R/GA vs Clay: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Clay (4.1/5) edges ahead of R/GA (3.8/5) overall. Clay is the better choice for B2B SaaS, AI, fintech — big-tech credibility, low profile. R/GA is the stronger option for large brands that want product design and marketing from one partner. 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 | 3.8 / 5 | 4.1 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Pairs product design with brand and marketing strategy, and since going independent has been buying and building AI design capability | 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, retainer for ongoing programs | Fixed project |
| Min. engagement | Not published | $50K+ (per Clutch listing) |
| 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
Since buying itself back from Interpublic Group in March 2025, with majority backing from Truelink Capital, R/GA has moved quickly. It set up a $50M innovation fund, launched a global AI products team, and made the first acquisition in its nearly 50-year history: Addition, an AI system design studio. In September 2026 it hired former Google executive Sadie Thoma as its first global chief business officer. The agency has run out of New York since 1977 and now works from ten countries, including Austin, London, São Paulo, Singapore, and Stockholm. Product design still arrives bundled with brand and marketing strategy.
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: 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 | $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: 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 or 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 | |
|---|---|
| + | Product design and marketing strategy come from one team, which saves large brands a second vendor |
| + | Acquired AI system design studio Addition, its first acquisition, funded from a $50M innovation fund |
| + | Offices in ten countries across North America, Europe, Latin America, and Asia-Pacific |
| + | Leadership bench keeps growing after the buyout, including a first global chief business officer hired in September 2026 |
| - | Ownership changed in 2025 and the AI products team is new, so ask how much of that capability would touch your project |
| - | Trade-press reports of 25% year-on-year revenue growth in Q1 2026 come from the agency itself |
| - | Marketing-led positioning and large-brand pricing fit early-stage product teams poorly |
| 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 R/GA?
A typical fit: consumer platform redesign tied to a brand relaunch.
Pairs product design with brand and marketing strategy, and since going independent has been buying and building AI design capability. Minimum engagement starts at Not published. Works best with clients in Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Media & entertainment.
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: 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 ($50K+ (per Clutch listing)) |
| 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 or 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 (4.1/5) 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.
R/GA (3.8/5) is worth a look if you need enterprise digital product with a marketing or campaign component. If your situation matches that, R/GA is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
R/GA vs Clay FAQ
Is R/GA better than Clay?
Clay (4.1/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. R/GA's strongest advantage: product design and marketing strategy come from one team, which saves large brands a second vendor. Clay's strongest advantage: 4.8 Clutch rating across 30 verified reviews, with reviewers praising structured project management.
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 $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: 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 agency before shortlisting.
What are the main differences between R/GA and Clay?
R/GA's primary differentiator is: pairs product design with brand and marketing strategy, and since going independent has been buying and building AI design capability. 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.