Comparison updated August 2026
Side by side
Key data on both agencies. The accent dot marks where one leads.
| DECODE | Q Agency | |
|---|---|---|
| Editorial score | 66.5/100 | 66.5/100 |
| Hourly rate | €65-140/hr | ●€45-90/hr |
| Team size | 50-99 | ●250+ |
| Location | Zagreb, Croatia | Zagreb, Croatia |
| Founded | — | — |
| Tier | Free | Free |
| Last reviewed | Aug 10, 2026 | Aug 10, 2026 |
What we said about each
What we said about DECODE
"Forty case studies are published and most close with a number—237K active users across 137 countries for Vitastiq, 1 million downloads for CAFU, 6 million for Fling, 26 million devices for Shake, and an app for 70,000 crew across 40 Royal Caribbean ships. The numbers are adoption and scale rather than design outcomes, and the process behind them is described in engineering terms: the Vitastiq redesign cites Google Analytics behaviour analysis across every screen and a Figma handoff, while the…"
— UXAgencies editorial team, reviewed Aug 10, 2026
Read full review →What we said about Q Agency
"Twenty-three case studies are published against a client list that carries real weight—BBC, The Times, The Sun, Sandoz, ManpowerGroup and Subsea7—but the work described is mostly engineering rather than design. The Smart Pension case study is explicit about this: across a six-year engagement Q scaled to 18 Ruby engineers, three QA engineers and two product owners, and states that design was handled entirely by the client. Outcome numbers are rare on the index—one of the 23 entries carries a…"
— UXAgencies editorial team, reviewed Aug 10, 2026
Read full review →Best for
Where each agency measurably leads — on pricing, team capacity, declared specializations, and editorial scoring. Use these to match an agency to your project priorities.
Choose DECODE if you need
- •closer collaboration at a smaller team scale
- •broader service offering — also covers Design Systems
Choose Q Agency if you need
- •a more cost-effective engagement (~52% lower rate)
- •larger team capacity for multi-stream or enterprise-scale programs
- •broader service offering — also covers Quality Assurance
Strengths and watch-outs
Both upsides and risks, straight from our editorial assessments.
DECODE
✓ Strengths
- •Outcome numbers appear on most case studies rather than a select few, and they are adoption metrics that are hard to manufacture: 237K users, 1M and 6M downloads, 26M devices, and 70,000 crew members.
- •Engagements are long and named: Vitastiq since 2016, ASEE for five-plus years across leading banks, and one engagement documents eight engineers embedded into the client's team.
- •Two verifiable EU offices with street addresses (Radnička cesta 47, Zagreb; Hammer Straße 19, Düsseldorf), operating since 2012, plus a spun-out SaaS product (Shake) as evidence of in-house product capability.
⚠ Watch-outs
- •Published metrics measure adoption and scale, not design impact—ask which of the numbers the design work moved, and how that was attributed.
- •Case study narratives lead with engineering; research artifacts, personas and usability testing are not shown—clarify whether discovery is a separately priced phase.
- •Rates here are directory-sourced rather than published by the firm, so confirm the band and whether design and engineering bill differently.
Q Agency
✓ Strengths
- •Client calibre is unusually high for the rate band: BBC (described as the number-one medical app in the UK), The Times, The Sun, Sandoz, ManpowerGroup and Subsea7.
- •Scale is documented rather than asserted—the Smart Pension engagement names a peak team of 18 Ruby engineers, three QA engineers and two product owners over six years, with a named Senior Director of Engineering testimonial.
- •Third-party recognition spans Financial Times, Deloitte Tech Fast 500 EMEA, Clutch Top B2B (2021-2024) and Red Dot, with a stated 9.3/10 client satisfaction score and 52% of the technical team at senior level.
⚠ Watch-outs
- •The clearest documented engagement states design was the client's responsibility—ask for two case studies where Q owned UX research and interface design end to end.
- •Only one of the 23 published case studies carries an outcome metric, so ask what was measured on projects like yours and how.
- •Headcount is described as 300+ engineers across 20 countries with a 2,000+ talent pool—confirm how many are in-house, where your team sits, and what the contracting entity is.
Service coverage
Where each agency overlaps and where each is unique.
Only DECODE
Both
- •UX/UI Design
- •Mobile App Development
- •Web Development
- •Custom Software Development
- •Product Strategy
Only Q Agency
- •Quality Assurance
Pricing math
Estimated cost of a typical 12-week senior engagement (~480 hours), at each agency's published rate.
DECODE
Rate: €65-140/hr
€31,200–€67,200
Q Agency
Rate: €45-90/hr
€21,600–€43,200
For most engagements, Q Agency delivers better ROI per hour. DECODE's premium reflects brand and tenure rather than specialization disclosed on their profile.
Frequently asked questions
- Which is cheaper, DECODE or Q Agency?
- Q Agency is cheaper by roughly 52% — €68/hr median vs €103/hr at DECODE. The premium reflects either brand or specialization — see the editorial pull quotes for context.
- Which scores higher overall, DECODE or Q Agency?
- Both score equally well overall (66.5/100). The deciding factor is specialization — see the editorial quotes and Strengths sections above. Full methodology.
- When should I consider both DECODE and Q Agency?
- Consider running parallel discovery briefs with DECODE and Q Agency if your project spans multiple workstreams, you want competitive proposals to compare scope and approach, or you're undecided between the specialization angles each brings (see the Best for cards above). Most engagements ultimately go with one — but the parallel-brief phase is a low-cost way to validate fit.
Read the full reviews
Side-by-side comparison is a starting point. The full editorial reviews include portfolio analysis, case studies, and the buyer-strength / watch-out detail behind the bullets above.