B2B AI product design agencies
Fuselab Creative leads on accessibility and handoff, IDEO on research and recognition. Fuselab Creative, Artefact and Fantasy list AI design as a service, and TEAGUE follows on human factors. Ranked on six published criteria, not claimed AI capability.
5 agencies, in our ranking order Reset
All 5 agencies, in ranking order
Score /10 is our ranking. Match % reflects your brief.
- Above your rate
-
Rank 1 Held
Fuselab Creative
9.3 Composite score /10
Above your rate96% match for your brief Works on an AI feature or copilot.
Designs the interface layer of B2B AI, with top accessibility and handoff scores
- Description
Fuselab Creative lists AI interface design among its services, and its work sits in software where a wrong answer has consequences: government, healthcare and financial tools. Its strongest scores are the ones that setting needs most. Tested accessibility of 9.9 covers the dynamic output AI features produce, a handoff score of 9.8 suggests designs that hold together as model behaviour changes, and research at 9.4 points to evidence about how professionals actually use the tools. It also has the lowest entry point here, with a $25,000 minimum and rates of $100 to $149 an hour. The limits are reputation and reach. Independent signals, at 7.4, is its lowest score and well behind IDEO, and a team of thirty to fifty people is small for a large AI programme. Ask for named examples where it designed for wrong or low-confidence output.
- Best for
- A product team adding AI to regulated or data-heavy software on a moderate budget
- Services
- Enterprise UX, Dashboard and data visualisation, AI interface design, Map visualisation, Digital product strategy
- Clients
- NASA, NIH, Fiserv, Uber
- Budget
- $$ · $100–149 an hour · from $25k
How it scored
- Live product quality
- 9.4
- UX structural depth
- 9.2
- Research evidence
- 9.4
- Accessibility, tested
- 9.9
- Post-handoff coherence
- 9.8
- Independent signals
- 7.4
-
Rank 2 Held
IDEO
9.2 Composite score /10
Above your rate95% match for your brief Works on an AI feature or copilot.
Deepest research on this page, with no AI service on its record
- Description
IDEO leads on research evidence at 9.8, the criterion that matters most when the risk in an AI feature is whether professionals will trust and act on its output rather than whether it renders well. Its record lists design research, service design and organisational design, a mix that suits copilots which change how a team works and not only what a screen shows. Ford, PepsiCo and Eli Lilly show it working inside large, complex organisations. What the facts do not establish is any AI product service, so ask for named examples of model-backed interfaces. Post-handoff coherence of 8.4 is its lowest score, and a $250,000 minimum with rates of $250 to $400 an hour puts it beyond a single feature. Five hundred to seven hundred people, San Francisco.
- Best for
- Deciding how professionals should rely on an AI feature, before building it
- Services
- Service design, Design research, Organisational design, Product strategy
- Clients
- Ford, PepsiCo, Eli Lilly
- Budget
- $$$$ · $250–400 an hour · from $250k
How it scored
- Live product quality
- 9.4
- UX structural depth
- 9.2
- Research evidence
- 9.8
- Accessibility, tested
- 8.6
- Post-handoff coherence
- 8.4
- Independent signals
- 9.9
-
Rank 3 Held
Artefact
8.5 Composite score /10
Above your rate82% match for your brief Works on an AI feature or copilot.
One of three agencies here that list AI design as a service
- Description
Artefact is one of three agencies on this page whose records name AI design as a service, and lists it alongside responsible technology, product strategy and data visualisation. That combination maps onto what a B2B AI engagement needs: interfaces for model output, and a stated interest in trust, though the facts do not say how that is delivered. Research at 9.0 is third on this page, and UX structural depth at 8.8 is fourth. Microsoft, Google and Samsung establish work for platform companies, not which of it involved AI. Data visualisation also suggests it can present model-derived figures clearly, which many enterprise AI features depend on. Post-handoff coherence of 8.0 is its weakest score and level with TEAGUE for lowest here, so define the build-partner handoff in the contract. Rates $185 to $270, minimum $120,000, Seattle.
- Best for
- AI-native products and copilots where the work is the AI experience itself
- Services
- AI product design, Responsible technology, Product strategy, Data visualisation
- Clients
- Microsoft, Google, Samsung
- Budget
- $$$ · $185–270 an hour · from $120k
How it scored
- Live product quality
- 8.5
- UX structural depth
- 8.8
- Research evidence
- 9.0
- Accessibility, tested
- 8.2
- Post-handoff coherence
- 8.0
- Independent signals
- 8.3
-
Rank 4 New entry
Fantasy
8.5 Composite score /10
Above your rate82% match for your brief Works on an AI feature or copilot.
AI-native product design, with prototyping and platform depth behind it
- Description
Fantasy now describes itself as an AI-native product design agency, and its recent work covers AI interfaces and generative products alongside the enterprise platforms it is known for. That makes it one of three agencies here whose services name AI design. Prototyping is part of its core offer, which matters for AI because a prototype that calls a real model shows the behaviour that tidy mockups hide. UX structural depth of 9.0 sits just behind Fuselab Creative and IDEO, and live product quality of 8.8 is ahead of Artefact and TEAGUE. Google, British Airways and Citi show it working inside large, cautious organisations. The limits are rigour and price: research at 8.1 and accessibility at 8.0 are its two weakest columns, so ask how it tests trust in AI output and how dynamic content works with assistive technology. New York, 80 to 120 people, $190 to $280 an hour and a $150,000 minimum.
