Frog vs Deeplocal: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Deeplocal (3.9/5) edges ahead of Frog (3.6/5) overall. Deeplocal is the better choice for brands needing working hardware prototypes, not just software. Frog is the stronger option for enterprises needing digital plus physical/hardware design. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Frog vs Deeplocal: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Frog | Deeplocal |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1969 | 2006 |
| HQ | San Francisco, CA, USA | Pittsburgh, PA, USA |
| Team size | 2,000+ | ~75 |
| Rating | 3.6 / 5 | 3.9 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Still designs physical hardware (IoT, automotive, medical devices) alongside software, inside Capgemini Invent's enterprise consulting scale | A Carnegie Mellon-spinoff studio that engineers and builds working hardware prototypes in-house, not just software mockups |
| Pricing model | Project-based, enterprise consulting engagements | Project-based (not published) |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | Figma, Adobe Creative Suite, Miro | Figma, React, Arduino/embedded systems |
| Industries served | Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Healthcare | Consumer products, Enterprise transformation, Automotive & mobility |
Frog vs Deeplocal: overview
Frog
Long before Capgemini Invent absorbed it in 2019, frog was Esslinger Design, founded in Germany in 1969, then passed through Aricent and Altran on its way to its current owner. Capgemini has since merged Fahrenheit 212, Idean, and June21 into the same brand, putting headcount around 2,000 across 35 studios worldwide. What frog still does that almost nobody else on this list does: design physical hardware — IoT devices, automotive interiors, medical equipment — with the same team that handles the software layer.
Deeplocal
Deeplocal spun out of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh in 2006, building a studio around robotics, hardware development, electrical engineering, and industrial design alongside standard software and creative work. WPP Digital acquired the studio in 2017. At around 75 people, Deeplocal does most of its prototyping and production in-house, which shows up in a client list — Google, Netflix, Airbnb, Lyft, Nike, Toyota, Volkswagen, PNC Bank — that regularly asks for physical, working prototypes rather than mockups.
Services and capabilities: Frog vs Deeplocal
| Capability | Frog | Deeplocal |
|---|---|---|
| Product design | ✓ | ✓ |
| UX research | ✓ | ✗ |
| Branding | ✗ | ✗ |
| Web development | ✗ | ✓ |
| Mobile development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Design systems | ✓ | ✗ |
Tech stack comparison: Frog vs Deeplocal
| Framework / platform | Frog | Deeplocal |
|---|---|---|
| Figma | ✓ | ✓ |
| Webflow | N/A | N/A |
| React | N/A | ✓ |
| Framer | N/A | N/A |
| Adobe Creative Suite | ✓ | N/A |
| Design systems/Storybook | ✓ | N/A |
| After Effects | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Frog vs Deeplocal
| Criterion | Frog | Deeplocal |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Fixed project, Retainer | Fixed project, Dedicated team |
| Rate transparency | Minimum disclosed | Minimum disclosed |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Frog vs Deeplocal
| Dimension | Frog | Deeplocal |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Healthcare | Consumer products, Enterprise transformation, Automotive & mobility |
| Best use cases | IoT and connected hardware product design, Automotive and smart-home interface design | Connected-hardware or physical prototype design for a brand campaign, Automotive or consumer-electronics product design requiring in-house engineering |
| Typical project type | Fixed project | Fixed project |
Frog vs Deeplocal: pros and cons
| Frog | |
|---|---|
| + | Rare combined software-plus-physical-hardware design capability in this pool |
| + | 35 global studios support multi-region enterprise programs |
| + | More than five decades of brand history and design case studies |
| + | Access to Capgemini Invent's broader technology-consulting bench |
| - | Operates as a Capgemini Invent brand today, not an independent boutique — worth disclosing to prospective clients |
| - | Absorbed several legacy agencies (Fahrenheit 212, Idean, June21) under one brand, which can mean inconsistent staffing |
| - | Consulting-firm process overhead can slow fast-moving engagements relative to boutique studios |
| Deeplocal | |
|---|---|
| + | In-house robotics, electrical engineering, and industrial design capability alongside software and creative work |
| + | Client list (Google, Netflix, Airbnb, Lyft, Nike, Toyota, Volkswagen, PNC Bank) spans tech, consumer, and automotive |
| + | WPP Digital backing since 2017 provides access to a larger global network when needed |
| + | Two decades of continuous operation since its 2006 Carnegie Mellon spinout |
| - | A ~75-person team caps capacity for very large, multi-workstream programs |
| - | Hardware-and-prototype focus is a narrower fit for clients needing pure software UI/UX work |
| - | Pricing and minimum engagement size aren't published |
Who should choose Frog?
A typical fit: IoT and connected hardware product design.
Still designs physical hardware (IoT, automotive, medical devices) alongside software, inside Capgemini Invent's enterprise consulting scale. Minimum engagement starts at Not published. Works best with clients in Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Healthcare.
Who should choose Deeplocal?
A typical fit: connected-hardware or physical prototype design for a brand campaign.
A Carnegie Mellon-spinoff studio that engineers and builds working hardware prototypes in-house, not just software mockups. Minimum engagement starts at Not published. Works best with clients in Consumer products, Enterprise transformation, Automotive & mobility.
Decision matrix: Frog vs Deeplocal
| 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 | Deeplocal |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Frog (Not published) vs Deeplocal (Not published) |
| 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 Deeplocal
| Use case | Frog fit | Deeplocal fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| IoT and connected hardware product design | Strong | Limited | Frog |
| Automotive and smart-home interface design | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Connected-hardware or physical prototype design for a brand campaign | Limited | Strong | Deeplocal |
| Automotive or consumer-electronics product design requiring in-house engineering | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Fixed-price product build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Dedicated design team augmentation | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: Frog vs Deeplocal
Deeplocal (3.9/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Product Design projects. A Carnegie Mellon-spinoff studio that engineers and builds working hardware prototypes in-house, not just software mockups.
Frog (3.6/5) is worth a look if you need automotive and smart-home interface design. If your situation matches that, Frog is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Frog vs Deeplocal FAQ
Is Frog better than Deeplocal?
Deeplocal (3.9/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Frog's strongest advantage: rare combined software-plus-physical-hardware design capability in this pool. Deeplocal's strongest advantage: in-house robotics, electrical engineering, and industrial design capability alongside software and creative work.
How do Frog and Deeplocal differ in pricing?
Frog uses project-based, enterprise consulting engagements pricing with a minimum engagement of Not published. Deeplocal 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: Frog or Deeplocal?
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 company before shortlisting.
What are the main differences between Frog and Deeplocal?
Frog's primary differentiator is: still designs physical hardware (IoT, automotive, medical devices) alongside software, inside Capgemini Invent's enterprise consulting scale. Deeplocal's primary differentiator is: a Carnegie Mellon-spinoff studio that engineers and builds working hardware prototypes in-house, not just software mockups. They also differ in team size (2,000+ vs ~75), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Enterprise transformation, Consumer products vs Consumer products, Enterprise transformation).
Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.