Comparison updated August 2026
Side by side
Published data on both agencies. Where one side measurably differs, the dot marks it: the higher score, the lower published rate, the larger team, the more recent review. Which of those is an advantage depends on your brief.
| Attribute | Artefact | ML6 |
|---|---|---|
| Editorial score | Higher score: 74.8/100 | 73.3/100 |
| Hourly rate | Contact for rates | Contact for rates |
| Team size | Larger team: 1000+ | |
| Location | Paris, France | Ghent, Belgium |
| Founded | — | — |
| Last reviewed | More recent review: Aug 5, 2026 | Aug 4, 2026 |
What we said about each
Our take on Artefact
The Bpifrance engagement is the one to read first. Artefact took agentic AI from experiment to scale across 500 employees at a public investment bank, and what came out of it was not one assistant but more than 1,500 individual agents built by the business teams themselves. That is a different claim from most agentic case studies, which describe a system rather than an adoption curve.
Reviewed Aug 5, 2026
Read the full assessment →Our take on ML6
The published case library runs to 34 studies, and the ones read in full carry before-and-after numbers rather than adjectives—Scout24's HeyImmo assistant moved user satisfaction from 68% to 75% and first-token latency from 8 seconds to under 5, and Syngenta's lab-inspection vision model doubled analysis speed across half a million wells a year. Studies name the stack down to the component (OpenAI direct API, Pydantic agents, DataDog on Scout24's own AWS; Vertex AI for Syngenta) and describe…
Reviewed Aug 4, 2026
Read the full assessment →Best for
Where each agency measurably leads on the published data — team capacity, declared specializations, editorial scoring, and rates where both publish them. Use these to match an agency to your project priorities.
Choose Artefact if you need
- larger team capacity for multi-stream or enterprise-scale programs
- disclosed specialization in E-commerce
- broader service offering — also covers AI Automation
Choose ML6 if you need
- closer collaboration at a smaller team scale
- disclosed specialization in Public Sector
- broader service offering — also covers Generative AI
Strengths and watch-outs
Both upsides and risks, straight from our editorial assessments.
Artefact
Strengths
- Agentic AI evidenced at adoption scale rather than pilot scale: 500 employees, then more than 1,500 agents emerging from the business itself
- Outcome figures published on the cases that carry them—two minutes for a market study, 15 points of revenue-prediction accuracy, seventy airports
- Over a hundred client pages published, so a buyer can find work in their own sector rather than accepting an analogue
Watch-outs
- 2,500 people across thirty-two offices—confirm which office delivers, who is named on the team, and how much is subcontracted
- Many of the published cases carry no numbers at all; the strong ones are strong, but the portfolio is uneven on outcomes
ML6
Strengths
- Case studies publish client-side quotes from named engineering managers, not marketing testimonials
- Published outcomes at the national cyber security center include 3x faster vulnerability handling and 70% faster NIS2 response
- Both major clouds are in evidence—AWS and Google Vertex AI appear in separately documented builds
Watch-outs
- Two energy studies run anonymized as "Energy Company"—ask for a speakable reference if you need one in that sector
- No published rates, team size, or founding year; anchor with the EU €100-200/h band and ask who staffs the work
- Delivery sits across four offices—confirm which one your team would come from
Service coverage
Where the two overlap, and where each covers ground the other does not.
Industry coverage
Where the two overlap, and where each covers ground the other does not.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has more FinTech experience, Artefact or ML6?
- Both agencies show documented FinTech work and have similar industry breadth. Compare directly on the agency profiles: Artefact and ML6.
- Which scores higher overall, Artefact or ML6?
- Artefact scores 74.8/100, 1.5 points higher than ML6 at 73.3/100. Both portfolio quality and business credibility feed into the score — see our methodology for the full breakdown.
- When should I consider both Artefact and ML6?
- Consider running parallel discovery briefs with Artefact and ML6 if your project spans multiple workstreams, you want competitive proposals to compare scope and approach, or you're undecided between the specialization angles each brings (see the Best for cards above). Most engagements ultimately go with one — but the parallel-brief phase is a low-cost way to validate fit.
Read the full reviews
A side-by-side is a starting point. The full assessments carry the portfolio analysis, documented engagements, and the evidence behind every strength and watch-out above.