R/GA vs AND Digital: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
R/GA (3.6/5) edges ahead of AND Digital (3.6/5) overall. R/GA is the better choice for large brands wanting design bundled with brand strategy. AND Digital is the stronger option for large UK enterprises, design plus team capability-building. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
R/GA vs AND Digital: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | R/GA | AND Digital |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1977 | 2014 |
| HQ | New York City, NY, USA | London, UK (Covent Garden; also Maidenhead and Leeds) |
| Team size | ~2,000 | 1,001–5,000 |
| Rating | 3.6 / 5 | 3.6 / 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 | Pairs product delivery for named enterprise clients (British Airways, Condé Nast) with capability-building for the client's own teams, at 1,000+ person UK scale |
| Pricing model | Project-based, retainer for ongoing programs | Enterprise consulting engagement (project-based or retainer) |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | Figma, Adobe Creative Suite, After Effects | Figma, React, Design systems/Storybook |
| Industries served | Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Media & entertainment | Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Media & entertainment |
R/GA vs AND Digital: overview
R/GA
R/GA spent 23 years as an Interpublic Group asset before completing an independent buyout in March 2025, backed by private equity firm Truelink Capital — recent enough that clients should ask directly how the transition has gone. Founded in New York City in 1977, the firm now operates from ten countries, including Austin, London, São Paulo, Singapore, and Stockholm. Its long-standing pitch — digital product design fused with marketing and brand strategy — still drives its work for large consumer and enterprise platforms.
AND Digital
AND Digital started in London's Covent Garden in 2014, building a product-development-and-team-building consultancy that now runs 1,001–5,000 people across multiple UK offices, including Maidenhead and Leeds. The firm's pitch blends technical delivery with talent development — it doesn't just design and build products for clients like British Airways, Condé Nast, The Telegraph, and Gousto, it also trains client teams to sustain the work afterward.
Services and capabilities: R/GA vs AND Digital
| Capability | R/GA | AND Digital |
|---|---|---|
| Product design | ✓ | ✓ |
| UX research | ✓ | ✓ |
| Branding | ✓ | ✗ |
| Web development | ✗ | ✓ |
| Mobile development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Design systems | ✗ | ✗ |
Tech stack comparison: R/GA vs AND Digital
| Framework / platform | R/GA | AND Digital |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
Pricing comparison: R/GA vs AND Digital
| Criterion | R/GA | AND Digital |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Fixed project, Retainer | Fixed project, Retainer, Dedicated team |
| Rate transparency | Minimum disclosed | Minimum disclosed |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: R/GA vs AND Digital
| Dimension | R/GA | AND Digital |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Media & entertainment | Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Media & entertainment |
| Best use cases | Consumer platform redesign tied to a brand relaunch, Enterprise digital product with a marketing/campaign component | Large UK enterprise product redesign with an internal capability-building component, Media or travel-sector digital product delivery at scale |
| Typical project type | Fixed project | Fixed project |
R/GA vs AND Digital: 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 studios |
| - | Scale and pricing suit large-brand budgets more than early-stage product teams |
| AND Digital | |
|---|---|
| + | Named enterprise client list (British Airways, Condé Nast, The Telegraph, Gousto) demonstrates real delivery scale |
| + | 1,001–5,000 employees give it significant UK delivery capacity |
| + | Combines product delivery with training the client's own team, not just a hand-off at project end |
| + | Multiple UK office locations (London, Maidenhead, Leeds) support regional delivery |
| - | UK-concentrated office footprint offers less multi-region coverage than global agency networks |
| - | Large consultancy scale and pricing are less accessible to startups than boutique studios |
| - | Talent-development-plus-delivery positioning means less singular focus on pure design than product-design-only specialists |
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 AND Digital?
A typical fit: large UK enterprise product redesign with an internal capability-building component.
Pairs product delivery for named enterprise clients (British Airways, Condé Nast) with capability-building for the client's own teams, at 1,000+ person UK scale. Minimum engagement starts at Not published. Works best with clients in Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Media & entertainment.
Decision matrix: R/GA vs AND Digital
| 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 | AND Digital |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: R/GA (Not published) vs AND Digital (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 AND Digital
| Use case | R/GA fit | AND Digital fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consumer platform redesign tied to a brand relaunch | Strong | Limited | R/GA |
| Enterprise digital product with a marketing/campaign component | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Large UK enterprise product redesign with an internal capability-building component | Limited | Strong | AND Digital |
| Media or travel-sector digital product delivery at scale | Limited | Strong | AND Digital |
| Fixed-price product build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Dedicated design team augmentation | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: R/GA vs AND Digital
R/GA (3.6/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Product Design projects. Fuses product design with marketing and brand strategy for large platforms, now independently owned for the first time in over two decades.
AND Digital (3.6/5) is worth a look if you need media or travel-sector digital product delivery at scale. If your situation matches that, AND Digital is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
R/GA vs AND Digital FAQ
Is R/GA better than AND Digital?
R/GA (3.6/5) 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. AND Digital's strongest advantage: named enterprise client list (British Airways, Condé Nast, The Telegraph, Gousto) demonstrates real delivery scale.
How do R/GA and AND Digital differ in pricing?
R/GA uses project-based, retainer for ongoing programs pricing with a minimum engagement of Not published. AND Digital uses enterprise consulting engagement (project-based or retainer) 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 AND Digital?
AND Digital 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 AND Digital?
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. AND Digital's primary differentiator is: pairs product delivery for named enterprise clients (British Airways, Condé Nast) with capability-building for the client's own teams, at 1,000+ person UK scale. They also differ in team size (~2,000 vs 1,001–5,000), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Enterprise transformation, Consumer products vs Enterprise transformation, Consumer products).
Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.