Centric Consulting vs RTS Labs: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Centric Consulting (3.7/5) edges ahead of RTS Labs (3.7/5) overall. Centric Consulting is the better choice for mid-size US firms writing AI usage policies. 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.
Centric Consulting vs RTS Labs: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Centric Consulting | RTS Labs |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1999 | 2010 |
| HQ | Dayton, USA | Glen Allen, USA |
| Team size | ~1,400 | 100+ |
| Rating | 3.7 / 5 | 3.7 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Acceptable-use policies and staff adoption programs for generative AI | 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, Microsoft Copilot | AWS, Azure, Python |
| Industries served | Insurance, Healthcare, Financial services, Manufacturing | Logistics, Financial services, Healthcare, Manufacturing |
Centric Consulting vs RTS Labs: overview
Centric Consulting
Centric Consulting is a remote-first firm founded in 1999, headquartered in Dayton, Ohio, with about 1,400 people in the US and India. Its AI advice centers on acceptable-use policies for generative AI, AI centers of excellence, and staff adoption. That suits mid-size US companies that need rules and training before any big program.
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: Centric Consulting vs RTS Labs
| Capability | Centric 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: Centric Consulting vs RTS Labs
| Framework / platform | Centric Consulting | RTS Labs |
|---|---|---|
| EU AI Act | N/A | N/A |
| GDPR | N/A | 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 | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Centric Consulting vs RTS Labs
| Criterion | Centric Consulting | RTS Labs |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not disclosed | $5,000+ (Clutch) |
| Engagement models | Fixed-scope assessment, Delivery team | Fixed-scope assessment, Delivery team |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Minimum disclosed |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Accessible |
Target audience comparison: Centric Consulting vs RTS Labs
| Dimension | Centric Consulting | RTS Labs |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Mid-market to enterprise | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Insurance, Healthcare, Financial services | Logistics, Financial services, Healthcare |
| Best use cases | Writing a generative AI usage policy., Copilot adoption with staff training. | Testing one AI idea cheaply., Return-on-investment check on a vendor proposal. |
| Typical project type | Fixed-scope assessment | Fixed-scope assessment |
Centric Consulting vs RTS Labs: pros and cons
| Centric Consulting | |
|---|---|
| + | Practical usage policies and training |
| + | Sized for mid-size US companies |
| + | Insurance and healthcare accelerators |
| - | Little EU regulatory work |
| - | Light on cost modeling |
| - | Mostly Microsoft-centered |
| 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 Centric Consulting?
A typical fit: writing a generative AI usage policy.
Acceptable-use policies and staff adoption programs for generative AI. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Insurance, Healthcare, Financial services, Manufacturing.
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: Centric 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 | Centric Consulting |
| 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: Centric Consulting (Not disclosed) vs RTS Labs ($5,000+ (Clutch)) |
| You need advisers in many countries at once | Centric Consulting |
Use case fit: Centric Consulting vs RTS Labs
| Use case | Centric Consulting fit | RTS Labs fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Writing a generative AI usage policy. | Strong | Limited | Centric Consulting |
| Copilot adoption with staff training. | Strong | Limited | Centric Consulting |
| Testing one AI idea cheaply. | Limited | Strong | RTS Labs |
| Return-on-investment check on a vendor proposal. | Limited | Strong | RTS Labs |
Verdict: Centric Consulting vs RTS Labs
Centric Consulting (3.7/5) is the stronger overall choice for most AI Advisory projects. Acceptable-use policies and staff adoption programs for generative AI.
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
Centric Consulting vs RTS Labs FAQ
Is Centric Consulting better than RTS Labs?
Centric Consulting (3.7/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Centric Consulting's strongest advantage: practical usage policies and training. RTS Labs's strongest advantage: a $5,000+ Clutch minimum is the lowest here.
How do Centric Consulting and RTS Labs differ in pricing?
Centric 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: Centric Consulting or RTS Labs?
Centric 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 Centric Consulting and RTS Labs?
Centric Consulting's primary differentiator is: acceptable-use policies and staff adoption programs for generative AI. 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 (~1,400 vs 100+), minimum engagement (Not disclosed vs $5,000+ (Clutch)), and primary industries served (Insurance, Healthcare vs Logistics, Financial services).
Verify all details directly with each firm before making a decision.