Clay?
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 company before shortlisting.
What are the main differences between R/GA and Clay?
R/GA's primary differentiator is: fuses product design with marketing and brand strategy under one roof, now independent after its 2025 buyout from ipg. Clay's primary differentiator is: a client list (coinbase, uber, meta, google, slack) unusually strong relative to its unconfirmed, boutique-scale headcount. They also differ in team size (~2,000 vs Boutique-to-mid (unconfirmed; not published by the company)), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Enterprise transformation, Consumer products vs SaaS / B2B software, Financial services / fintech).
Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.