BJSS (CGI) vs Apadmi: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
BJSS (CGI) (4.0/5) edges ahead of Apadmi (3.9/5) overall. BJSS (CGI) is the better choice for NHS and government programmes, large onshore delivery. Apadmi is the stronger option for UK brands that need flagship mobile apps. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
BJSS (CGI) vs Apadmi: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | BJSS (CGI) | Apadmi |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1993 | 2009 |
| HQ | Leeds, United Kingdom (owned by CGI) | Manchester, United Kingdom |
| Team size | 2,000–2,500 | 250–300 |
| Rating | 4.0 / 5 | 3.9 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Large UK onshore delivery capacity, now backed by CGI's global network | Mobile-only specialism with a client list of household UK names |
| Pricing model | Time and materials, fixed price, managed service | Time and materials, fixed price |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | Java, .NET, AWS | Swift, Kotlin, Flutter |
| Industries served | Public sector, Healthcare, Financial services, Retail, Energy | Retail, Media, Healthcare, Public sector |
BJSS (CGI) vs Apadmi: overview
BJSS (CGI)
BJSS was founded in Leeds in 1993 and grew into one of the UK's largest independent technology consultancies before CGI completed its acquisition in February 2025. The deal brought about 2,400 BJSS staff into CGI and took CGI's UK headcount past 8,500. BJSS teams are being merged into CGI's metro-based UK operating model. UK clients get the scale and governance of a global group, with nearshore capacity now available through CGI centres such as Portugal.
Apadmi
Apadmi was founded in 2009 in Manchester and has its headquarters at MediaCity. It reported more than 300 employees in 2024, with hubs in London, Edinburgh, Lisbon and Amsterdam. The company builds and maintains mobile apps for large UK brands, including Argos, the BBC, Co-op, Asda and the NHS. Its Lisbon hub adds a lower-cost option within Western Europe.
Services and capabilities: BJSS (CGI) vs Apadmi
| Capability | BJSS (CGI) | Apadmi |
|---|---|---|
| Custom software development | ✓ | ✓ |
| Mobile app development | ✗ | ✓ |
| Cloud & DevOps | ✓ | ✗ |
| Data & AI | ✓ | ✗ |
| Legacy modernisation | ✗ | ✗ |
| Embedded & IoT | ✗ | ✗ |
| Dedicated team model | ✗ | ✗ |
| Fixed-price projects | ✓ | ✓ |
Tech stack comparison: BJSS (CGI) vs Apadmi
| Framework / platform | BJSS (CGI) | Apadmi |
|---|---|---|
| .NET | ✓ | N/A |
| Java | ✓ | N/A |
| Python | ✓ | N/A |
| React | N/A | ✓ |
| AWS | ✓ | ✓ |
| Azure | ✓ | ✓ |
| Kubernetes | ✓ | N/A |
| Embedded | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: BJSS (CGI) vs Apadmi
| Criterion | BJSS (CGI) | Apadmi |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Fixed project, Managed service, Time and materials | Fixed project, Time and materials |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: BJSS (CGI) vs Apadmi
| Dimension | BJSS (CGI) | Apadmi |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Public sector, Healthcare, Financial services | Retail, Media, Healthcare |
| Best use cases | An NHS trust needs a national-scale digital service., A bank wants a large onshore team with independent testing. | A retailer needs a high-traffic shopping app rebuilt., An NHS body wants a patient app. |
| Typical project type | Fixed project | Fixed project |
BJSS (CGI) vs Apadmi: pros and cons
| BJSS (CGI) | |
|---|---|
| + | Long record on large NHS and government programmes |
| + | CGI ownership adds financial stability and access to nearshore centres |
| + | Strong testing and quality engineering practice |
| - | Acquired by CGI in 2025, and integration into CGI's model may change account teams and processes |
| - | Large-consultancy pricing and governance are heavy for small projects |
| Apadmi | |
|---|---|
| + | Mobile focus brings deep iOS and Android expertise |
| + | Recognisable UK client list gives reassurance on quality |
| + | Lisbon hub offers some rate flexibility |
| - | Narrow focus; back-office and enterprise systems are not its core |
| - | Mostly UK delivery, so pricing is close to onshore rates |
Who should choose BJSS (CGI)?
A typical fit: an NHS trust needs a national-scale digital service.
Large UK onshore delivery capacity, now backed by CGI's global network. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Public sector, Healthcare, Financial services, Retail, Energy.
Who should choose Apadmi?
A typical fit: a retailer needs a high-traffic shopping app rebuilt.
Mobile-only specialism with a client list of household UK names. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Retail, Media, Healthcare, Public sector.
Decision matrix: BJSS (CGI) vs Apadmi
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | BJSS (CGI) |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | Check each company's engagement model |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: BJSS (CGI) (Not published) vs Apadmi (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | BJSS (CGI) |
| You want engineers added to your own in-house team | Neither lists team extension; ask about dedicated teams |
| Your product includes hardware, firmware or connected devices | Neither; consider an embedded specialist |
Use case fit: BJSS (CGI) vs Apadmi
| Use case | BJSS (CGI) fit | Apadmi fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| An NHS trust needs a national-scale digital service. | Strong | Limited | BJSS (CGI) |
| A bank wants a large onshore team with independent testing. | Strong | Limited | BJSS (CGI) |
| A retailer needs a high-traffic shopping app rebuilt. | Limited | Strong | Apadmi |
| An NHS body wants a patient app. | Limited | Strong | Apadmi |
| You need hardware, firmware or IoT work in the same contract | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| You want a fixed-price first phase before a longer engagement | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
Verdict: BJSS (CGI) vs Apadmi
BJSS (CGI) (4.0/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Software Development Outsourcing projects. Large UK onshore delivery capacity, now backed by CGI's global network.
Apadmi (3.9/5) is worth a look in a scenario like this: an NHS body wants a patient app. If your situation matches that, Apadmi is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
BJSS (CGI) vs Apadmi FAQ
Is BJSS (CGI) better than Apadmi?
BJSS (CGI) (4.0/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. BJSS (CGI)'s strongest advantage: long record on large NHS and government programmes. Apadmi's strongest advantage: mobile focus brings deep iOS and Android expertise.
How do BJSS (CGI) and Apadmi differ in pricing?
BJSS (CGI) uses time and materials, fixed price, managed service pricing. Apadmi uses time and materials, fixed price pricing. Neither firm publishes a full rate card; a discovery call is required for project-specific quotes.
Which is better for enterprise: BJSS (CGI) or Apadmi?
BJSS (CGI) is the larger team and typically the better enterprise-scale choice. For very large programmes, verify team size and compliance coverage directly with each company before shortlisting.
What are the main differences between BJSS (CGI) and Apadmi?
BJSS (CGI)'s primary differentiator is: large UK onshore delivery capacity, now backed by CGI's global network. Apadmi's primary differentiator is: mobile-only specialism with a client list of household UK names. They also differ in team size (2,000–2,500 vs 250–300), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Public sector, Healthcare vs Retail, Media).
Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.