R/GA vs Nomensa: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Nomensa (3.9/5) edges ahead of R/GA (3.7/5) overall. Nomensa is the better choice for Government, banking, healthcare — accessibility built in. R/GA is the stronger option for large brands, product design bundled with brand strategy. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
R/GA vs Nomensa: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | R/GA | Nomensa |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1977 | 2001 |
| HQ | New York City, NY, USA | Bristol, UK (also London and Amsterdam) |
| Team size | ~2,000 | 100+ |
| Rating | 3.7 / 5 | 3.9 / 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 | Built around accessibility and psychology-informed UX from its 2001 founding, now one of Europe's largest specialist UX agencies at 100+ people |
| 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, Adobe Creative Suite |
| Industries served | Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Media & entertainment | Financial services / fintech, Healthcare, EdTech |
R/GA vs Nomensa: 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.
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.
Services and capabilities: R/GA vs Nomensa
| Capability | R/GA | Nomensa |
|---|---|---|
| Product design | ✓ | ✓ |
| UX research | ✓ | ✓ |
| Branding | ✓ | ✓ |
| Web development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Mobile development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Design systems | ✗ | ✗ |
Tech stack comparison: R/GA vs Nomensa
| Framework / platform | R/GA | Nomensa |
|---|---|---|
| Figma | ✓ | ✓ |
| Webflow | N/A | N/A |
| React | N/A | 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 Nomensa
| Criterion | R/GA | Nomensa |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Nomensa
| Dimension | R/GA | Nomensa |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Media & entertainment | Financial services / fintech, Healthcare, EdTech |
| Best use cases | Consumer platform redesign tied to a brand relaunch, Enterprise digital product with a marketing/campaign component | Government or public-sector digital accessibility compliance, Banking or healthcare UX requiring built-in accessibility auditing |
| Typical project type | Fixed project | Fixed project |
R/GA vs Nomensa: 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 |
| 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 |
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 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.
Decision matrix: R/GA vs Nomensa
| 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 Nomensa (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 Nomensa
| Use case | R/GA fit | Nomensa fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consumer platform redesign tied to a brand relaunch | Strong | Limited | R/GA |
| Enterprise digital product with a marketing/campaign component | Strong | Limited | R/GA |
| Government or public-sector digital accessibility compliance | Limited | Strong | Nomensa |
| Banking or healthcare UX requiring built-in accessibility auditing | Limited | Strong | Nomensa |
| Fixed-price product build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Dedicated design team augmentation | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: R/GA vs Nomensa
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.
R/GA (3.7/5) is worth a look if you need enterprise digital product with a marketing/campaign component. If your situation matches that, R/GA is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
R/GA vs Nomensa FAQ
Is R/GA better than Nomensa?
Nomensa (3.9/5) 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. Nomensa's strongest advantage: accessibility expertise built into the practice since 2001, not added later as a compliance afterthought.
How do R/GA and Nomensa differ in pricing?
R/GA uses project-based, retainer for ongoing programs pricing with a minimum engagement of Not published. Nomensa 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 Nomensa?
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 Nomensa?
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. 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. They also differ in team size (~2,000 vs 100+), 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.