Artefact vs PA Consulting: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Artefact (4.2/5) edges ahead of PA Consulting (4.0/5) overall. Artefact is the better choice for large consumer brands across European markets. PA Consulting is the stronger option for UK public bodies wanting advice plus delivery. The right choice depends on how independent you need the advice to be, your regulatory exposure, and your budget.
Artefact vs PA Consulting: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Artefact | PA Consulting |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2014 | 1943 |
| HQ | Paris, France | London, UK |
| Team size | 1,700+ | ~3,900 |
| Rating | 4.2 / 5 | 4.0 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Data governance and AI planning with engineers in the same firm | Advice from teams that also design and build, strong in UK government |
| Pricing model | Consulting fees; rates not published | Consulting fees; rates not published |
| Min. engagement | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Primary tech stack | EU AI Act, GDPR, Google Cloud | Azure, AWS, GDPR |
| Industries served | Consumer goods, Retail, Luxury, Financial services, Telecom | Public sector, Defense, Healthcare, Energy & utilities, Consumer |
Artefact vs PA Consulting: overview
Artefact
Since its founding in Paris in 2014, Artefact has grown to more than 1,700 people in 25 countries. Cinven bought a majority stake in 2025 at a valuation above €1 billion, and the firm plans to triple in size by 2030, partly through acquisitions. Its advisory partners handle data governance and AI planning for large consumer brands. The same firm then builds, which is efficient but less neutral than a pure adviser.
PA Consulting
PA Consulting started in 1943 as Personnel Administration and is now a London-based firm with about 3,900 employees and £753 million in 2024 revenue. Jacobs has owned 65% since 2021, with staff holding the rest. Its AI advice tends to come from teams that also design and build products, especially for government, defense, and health clients in the UK and Nordics. That makes the advice practical, though rarely independent of a build.
Services and capabilities: Artefact vs PA Consulting
| Capability | Artefact | PA Consulting |
|---|---|---|
| Readiness assessment | ✗ | ✗ |
| Use-case prioritization | ✓ | ✓ |
| TCO / ROI modeling | ✗ | ✗ |
| AI governance & EU AI Act | ✓ | ✗ |
| Build vs. buy advice | ✗ | ✗ |
| Independent audit or assurance | ✗ | ✗ |
| Roadmap any vendor can implement | ✗ | ✗ |
| Delivery capability after advice | ✓ | ✓ |
Frameworks and platforms: Artefact vs PA Consulting
| Framework / platform | Artefact | PA Consulting |
|---|---|---|
| EU AI Act | ✓ | ✓ |
| GDPR | ✓ | ✓ |
| DORA | N/A | N/A |
| NIST AI RMF | N/A | N/A |
| ISO/IEC 42001 | N/A | N/A |
| Azure | ✓ | ✓ |
| AWS | N/A | ✓ |
| Google Cloud | ✓ | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Artefact vs PA Consulting
| Criterion | Artefact | PA Consulting |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Engagement models | Multi-use-case advisory, Ongoing advisory, Delivery team | Multi-use-case advisory, Delivery team |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Artefact vs PA Consulting
| Dimension | Artefact | PA Consulting |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Mid-market to enterprise | Mid-market to enterprise |
| Best industries | Consumer goods, Retail, Luxury | Public sector, Defense, Healthcare |
| Best use cases | Data governance before scaling marketing AI., AI planning for a consumer brand in many EU markets. | AI planning for UK government departments., Health service AI adoption. |
| Typical project type | Multi-use-case advisory | Multi-use-case advisory |
Artefact vs PA Consulting: pros and cons
| Artefact | |
|---|---|
| + | Data governance is a core practice |
| + | Advisers and engineers share one firm |
| + | Present in 25 countries |
| - | Majority-owned by Cinven since 2025, with acquisition-led growth ahead |
| - | Advice tends to lead to its own delivery work |
| - | Best suited to large brands |
| PA Consulting | |
|---|---|
| + | Long record with UK government and health clients |
| + | Design and engineering behind the advice |
| + | Partly owned by staff |
| - | Jacobs holds 65%, and one database reports a full acquisition in 2026 that we couldn't confirm |
| - | Advice usually comes packaged with delivery |
| - | Rates not published |
Who should choose Artefact?
A typical fit: data governance before scaling marketing AI.
Data governance and AI planning with engineers in the same firm. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Consumer goods, Retail, Luxury, Financial services, Telecom.
Who should choose PA Consulting?
A typical fit: AI planning for UK government departments.
Advice from teams that also design and build, strong in UK government. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Public sector, Defense, Healthcare, Energy & utilities, Consumer.
Decision matrix: Artefact vs PA Consulting
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You want advice with no build contract attached | Neither; write the build as a separate decision |
| Finance needs run costs before approving anything | Neither lists cost modeling; ask for a sample |
| Some of your use cases may be high-risk under the EU AI Act | Artefact |
| You need an outside check on a system already built | Neither; use a dedicated auditor |
| You want the same firm to build what it recommends | Both can deliver |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Artefact (Not disclosed) vs PA Consulting (Not disclosed) |
| You need advisers in many countries at once | PA Consulting |
Use case fit: Artefact vs PA Consulting
| Use case | Artefact fit | PA Consulting fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data governance before scaling marketing AI. | Strong | Limited | Artefact |
| AI planning for a consumer brand in many EU markets. | Strong | Limited | Artefact |
| AI planning for UK government departments. | Limited | Strong | PA Consulting |
| Health service AI adoption. | Limited | Strong | PA Consulting |
Verdict: Artefact vs PA Consulting
Artefact (4.2/5) is the stronger overall choice for most AI Advisory projects. Data governance and AI planning with engineers in the same firm.
PA Consulting (4.0/5) is worth a look if you need health service AI adoption. If your situation matches that, PA Consulting is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Artefact vs PA Consulting FAQ
Is Artefact better than PA Consulting?
Artefact (4.2/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Artefact's strongest advantage: data governance is a core practice. PA Consulting's strongest advantage: long record with UK government and health clients.
How do Artefact and PA Consulting differ in pricing?
Artefact's pricing: consulting fees; rates not published. PA Consulting's pricing: consulting fees; rates not published. Any hourly bands shown come from Clutch, not a published rate card, so a scoping call is still needed for a project quote.
Which is better for enterprise: Artefact or PA Consulting?
PA Consulting is the larger team and typically the better enterprise-scale choice. For very large programmes, verify team size and compliance coverage directly with each firm before shortlisting.
What are the main differences between Artefact and PA Consulting?
Artefact's primary differentiator is: data governance and AI planning with engineers in the same firm. PA Consulting's primary differentiator is: advice from teams that also design and build, strong in UK government. They also differ in team size (1,700+ vs ~3,900), minimum engagement (Not disclosed vs Not disclosed), and primary industries served (Consumer goods, Retail vs Public sector, Defense).
Verify all details directly with each firm before making a decision.