R/GA vs Cyber-Duck: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
R/GA (3.7/5) edges ahead of Cyber-Duck (3.7/5) overall. R/GA is the better choice for large brands, product design bundled with brand strategy. 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.
R/GA vs Cyber-Duck: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | R/GA | Cyber-Duck |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1977 | 2005 |
| HQ | New York City, NY, USA | Elstree, Hertfordshire, UK |
| Team size | ~2,000 | 90+ |
| Rating | 3.7 / 5 | 3.7 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Fuses product design with marketing and brand strategy for large platforms, now independently owned for the first time in over two decades | 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, retainer for ongoing programs | Project-based (not published) |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | Figma, Adobe Creative Suite, After Effects | Figma, Sketch, React |
| Industries served | Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Media & entertainment | Financial services / fintech, Healthcare, Enterprise transformation |
R/GA vs Cyber-Duck: overview
R/GA
R/GA has operated out of New York City since 1977, expanding to ten countries that include Austin, London, São Paulo, Singapore, and Stockholm. After 23 years inside Interpublic Group, the firm completed an independent buyout in March 2025 backed by private equity firm Truelink Capital — a change recent enough to ask about directly. What's stayed constant across that ownership shift is the pitch: product design fused with marketing and brand strategy for large consumer and enterprise platforms.
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: R/GA vs Cyber-Duck
| Capability | R/GA | Cyber-Duck |
|---|---|---|
| Product design | ✓ | ✓ |
| UX research | ✓ | ✓ |
| Branding | ✓ | ✗ |
| Web development | ✗ | ✓ |
| Mobile development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Design systems | ✗ | ✗ |
Tech stack comparison: R/GA vs Cyber-Duck
| Framework / platform | R/GA | 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 |
Pricing comparison: R/GA vs Cyber-Duck
| Criterion | R/GA | 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: R/GA vs Cyber-Duck
| Dimension | R/GA | Cyber-Duck |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Media & entertainment | Financial services / fintech, Healthcare, Enterprise transformation |
| Best use cases | Consumer platform redesign tied to a brand relaunch, Enterprise digital product with a marketing/campaign component | Government or public-sector digital service UX, Regulated-industry (banking, healthcare charity) product design |
| Typical project type | Fixed project | Fixed project |
R/GA vs Cyber-Duck: pros and cons
| R/GA | |
|---|---|
| + | Combines product design with marketing and brand strategy under one roof |
| + | Ten-country presence spans North America, Europe, Latin America, and Asia-Pacific |
| + | Nearly five decades of case studies and enterprise brand relationships |
| + | Independently owned again since its 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 |
| 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 R/GA?
A typical fit: consumer platform redesign tied to a brand relaunch.
Fuses product design with marketing and brand strategy for large platforms, now independently owned for the first time in over two decades. Minimum engagement starts at Not published. Works best with clients in Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Media & entertainment.
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: R/GA vs Cyber-Duck
| 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 Cyber-Duck (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 Cyber-Duck
| Use case | R/GA fit | Cyber-Duck fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consumer platform redesign tied to a brand relaunch | Strong | Limited | R/GA |
| Enterprise digital product with a marketing/campaign component | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| 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: R/GA vs Cyber-Duck
R/GA (3.7/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Product Design projects. Fuses product design with marketing and brand strategy for large platforms, now independently owned for the first time in over two decades.
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
R/GA vs Cyber-Duck FAQ
Is R/GA better than Cyber-Duck?
R/GA (3.7/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. R/GA's strongest advantage: combines product design with marketing and brand strategy under one roof. 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 R/GA and Cyber-Duck differ in pricing?
R/GA uses project-based, retainer for ongoing programs 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: R/GA or Cyber-Duck?
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 Cyber-Duck?
R/GA's primary differentiator is: fuses product design with marketing and brand strategy for large platforms, now independently owned for the first time in over two decades. 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.