PA Consulting vs RTS Labs: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
PA Consulting (4.0/5) edges ahead of RTS Labs (3.7/5) overall. PA Consulting is the better choice for UK public bodies wanting advice plus delivery. 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.
PA Consulting vs RTS Labs: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | PA Consulting | RTS Labs |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1943 | 2010 |
| HQ | London, UK | Glen Allen, USA |
| Team size | ~3,900 | 100+ |
| Rating | 4.0 / 5 | 3.7 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Advice from teams that also design and build, strong in UK government | 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 | Azure, AWS, GDPR | AWS, Azure, Python |
| Industries served | Public sector, Defense, Healthcare, Energy & utilities, Consumer | Logistics, Financial services, Healthcare, Manufacturing |
PA Consulting vs RTS Labs: overview
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.
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: PA Consulting vs RTS Labs
| Capability | PA Consulting | 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: PA Consulting vs RTS Labs
| Framework / platform | PA Consulting | 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 | ✓ | ✓ |
| Google Cloud | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: PA Consulting vs RTS Labs
| Criterion | PA Consulting | RTS Labs |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not disclosed | $5,000+ (Clutch) |
| Engagement models | Multi-use-case advisory, Delivery team | Fixed-scope assessment, Delivery team |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Minimum disclosed |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Accessible |
Target audience comparison: PA Consulting vs RTS Labs
| Dimension | PA Consulting | RTS Labs |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Mid-market to enterprise | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Public sector, Defense, Healthcare | Logistics, Financial services, Healthcare |
| Best use cases | AI planning for UK government departments., Health service AI adoption. | Testing one AI idea cheaply., Return-on-investment check on a vendor proposal. |
| Typical project type | Multi-use-case advisory | Fixed-scope assessment |
PA Consulting vs RTS Labs: pros and cons
| 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 |
| 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 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.
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: PA Consulting 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 | Neither; add a governance specialist |
| 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: PA Consulting (Not disclosed) vs RTS Labs ($5,000+ (Clutch)) |
| You need advisers in many countries at once | PA Consulting |
Use case fit: PA Consulting vs RTS Labs
| Use case | PA Consulting fit | RTS Labs fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| AI planning for UK government departments. | Strong | Limited | PA Consulting |
| Health service AI adoption. | Strong | Limited | PA Consulting |
| Testing one AI idea cheaply. | Limited | Strong | RTS Labs |
| Return-on-investment check on a vendor proposal. | Limited | Strong | RTS Labs |
Verdict: PA Consulting vs RTS Labs
PA Consulting (4.0/5) is the stronger overall choice for most AI Advisory projects. Advice from teams that also design and build, strong in UK government.
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
PA Consulting vs RTS Labs FAQ
Is PA Consulting better than RTS Labs?
PA Consulting (4.0/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. PA Consulting's strongest advantage: long record with UK government and health clients. RTS Labs's strongest advantage: a $5,000+ Clutch minimum is the lowest here.
How do PA Consulting and RTS Labs differ in pricing?
PA Consulting'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: PA Consulting or RTS Labs?
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 PA Consulting and RTS Labs?
PA Consulting's primary differentiator is: advice from teams that also design and build, strong in UK government. 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 (~3,900 vs 100+), minimum engagement (Not disclosed vs $5,000+ (Clutch)), and primary industries served (Public sector, Defense vs Logistics, Financial services).
Verify all details directly with each firm before making a decision.