Trilateral Research vs Artefact: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Trilateral Research (4.3/5) edges ahead of Artefact (4.2/5) overall. Trilateral Research is the better choice for public bodies needing rights and ethics assessments. Artefact is the stronger option for large consumer brands across European markets. The right choice depends on how independent you need the advice to be, your regulatory exposure, and your budget.
Trilateral Research vs Artefact: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Trilateral Research | Artefact |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2004 | 2014 |
| HQ | London, UK | Paris, France |
| Team size | 55–200 | 1,700+ |
| Rating | 4.3 / 5 | 4.2 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Fundamental rights and ethics impact assessments from a research-led firm | Data governance and AI planning with engineers in the same firm |
| Pricing model | Project fees; rates on request | Consulting fees; rates not published |
| Min. engagement | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Primary tech stack | EU AI Act, GDPR, ISO/IEC 42001 | EU AI Act, GDPR, Google Cloud |
| Industries served | Public sector, Law enforcement, Healthcare, Financial services | Consumer goods, Retail, Luxury, Financial services, Telecom |
Trilateral Research vs Artefact: overview
Trilateral Research
Trilateral Research was established in 2004 and is headquartered in London, with an Irish operations center in Waterford. It began in research and data protection and now advises on responsible AI, including fundamental rights impact assessments of the kind the EU AI Act requires for some high-risk deployments. Directory estimates of its size range from about 55 to 200 people. It also builds its own ethical AI software, mostly for public-sector and law-enforcement users.
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.
Services and capabilities: Trilateral Research vs Artefact
| Capability | Trilateral Research | Artefact |
|---|---|---|
| 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: Trilateral Research vs Artefact
| Framework / platform | Trilateral Research | Artefact |
|---|---|---|
| EU AI Act | ✓ | ✓ |
| GDPR | ✓ | ✓ |
| DORA | N/A | N/A |
| NIST AI RMF | N/A | N/A |
| ISO/IEC 42001 | ✓ | N/A |
| Azure | N/A | ✓ |
| AWS | N/A | N/A |
| Google Cloud | N/A | ✓ |
Pricing comparison: Trilateral Research vs Artefact
| Criterion | Trilateral Research | Artefact |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Engagement models | Fixed-scope assessment, Ongoing advisory | Multi-use-case advisory, Ongoing advisory, Delivery team |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Trilateral Research vs Artefact
| Dimension | Trilateral Research | Artefact |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Mid-market to enterprise |
| Best industries | Public sector, Law enforcement, Healthcare | Consumer goods, Retail, Luxury |
| Best use cases | Fundamental rights impact assessments for high-risk AI., Ethics reviews of public-sector AI systems. | Data governance before scaling marketing AI., AI planning for a consumer brand in many EU markets. |
| Typical project type | Fixed-scope assessment | Multi-use-case advisory |
Trilateral Research vs Artefact: pros and cons
| Trilateral Research | |
|---|---|
| + | Two decades of research on ethics and data protection |
| + | Fundamental rights impact assessments are a core skill |
| + | Independent of the big cloud and software vendors |
| - | Small team for large multi-country programs |
| - | Builds its own software, which can shape recommendations |
| - | Less focus on cost modeling or business cases |
| 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 |
Who should choose Trilateral Research?
A typical fit: fundamental rights impact assessments for high-risk AI.
Fundamental rights and ethics impact assessments from a research-led firm. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Public sector, Law enforcement, Healthcare, Financial services.
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.
Decision matrix: Trilateral Research vs Artefact
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You want advice with no build contract attached | Trilateral Research |
| 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 | Both cover AI Act classification |
| 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 | Artefact |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Trilateral Research (Not disclosed) vs Artefact (Not disclosed) |
| You need advisers in many countries at once | Artefact |
Use case fit: Trilateral Research vs Artefact
| Use case | Trilateral Research fit | Artefact fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fundamental rights impact assessments for high-risk AI. | Strong | Limited | Trilateral Research |
| Ethics reviews of public-sector AI systems. | Strong | Limited | Trilateral Research |
| Data governance before scaling marketing AI. | Limited | Strong | Artefact |
| AI planning for a consumer brand in many EU markets. | Limited | Strong | Artefact |
Verdict: Trilateral Research vs Artefact
Trilateral Research (4.3/5) is the stronger overall choice for most AI Advisory projects. Fundamental rights and ethics impact assessments from a research-led firm.
Artefact (4.2/5) is worth a look if you need AI planning for a consumer brand in many EU markets. If your situation matches that, Artefact is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Trilateral Research vs Artefact FAQ
Is Trilateral Research better than Artefact?
Trilateral Research (4.3/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Trilateral Research's strongest advantage: two decades of research on ethics and data protection. Artefact's strongest advantage: data governance is a core practice.
How do Trilateral Research and Artefact differ in pricing?
Trilateral Research's pricing: project fees; rates on request. Artefact'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: Trilateral Research or Artefact?
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 Trilateral Research and Artefact?
Trilateral Research's primary differentiator is: fundamental rights and ethics impact assessments from a research-led firm. Artefact's primary differentiator is: data governance and AI planning with engineers in the same firm. They also differ in team size (55–200 vs 1,700+), minimum engagement (Not disclosed vs Not disclosed), and primary industries served (Public sector, Law enforcement vs Consumer goods, Retail).
Verify all details directly with each firm before making a decision.