R/GA vs Method: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Method (3.7/5) edges ahead of R/GA (3.6/5) overall. Method is the better choice for enterprises wanting design-thinking backed by GlobalLogic scale. R/GA is the stronger option for large brands wanting design bundled with brand strategy. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
R/GA vs Method: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | R/GA | Method |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1977 | 1999 |
| HQ | New York City, NY, USA | San Francisco, CA, USA (also London and New York) |
| Team size | ~2,000 | Not published (operates within GlobalLogic's global workforce) |
| Rating | 3.6 / 5 | 3.7 / 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 | A quarter-century of design-thinking work for Google, Comcast, Samsung, and the BBC, now backed by GlobalLogic's engineering 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, Adobe Creative Suite, Design systems/Storybook |
| Industries served | Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Media & entertainment | Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Media & entertainment |
R/GA vs Method: 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.
Method
Five founders — Kevin Farnham, David Lipkin, Patrick Newbery, Mike Abbink, and Meng Mantasoot — started Method in 1999, building a design and innovation consultancy out of San Francisco with offices in London and New York. GlobalLogic acquired Method in 2011, and in 2021 the firm merged with sister company Skookum, adding offices in Charlotte, Atlanta, and Denver. Method's client list — Google, Comcast, Samsung, Nokia, Microsoft, the BBC, Nissan, Nordstrom — reflects a quarter-century of user-centered design thinking work for large brands.
Services and capabilities: R/GA vs Method
| Capability | R/GA | Method |
|---|---|---|
| Product design | ✓ | ✓ |
| UX research | ✓ | ✓ |
| Branding | ✓ | ✓ |
| Web development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Mobile development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Design systems | ✗ | ✓ |
Tech stack comparison: R/GA vs Method
| Framework / platform | R/GA | Method |
|---|---|---|
| Figma | ✓ | ✓ |
| Webflow | N/A | N/A |
| React | N/A | N/A |
| Framer | N/A | N/A |
| Adobe Creative Suite | ✓ | ✓ |
| Design systems/Storybook | N/A | ✓ |
| After Effects | ✓ | N/A |
Pricing comparison: R/GA vs Method
| Criterion | R/GA | Method |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Method
| Dimension | R/GA | Method |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | Enterprise product design backed by a larger engineering organization, Media or telecom digital product redesign for a large brand |
| Typical project type | Fixed project | Fixed project |
R/GA vs Method: 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 |
| Method | |
|---|---|
| + | Quarter-century client history including Google, Comcast, Samsung, Nokia, Microsoft, and the BBC |
| + | GlobalLogic ownership since 2011 provides access to a much larger engineering organization |
| + | 2021 merger with Skookum added US office presence in Charlotte, Atlanta, and Denver |
| + | Design-thinking-led methodology with a long, publicly documented case-study history |
| - | Acquired by GlobalLogic in 2011 — no longer an independently owned design consultancy |
| - | Team size isn't published separately from GlobalLogic's much larger combined workforce |
| - | Enterprise consulting scale and pricing are less accessible to startups than boutique studios |
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 Method?
A typical fit: enterprise product design backed by a larger engineering organization.
A quarter-century of design-thinking work for Google, Comcast, Samsung, and the BBC, now backed by GlobalLogic's engineering scale. Minimum engagement starts at Not published. Works best with clients in Enterprise transformation, Consumer products, Media & entertainment.
Decision matrix: R/GA vs Method
| 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 | Method |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: R/GA (Not published) vs Method (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 Method
| Use case | R/GA fit | Method 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 |
| Enterprise product design backed by a larger engineering organization | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| Media or telecom digital product redesign for a large brand | Limited | Strong | Method |
| Fixed-price product build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Dedicated design team augmentation | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: R/GA vs Method
Method (3.7/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Product Design projects. A quarter-century of design-thinking work for Google, Comcast, Samsung, and the BBC, now backed by GlobalLogic's engineering scale.
R/GA (3.6/5) is worth a look if you need enterprise digital product with a marketing/campaign component. If your situation matches that, R/GA is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
R/GA vs Method FAQ
Is R/GA better than Method?
Method (3.7/5) 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. Method's strongest advantage: quarter-century client history including Google, Comcast, Samsung, Nokia, Microsoft, and the BBC.
How do R/GA and Method differ in pricing?
R/GA uses project-based, retainer for ongoing programs pricing with a minimum engagement of Not published. Method 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 Method?
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 company before shortlisting.
What are the main differences between R/GA and Method?
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. Method's primary differentiator is: a quarter-century of design-thinking work for Google, Comcast, Samsung, and the BBC, now backed by GlobalLogic's engineering scale. They also differ in team size (~2,000 vs Not published (operates within GlobalLogic's global workforce)), 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.