Agency Comparison
Talking to me vs Walma
Two top-rated AI Consulting agencies in Stockholm.
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 | Talking to me | Walma |
|---|---|---|
| Editorial score | 58/100 | Higher score: 60.3/100 |
| Hourly rate | Contact for rates | Contact for rates |
| Team size | ||
| Location | Stockholm, Sweden | Stockholm, Sweden |
| Founded | — | — |
| Last reviewed | Aug 5, 2026 | Aug 5, 2026 |
What we said about each
Our take on Talking to me
A conversational AI practice with an enterprise client list that would flatter a firm three times its size: ATG, Telia, Nordea, Volvo, Hertz, Unionen. Three engagements are published. The ATG assistant makes complex betting data legible for V85 horse racing, a domain where the data is genuinely dense.
Reviewed Aug 5, 2026
Read the full assessment →Our take on Walma
Four published engagements, and every one of them ends in a number: support response time down 65% with roughly three hours a day freed per case handler, forecasting accuracy up 40%, sales proposals from two hours to eight minutes with 80% less manual administration, internal service in a municipality roughly 50% faster. That consistency is unusual. Most agencies publish one quantified case and four descriptions.
Reviewed Aug 5, 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 Talking to me if you need
- disclosed specialization in E-commerce / FinTech
- broader service offering — also covers Generative AI
Choose Walma if you need
- disclosed specialization in Public Sector / Manufacturing
- broader service offering — also covers AI Automation
- a higher overall editorial score
Strengths and watch-outs
Both upsides and risks, straight from our editorial assessments.
Talking to me
Strengths
- Enterprise references across Swedish banking, telecoms and automotive—Nordea, Telia, Volvo—not just startups
- The Verbum engagement is built around answer accuracy and source transparency, which is the right concern for retrieval over regulation
- Ships on its own platform with named products, so the delivery model is consistent rather than assembled per project
Watch-outs
- No outcome figures in any published case—ask what the ATG and JABS assistants changed for their operators
- No team size or founding year published; two offices are stated and the scale behind them is not
Walma
Strengths
- Every published engagement carries an outcome figure, and they are operational rather than vanity metrics—hours per handler, minutes per proposal
- Owns its platform, so the data-residency answer is architectural rather than contractual—relevant for Swedish public-sector buyers
- Runs an EU AI Act advisory practice alongside delivery, which most agencies of this size do not attempt
Watch-outs
- The four quantified cases are anonymized and the ten client names attach to none of them—ask which is which
- No team size or founding year published; the organization number and address are there, the scale is not
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 SaaS & B2B experience, Talking to me or Walma?
- Both agencies show documented SaaS & B2B work and have similar industry breadth. Compare directly on the agency profiles: Talking to me and Walma.
- Which scores higher overall, Talking to me or Walma?
- Walma scores 60.3/100, 2.3 points higher than Talking to me at 58/100. See our methodology for how scores are calculated.
- When should I consider both Talking to me and Walma?
- Consider running parallel discovery briefs with Talking to me and Walma 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.