Work & Co vs Cyber-Duck: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Work & Co (3.8/5) edges ahead of Cyber-Duck (3.7/5) overall. Work & Co is the better choice for premium brands, design plus production-grade engineering. 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.
Work & Co vs Cyber-Duck: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Work & Co | Cyber-Duck |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2013 | 2005 |
| HQ | Dumbo, Brooklyn, NY, USA | Elstree, Hertfordshire, UK |
| Team size | 425+ | 90+ |
| Rating | 3.8 / 5 | 3.7 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | A client roster (Apple, IKEA, Nike, Disney) that outpaced its ~425-person headcount, delivered through an engineering-heavy design-and-build model | 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 | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | Figma, React, Next.js | Figma, Sketch, React |
| Industries served | Consumer products, Enterprise transformation, Healthcare | Financial services / fintech, Healthcare, Enterprise transformation |
Work & Co vs Cyber-Duck: overview
Work & Co
Gene Liebel, Felipe Memoria, Joe Stewart, Mohan Ramaswamy, and Marcelo Eduardo launched Work & Co from Dumbo, Brooklyn in May 2013. Offices across the US, Latin America, and Europe followed, but headcount (roughly 425) never caught up with the client list — Apple, IKEA, Google, Mercedes-Benz, Pfizer, GoFundMe, Nike, and Disney have all hired this team, largely because design and front-end engineering happen inside the same group. Accenture Song acquired Work & Co in 2023.
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: Work & Co vs Cyber-Duck
| Capability | Work & Co | Cyber-Duck |
|---|---|---|
| Product design | ✓ | ✓ |
| UX research | ✗ | ✓ |
| Branding | ✗ | ✗ |
| Web development | ✓ | ✓ |
| Mobile development | ✓ | ✗ |
| Design systems | ✗ | ✗ |
Tech stack comparison: Work & Co vs Cyber-Duck
| Framework / platform | Work & Co | Cyber-Duck |
|---|---|---|
| Figma | ✓ | ✓ |
| Webflow | N/A | N/A |
| React | ✓ | ✓ |
| Framer | N/A | N/A |
| Adobe Creative Suite | N/A | ✓ |
| Design systems/Storybook | N/A | N/A |
| After Effects | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Work & Co vs Cyber-Duck
| Criterion | Work & Co | Cyber-Duck |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Fixed project, Dedicated team | Fixed project, Retainer |
| Rate transparency | Minimum disclosed | Minimum disclosed |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Work & Co vs Cyber-Duck
| Dimension | Work & Co | Cyber-Duck |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Consumer products, Enterprise transformation, Healthcare | Financial services / fintech, Healthcare, Enterprise transformation |
| Best use cases | Flagship consumer app redesign for a global brand, E-commerce platform rebuild with heavy front-end engineering | Government or public-sector digital service UX, Regulated-industry (banking, healthcare charity) product design |
| Typical project type | Fixed project | Fixed project |
Work & Co vs Cyber-Duck: pros and cons
| Work & Co | |
|---|---|
| + | Client roster (Apple, IKEA, Google, Nike, Disney) is exceptional relative to headcount |
| + | Design and engineering under one roof cuts the hand-off risk of splitting vendors |
| + | 425+ people across the US, Europe, and Latin America give real multi-region capacity |
| + | Consistent record shipping flagship consumer digital products |
| - | Now part of Accenture Song, which shares a parent with the Accenture Song entry elsewhere in this list |
| - | A premium client base implies premium pricing even without a published minimum |
| - | Less vertical specialization (fintech, healthcare-specific) than boutiques built around one niche |
| 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 Work & Co?
A typical fit: flagship consumer app redesign for a global brand.
A client roster (Apple, IKEA, Nike, Disney) that outpaced its ~425-person headcount, delivered through an engineering-heavy design-and-build model. Minimum engagement starts at Not published. Works best with clients in Consumer products, Enterprise transformation, Healthcare.
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: Work & Co vs Cyber-Duck
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | Work & Co |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | Work & Co |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Work & Co (Not published) vs Cyber-Duck (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Work & Co |
| 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: Work & Co vs Cyber-Duck
| Use case | Work & Co fit | Cyber-Duck fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Flagship consumer app redesign for a global brand | Strong | Limited | Work & Co |
| E-commerce platform rebuild with heavy front-end engineering | Strong | Limited | Work & Co |
| 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: Work & Co vs Cyber-Duck
Work & Co (3.8/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Product Design projects. A client roster (Apple, IKEA, Nike, Disney) that outpaced its ~425-person headcount, delivered through an engineering-heavy design-and-build model.
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
Work & Co vs Cyber-Duck FAQ
Is Work & Co better than Cyber-Duck?
Work & Co (3.8/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Work & Co's strongest advantage: client roster (Apple, IKEA, Google, Nike, Disney) is exceptional relative to headcount. 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 Work & Co and Cyber-Duck differ in pricing?
Work & Co uses fixed project, dedicated team 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: Work & Co or Cyber-Duck?
Work & Co 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 Work & Co and Cyber-Duck?
Work & Co's primary differentiator is: a client roster (Apple, IKEA, Nike, Disney) that outpaced its ~425-person headcount, delivered through an engineering-heavy design-and-build model. 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 (425+ vs 90+), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Consumer products, Enterprise transformation vs Financial services / fintech, Healthcare).
Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.