Frog vs Clay: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Clay (4.1/5) edges ahead of Frog (3.7/5) overall. Clay is the better choice for B2B SaaS, AI, fintech — big-tech credibility, low profile. Frog is the stronger option for enterprises needing digital plus physical product design. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Frog vs Clay: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Frog | Clay |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1969 | 2015 |
| HQ | San Francisco, CA, USA | San Francisco, CA, USA |
| Team size | 2,000+ | Boutique-to-mid (unconfirmed; not published by the company) |
| Rating | 3.7 / 5 | 4.1 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Designs physical hardware (IoT, automotive, medical devices) and the software on it within one team, a pairing most firms on this list dropped years ago | An unusually large enterprise client roster (Coinbase, Meta, Google, Slack) for a studio that doesn't publish its own founding year or team size |
| Pricing model | Project-based, enterprise consulting engagements | Fixed project |
| Min. engagement | Not published | $50K+ (per Clutch listing) |
| Primary tech stack | Figma, Adobe Creative Suite, Miro | Figma, Framer, Webflow |
| Industries served | Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Healthcare | SaaS / B2B software, Financial services / fintech, Consumer products |
Frog vs Clay: overview
Frog
frog started in Germany in 1969 as Esslinger Design and moved through Aricent and Altran before Capgemini folded it into Capgemini Invent. Capgemini then merged Fahrenheit 212, Idean, and June21 into the frog brand, which puts the practice at roughly 2,000 people across 35 studios. Physical product work is what separates it here. frog still designs IoT devices, car interiors, and medical hardware alongside the software that runs on them, and very few firms on this page can say the same. No restructuring or leadership news specific to frog had surfaced as of November 2026.
Clay
Clay (clay.global, unrelated to the AI sales-data company at clay.com) publishes little about itself and a lot about its clients: Coinbase, Uber, SendGrid, MoneyLion, Meta, Google, Slack, Snapchat, Amazon, Toyota, and Samsung. Its Clutch profile fills some gaps with a 4.8 rating across 30 verified reviews, a $50K+ minimum project, and hourly rates of $150–$199. Reviewers mostly praise its project management and delivery timing. Founding year and team size remain unconfirmed outside the company.
Services and capabilities: Frog vs Clay
| Capability | Frog | Clay |
|---|---|---|
| Product design | ✓ | ✓ |
| UX research | ✓ | ✓ |
| Branding | ✗ | ✓ |
| Web development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Mobile development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Design systems | ✓ | ✗ |
Tech stack comparison: Frog vs Clay
| Framework / platform | Frog | Clay |
|---|---|---|
| Figma | ✓ | ✓ |
| Webflow | N/A | ✓ |
| React | N/A | N/A |
| Framer | N/A | ✓ |
| Adobe Creative Suite | ✓ | ✓ |
| Design systems/Storybook | ✓ | N/A |
| After Effects | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Frog vs Clay
| Criterion | Frog | Clay |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | $50K+ (per Clutch listing) |
| Engagement models | Fixed project, Retainer | Fixed project, Retainer |
| Rate transparency | Minimum disclosed | Minimum disclosed |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Accessible |
Target audience comparison: Frog vs Clay
| Dimension | Frog | Clay |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Healthcare | SaaS / B2B software, Financial services / fintech, Consumer products |
| Best use cases | Connected hardware and IoT product design, Automotive or smart-home interface design | 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 |
Frog vs Clay: pros and cons
| Frog | |
|---|---|
| + | Hardware-plus-software design across IoT, automotive, and medical devices |
| + | 35 studios give genuine multi-region coverage for global programs |
| + | Five decades of design history to pull case studies from |
| + | Capgemini Invent's technology consultants are available when a project grows past design |
| - | You're hiring a Capgemini Invent brand, and procurement will treat it like one |
| - | Several absorbed agencies (Fahrenheit 212, Idean, June21) now share the name, so team continuity between projects can vary |
| - | Consulting-firm overhead slows small, fast projects compared with a boutique |
| Clay | |
|---|---|
| + | 4.8 Clutch rating across 30 verified reviews, with reviewers praising structured project management |
| + | Client list includes Coinbase, Uber, Meta, Google, Slack, and Amazon |
| + | Repeated work across B2B, SaaS, AI, and fintech products |
| + | Branding, UX, and product design come from one team |
| - | Founding year and team size aren't published or independently confirmed |
| - | $50K+ minimum and $150–$199 hourly rates (per Clutch listing) put it above most boutiques here |
| - | Easily confused with the unrelated AI company at clay.com |
Who should choose Frog?
A typical fit: connected hardware and IoT product design.
Designs physical hardware (IoT, automotive, medical devices) and the software on it within one team, a pairing most firms on this list dropped years ago. Minimum engagement starts at Not published. Works best with clients in Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Healthcare.
Who should choose Clay?
A typical fit: AI or fintech product design for a Series A-C startup.
An unusually large enterprise client roster (Coinbase, Meta, Google, Slack) for a studio that doesn't publish its own founding year or team size. Minimum engagement starts at $50K+ (per Clutch listing). Works best with clients in SaaS / B2B software, Financial services / fintech, Consumer products.
Decision matrix: Frog vs Clay
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | Frog |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | Check each company's engagement model |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Frog (Not published) vs Clay ($50K+ (per Clutch listing)) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Frog |
| 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: Frog vs Clay
| Use case | Frog fit | Clay fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Connected hardware and IoT product design | Strong | Limited | Frog |
| Automotive or smart-home interface design | Strong | Limited | Frog |
| AI or fintech product design for a Series A-C startup | Limited | Strong | Clay |
| Consumer app design for a high-growth B2B SaaS brand | Limited | Strong | Clay |
| Fixed-price product build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Dedicated design team augmentation | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: Frog vs Clay
Clay (4.1/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Product Design projects. An unusually large enterprise client roster (Coinbase, Meta, Google, Slack) for a studio that doesn't publish its own founding year or team size.
Frog (3.7/5) is worth a look if you need automotive or smart-home interface design. If your situation matches that, Frog is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Frog vs Clay FAQ
Is Frog better than Clay?
Clay (4.1/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Frog's strongest advantage: hardware-plus-software design across IoT, automotive, and medical devices. Clay's strongest advantage: 4.8 Clutch rating across 30 verified reviews, with reviewers praising structured project management.
How do Frog and Clay differ in pricing?
Frog uses project-based, enterprise consulting engagements pricing with a minimum engagement of Not published. Clay uses fixed project pricing with a minimum engagement of $50K+ (per Clutch listing). Neither firm publishes a full rate card; a discovery call is required for project-specific quotes.
Which is better for enterprise: Frog or Clay?
Frog is the larger team and typically the better enterprise-scale choice. For very large programmes, verify team size and compliance coverage directly with each agency before shortlisting.
What are the main differences between Frog and Clay?
Frog's primary differentiator is: designs physical hardware (IoT, automotive, medical devices) and the software on it within one team, a pairing most firms on this list dropped years ago. Clay's primary differentiator is: an unusually large enterprise client roster (Coinbase, Meta, Google, Slack) for a studio that doesn't publish its own founding year or team size. They also differ in team size (2,000+ vs Boutique-to-mid (unconfirmed; not published by the company)), minimum engagement (Not published vs $50K+ (per Clutch listing)), and primary industries served (Enterprise transformation, Consumer products vs SaaS / B2B software, Financial services / fintech).
Verify all details directly with each agency before making a decision.