Artefact vs Eticas: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Artefact (4.2/5) edges ahead of Eticas (4.0/5) overall. Artefact is the better choice for large consumer brands across European markets. Eticas is the stronger option for public bodies auditing deployed algorithms. The right choice depends on how independent you need the advice to be, your regulatory exposure, and your budget.
Artefact vs Eticas: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Artefact | Eticas |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2014 | 2012 |
| HQ | Paris, France | Barcelona, Spain |
| Team size | 1,700+ | 11–50 |
| Rating | 4.2 / 5 | 4.0 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Data governance and AI planning with engineers in the same firm | Independent algorithmic audits that measure bias and accuracy in real use |
| Pricing model | Consulting fees; rates not published | Audit fees and platform subscriptions; rates on request |
| Min. engagement | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Primary tech stack | EU AI Act, GDPR, Google Cloud | EU AI Act, GDPR, ITACA |
| Industries served | Consumer goods, Retail, Luxury, Financial services, Telecom | Public sector, Healthcare, Financial services, Social services |
Artefact vs Eticas: 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.
Eticas
Eticas was founded by Gemma Galdon-Clavell, who led it from research on surveillance and urban policy into algorithmic auditing. A 2019 profile put the team at about 30 people, and current directory estimates range from 11 to 50. Its audits trace the rules behind a system, measure disparate impact on specific groups, and check accuracy in operation, while its ITACA platform adds ongoing monitoring. The firm checks AI that already exists rather than planning new programs.
Services and capabilities: Artefact vs Eticas
| Capability | Artefact | Eticas |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Eticas
| Framework / platform | Artefact | Eticas |
|---|---|---|
| EU AI Act | ✓ | ✓ |
| GDPR | ✓ | ✓ |
| DORA | N/A | N/A |
| NIST AI RMF | N/A | N/A |
| ISO/IEC 42001 | N/A | N/A |
| Azure | ✓ | N/A |
| AWS | N/A | N/A |
| Google Cloud | ✓ | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Artefact vs Eticas
| Criterion | Artefact | Eticas |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Engagement models | Multi-use-case advisory, Ongoing advisory, Delivery team | Audit or certification, Ongoing advisory |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Artefact vs Eticas
| Dimension | Artefact | Eticas |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Mid-market to enterprise | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Consumer goods, Retail, Luxury | Public sector, Healthcare, Financial services |
| Best use cases | Data governance before scaling marketing AI., AI planning for a consumer brand in many EU markets. | Bias audits of public-sector algorithms., Ongoing monitoring of a deployed AI system. |
| Typical project type | Multi-use-case advisory | Audit or certification |
Artefact vs Eticas: 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 |
| Eticas | |
|---|---|
| + | Audits come from outside the team that built the system |
| + | Measures bias for specific groups, beyond overall averages |
| + | Ongoing monitoring through its ITACA platform |
| - | Founding date and headquarters vary across sources |
| - | Small team |
| - | Doesn't plan AI portfolios or business cases |
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 Eticas?
A typical fit: bias audits of public-sector algorithms.
Independent algorithmic audits that measure bias and accuracy in real use. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Public sector, Healthcare, Financial services, Social services.
Decision matrix: Artefact vs Eticas
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You want advice with no build contract attached | Eticas |
| 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 | Eticas |
| You want the same firm to build what it recommends | Artefact |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Artefact (Not disclosed) vs Eticas (Not disclosed) |
| You need advisers in many countries at once | Artefact |
Use case fit: Artefact vs Eticas
| Use case | Artefact fit | Eticas fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data governance before scaling marketing AI. | Strong | Limited | Artefact |
| AI planning for a consumer brand in many EU markets. | Strong | Limited | Artefact |
| Bias audits of public-sector algorithms. | Limited | Strong | Eticas |
| Ongoing monitoring of a deployed AI system. | Limited | Strong | Eticas |
Verdict: Artefact vs Eticas
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.
Eticas (4.0/5) is worth a look if you need ongoing monitoring of a deployed AI system. If your situation matches that, Eticas is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Artefact vs Eticas FAQ
Is Artefact better than Eticas?
Artefact (4.2/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Artefact's strongest advantage: data governance is a core practice. Eticas's strongest advantage: audits come from outside the team that built the system.
How do Artefact and Eticas differ in pricing?
Artefact's pricing: consulting fees; rates not published. Eticas's pricing: audit fees and platform subscriptions; rates on request. 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 Eticas?
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 Eticas?
Artefact's primary differentiator is: data governance and AI planning with engineers in the same firm. Eticas's primary differentiator is: independent algorithmic audits that measure bias and accuracy in real use. They also differ in team size (1,700+ vs 11–50), minimum engagement (Not disclosed vs Not disclosed), and primary industries served (Consumer goods, Retail vs Public sector, Healthcare).
Verify all details directly with each firm before making a decision.