Artefact vs RTS Labs: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Artefact (4.2/5) edges ahead of RTS Labs (3.7/5) overall. Artefact is the better choice for large consumer brands across European markets. RTS Labs is the stronger option for small US firms testing one idea cheaply. The right choice depends on how independent you need the advice to be, your regulatory exposure, and your budget.
Artefact vs RTS Labs: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Artefact | RTS Labs |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2014 | 2010 |
| HQ | Paris, France | Glen Allen, USA |
| Team size | 1,700+ | 100+ |
| Rating | 4.2 / 5 | 3.7 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Data governance and AI planning with engineers in the same firm | The cheapest entry point here, with feasibility tests in place of strategy decks |
| Pricing model | Consulting fees; rates not published | Fixed-scope feasibility work; $25–$49/hr (Clutch band) |
| Min. engagement | Not disclosed | $5,000+ (Clutch) |
| Primary tech stack | EU AI Act, GDPR, Google Cloud | AWS, Azure, Python |
| Industries served | Consumer goods, Retail, Luxury, Financial services, Telecom | Logistics, Financial services, Healthcare, Manufacturing |
Artefact vs RTS Labs: 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.
RTS Labs
RTS Labs, near Richmond, Virginia, says it has 100+ US-based staff (per company website; independently unverifiable); it gives 2010 as its founding year while Clutch lists 2012. Its advice comes as feasibility studies and proofs of concept with a return-on-investment check, instead of roadmaps. Clutch lists $25–$49 an hour and a $5,000+ minimum, the cheapest way on this page to test whether one idea works.
Services and capabilities: Artefact vs RTS Labs
| Capability | Artefact | RTS Labs |
|---|---|---|
| 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 RTS Labs
| Framework / platform | Artefact | RTS Labs |
|---|---|---|
| EU AI Act | ✓ | N/A |
| GDPR | ✓ | N/A |
| 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 RTS Labs
| Criterion | Artefact | RTS Labs |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not disclosed | $5,000+ (Clutch) |
| Engagement models | Multi-use-case advisory, Ongoing advisory, Delivery team | Fixed-scope assessment, Delivery team |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Minimum disclosed |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Accessible |
Target audience comparison: Artefact vs RTS Labs
| Dimension | Artefact | RTS Labs |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Mid-market to enterprise | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Consumer goods, Retail, Luxury | Logistics, Financial services, Healthcare |
| Best use cases | Data governance before scaling marketing AI., AI planning for a consumer brand in many EU markets. | Testing one AI idea cheaply., Return-on-investment check on a vendor proposal. |
| Typical project type | Multi-use-case advisory | Fixed-scope assessment |
Artefact vs RTS Labs: 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 |
| RTS Labs | |
|---|---|
| + | A $5,000+ Clutch minimum is the lowest here |
| + | Tests ideas on real data |
| + | Return-on-investment check included |
| - | No portfolio-level planning |
| - | No EU regulatory work |
| - | Founding year and headcount vary between sources |
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 RTS Labs?
A typical fit: testing one AI idea cheaply.
The cheapest entry point here, with feasibility tests in place of strategy decks. Minimum engagement starts at $5,000+ (Clutch). Works best with clients in Logistics, Financial services, Healthcare, Manufacturing.
Decision matrix: Artefact vs RTS Labs
| 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 | RTS Labs |
| 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 RTS Labs ($5,000+ (Clutch)) |
| You need advisers in many countries at once | Artefact |
Use case fit: Artefact vs RTS Labs
| Use case | Artefact fit | RTS Labs fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data governance before scaling marketing AI. | Strong | Limited | Artefact |
| AI planning for a consumer brand in many EU markets. | Strong | Limited | Artefact |
| Testing one AI idea cheaply. | Limited | Strong | RTS Labs |
| Return-on-investment check on a vendor proposal. | Limited | Strong | RTS Labs |
Verdict: Artefact vs RTS Labs
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.
RTS Labs (3.7/5) is worth a look if you need return-on-investment check on a vendor proposal. If your situation matches that, RTS Labs is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Artefact vs RTS Labs FAQ
Is Artefact better than RTS Labs?
Artefact (4.2/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Artefact's strongest advantage: data governance is a core practice. RTS Labs's strongest advantage: a $5,000+ Clutch minimum is the lowest here.
How do Artefact and RTS Labs differ in pricing?
Artefact's pricing: consulting fees; rates not published. RTS Labs's pricing: fixed-scope feasibility work; $25–$49/hr (Clutch band) with a minimum engagement of $5,000+ (Clutch). 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 RTS Labs?
Artefact 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 RTS Labs?
Artefact's primary differentiator is: data governance and AI planning with engineers in the same firm. RTS Labs's primary differentiator is: the cheapest entry point here, with feasibility tests in place of strategy decks. They also differ in team size (1,700+ vs 100+), minimum engagement (Not disclosed vs $5,000+ (Clutch)), and primary industries served (Consumer goods, Retail vs Logistics, Financial services).
Verify all details directly with each firm before making a decision.