# Clockworks vs Lizard Global

> Two top-rated AI Development agencies in Rotterdam. Side by side: published rates, team size, service and industry coverage, and the curator's assessment of both — pairings are never sold.

Canonical page: https://www.aiagencies.eu/compare/clockworks-vs-lizard-global
Generated: 2026-10-21 · Curated by Gabor Kiss · No paid placements — inclusion, score, and rank are never sold.

## Facts
| | Clockworks | Lizard Global |
|---|---|---|
| Editorial score | 61.8/100 | 51/100 |
| Hourly rate | not published | €45-85/hr (directory-listed) |
| Team size | 10-49 | 50-249 |
| Location | Rotterdam, Netherlands | Rotterdam, Netherlands |
| Founded | 2017 | 2012 |
| Last reviewed | 2026-09-04 | 2026-09-04 |
| Services | AI Development, AI Automation | AI Development, AI Automation, Generative AI |
| Industries | Public Sector, Manufacturing | SaaS & B2B, E-commerce |

## Our take on Clockworks
Reviewed 2026-09-04 by Gabor Kiss against published evidence.

Four published case studies, all with named Dutch clients and all computer vision in operational use: 639,000-plus valve connections mapped for Brabant Water at a stated 95% detection accuracy, meter readings captured from photos for Stedin with a 70% reduction in house visits, and crate identification for Euro Pool System's Stack & Track.

The Brabant Water system reused image data already collected by the firm's own Blicker meter-reading product rather than commissioning a fresh survey.

What the write-ups do not give you is stack detail—"Vision AI" and "trained AI models" is as specific as it gets, with no model families, accuracy methodology or monitoring described, and the NVWA inspection app is presented as a pilot rather than a rollout.

The weaker fit is buyers outside Dutch-language markets or outside image recognition: the case studies are published in Dutch only, and every one of them is a vision problem.

### Key strengths
- Blicker is the firm's own image-recognition product and two of the four studies extend it, so the vision pipeline is a repeated pattern rather than a first build
- Every case study is signed by a named AI Solutions Engineer with a role, which is rare at this size
- Clients are Dutch utilities, regulators and logistics operators—regulated, audit-sensitive buyers who published their names against the work

### Good to know
- No rate is published; anchor the conversation against the European range on our rate index before scoping
- Monitoring, retraining and accuracy-drift handling are not described in any study—if your team will operate the model after handover, ask what the maintenance arrangement is
- Team size and structure are not published—confirm who would staff your build and how many of them work on vision

## Our take on Lizard Global
Reviewed 2026-09-04 by Gabor Kiss against published evidence.

The positioning is AI-first, and the published work is integration: the Parexus inspection platform is a progressive web app whose API calls the client's own proprietary AI, the Narrates.ai engagement was product design and UX strategy for someone else's generative tool, and the Company.Info study—the one the site leads with for automation—is a Python, Node and Playwright crawler that processed 40,000-plus pages with no machine learning in it.

That is real delivery, and the outcomes are stated, but nothing in the portfolio shows a model this firm built, trained or evaluated.

Two things to weigh alongside it: delivery runs from Kuala Lumpur, Singapore and Sydney against a Rotterdam front door at €45–85/h, so ask who does the work and where; and the blog carries programmatic listicles, including ones ranking the firm first among Malaysian AI agencies.

The weaker fit is buyers who need the model itself designed—for that, the evidence here stops at the application layer.

### Key strengths
- Published rates of €45–85/h for an application build around an existing model
- Fourteen years of continuous operation with a client name attached to every published study, so the delivery record is checkable end to end
- The Travereel work reports 55% monthly retention against industry benchmarks, which is a product outcome rather than a delivery milestone

### Good to know
- No named ML or data engineers appear on the team pages—ask who would design the model layer if your brief needs one
- The AI-integration cost guides on the blog quote $40,000–250,000 for mid-sized enterprises; treat that as marketing content, not a quote
- Case-study outcomes on the AI work are qualitative—"reduced manual workload", "faster inspections"—so ask for the numbers behind them

## Which to choose
Choose Clockworks for:
- closer collaboration at a smaller team scale
- disclosed specialization in Public Sector / Manufacturing
- a higher overall editorial score

Choose Lizard Global for:
- larger team capacity for multi-stream or enterprise-scale programs
- disclosed specialization in SaaS & B2B / E-commerce
- broader service offering — also covers Generative AI

## Questions buyers ask

### Which scores higher overall, Clockworks or Lizard Global?
Clockworks scores 61.8/100, 10.8 points higher than Lizard Global at 51/100. Both portfolio quality and business credibility feed into the score — see our methodology for the full breakdown.

### Which is faster to engage, Clockworks or Lizard Global?
Neither publishes lead times, so this is a read on team size rather than a measured answer. Clockworks runs the smaller team, which usually means fewer procurement gates and a shorter path to kickoff. Lizard Global runs a larger one, which tends to mean more steps but more capacity to start parallel workstreams. Current kickoff availability is the number that actually decides it — ask both.

### When should I consider both Clockworks and Lizard Global?
Consider running parallel discovery briefs with Clockworks and Lizard Global 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.

---
Source: AIAgencies.eu — the curated register of European AI agencies. Rate provenance: "agency-confirmed" = disclosed via submission or claimed profile; "directory-listed" = Clutch or two agreeing B2B directories (lone unverified sources are never written). Full method: https://www.aiagencies.eu/methodology · Rate index: https://www.aiagencies.eu/rates