- Best for
- Prototyping and building an AI feature inside a large enterprise platform
- Services
- AI interface design, Enterprise UX, Prototyping, Design systems
- Clients
- Google, British Airways, Citi
- Budget
- $$$ · $190–280 an hour · from $150k
How it scored
- Live product quality
- 8.8
- UX structural depth
- 9.0
- Research evidence
- 8.1
- Accessibility, tested
- 8.0
- Post-handoff coherence
- 8.5
- Independent signals
- 8.4
-
Rank 5 Held
TEAGUE
8.3 Composite score /10
Above your rate78% match for your brief Works on an AI feature or copilot.
Human factors depth suits AI that meets hardware or operators
- Description
TEAGUE lists industrial design and mixed reality as its specialty, with interface design and human factors among its services. Human factors is the discipline that studies how people supervise automated systems, so it is the nearest thing in these records to oversight expertise, though nothing in the facts mentions AI itself. Boeing, Toyota and Intel point to complex engineered products, and research at 8.6 is fourth on this page. The fit is strongest where AI meets hardware, vehicles or spatial interfaces, and weaker for a pure software copilot. Its IDEA Award and Red Dot recognition are for design quality, and the record does not say it covers software, so ask which interface work it has shipped. Post-handoff coherence of 8.0 is its lowest score. Founded in 1926, 100 to 150 people, Seattle, rates $180 to $260, minimum $150,000.
- Best for
- AI interfaces where an operator supervises a machine or a physical system
- Services
- Industrial design, Interface design, Mixed reality, Human factors
- Clients
- Boeing, Toyota, Intel
- Budget
- $$$ · $180–260 an hour · from $150k
How it scored
- Live product quality
- 8.5
- UX structural depth
- 8.3
- Research evidence
- 8.6
- Accessibility, tested
- 8.1
- Post-handoff coherence
- 8.0
- Independent signals
- 8.4
What B2B AI product design covers
Designing an AI feature inside business software is a different job from designing the screens around it. The interface has to present output that can be wrong, incomplete or slow, in a setting where the person reading it is accountable for the result. That pushes the work toward a few recurring problems: showing how confident a suggestion is without burying it in caveats, letting a professional inspect where an answer came from, making correction and override cheap, and deciding which steps stay human. Copilots, summarisation, classification and search inside existing products each raise these questions in a different form, and AI-native products raise them from the first screen.
Two further parts are easy to underrate. Prototyping matters more than usual, because a mockup with tidy sample output hides exactly the behaviour users will judge, so a useful prototype calls a real model or a faithful stand-in. And research has to observe reliance: whether people accept, edit or ignore suggestions once the novelty has faded.
How this page scores it
The five agencies here are ranked on the same six published criteria as every other page: live product quality 20, UX structural depth 20, research evidence 15, accessibility (tested) 15, post-handoff coherence 20 and independent signals 10. Rows run in descending order of composite, with ties broken alphabetically. Those scores describe each agency’s practice as a whole, not its AI work alone, so this page does not claim to have measured model-specific skill. Where an agency records AI product design as a service, as Artefact, Fantasy and Fuselab Creative do, the assessment says so. Where the record says only research or human factors, the assessment says what that does and does not establish.
Some criteria read differently for AI work. Research evidence is a proxy for whether an agency can study how professionals trust automation. Accessibility matters because AI output is dynamic: streaming text, changing tables and confidence indicators all have to work with assistive technology. Post-handoff coherence matters because model behaviour keeps changing after launch, and the design has to hold together when it does.
What to ask before hiring
Ask for two or three named examples where the team designed for wrong output, and how users reacted. Ask what a prototype in week two actually calls: a real model, a recorded set of responses, or hand-written samples. Ask who writes the failure states, and who owns the set of test cases the design is checked against. Ask how the agency works with your engineers and data scientists, since interface decisions here depend on what the model can expose.
Budget realistically. Stated minimums on this page run from $25,000 to $250,000. For a single small feature, compare the lower minimums here with B2B product design agencies. For a step-by-step way to compare proposals, read choosing a B2B design agency.
Common questions
6What does B2B AI product design cost?
Across these five agencies, minimum projects run from $25,000 at Fuselab Creative to $250,000 at IDEO, and hourly rates from $100 to $400. Artefact, which lists AI product design as a service, sits at $185 to $270 with a $120,000 minimum. For a single small feature, start with the lower minimums.
Do I need an AI agency or a product design agency?
Fuselab Creative, Artefact and Fantasy list AI design as a service among these five. The other two bring adjacent strengths: research at IDEO and human factors at TEAGUE. If your team owns model behaviour and needs workflow and interface design, a product agency can be enough. If you need help framing output itself, favour a specialist.
Can an agency prototype with real model behaviour?
The records on this site do not say which tools or models any agency uses, so ask directly. Find out whether the week-two prototype calls a real model, replays recorded responses or uses hand-written samples, what happens when an answer is wrong or slow, and who owns the test cases.
How do I evaluate trust and explainability work?
Ask for evidence of how professionals reacted to wrong or uncertain output, not just mockups. The research evidence scores are a starting point: IDEO 9.8, Fuselab Creative 9.4, Artefact 9.0, TEAGUE 8.6 and Fantasy 8.1. Then look at how each design handled correction, override and showing sources.
How do the six criteria apply to AI work?
The weights are live product quality 20, UX structural depth 20, research evidence 15, accessibility (tested) 15, post-handoff coherence 20 and independent signals 10. The scores describe each agency's practice as a whole, not its AI work alone, so treat them as a proxy and confirm AI experience directly.
What should I prepare before the first call?
Bring the decision the AI output supports, who is accountable for it, what a wrong answer costs, and what the model can actually expose, such as confidence, sources or alternatives. Agencies scope trust and workflow design far more accurately from those four facts than from a feature list.