Codurance vs BJSS (CGI): full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Codurance (4.1/5) edges ahead of BJSS (CGI) (4.0/5) overall. Codurance is the better choice for legacy modernisation, engineering-practice improvement. BJSS (CGI) is the stronger option for NHS and government programmes, large onshore delivery. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Codurance vs BJSS (CGI): head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Codurance | BJSS (CGI) |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2013 | 1993 |
| HQ | London, United Kingdom | Leeds, United Kingdom (owned by CGI) |
| Team size | 150–300 | 2,000–2,500 |
| Rating | 4.1 / 5 | 4.0 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Craftsmanship-led delivery that also coaches in-house teams | Large UK onshore delivery capacity, now backed by CGI's global network |
| Pricing model | Time and materials, fixed price | Time and materials, fixed price, managed service |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | Java, Kotlin, C# | Java, .NET, AWS |
| Industries served | Financial services, Retail, Media, Public sector | Public sector, Healthcare, Financial services, Retail, Energy |
Codurance vs BJSS (CGI): overview
Codurance
Mashooq Badar co-founded Codurance in London in 2013. Its pitch is software craftsmanship: test-driven development, pairing and clean architecture. Besides London and Manchester, it has offices in Barcelona, Madrid and Lisbon, which bring Iberian rates into the mix. Headcount estimates range from roughly 170 to 300.
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.
Services and capabilities: Codurance vs BJSS (CGI)
| Capability | Codurance | BJSS (CGI) |
|---|---|---|
| Custom software development | ✓ | ✓ |
| Mobile app development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Cloud & DevOps | ✓ | ✓ |
| Data & AI | ✗ | ✓ |
| Legacy modernisation | ✓ | ✗ |
| Embedded & IoT | ✗ | ✗ |
| Dedicated team model | ✗ | ✗ |
| Fixed-price projects | ✓ | ✓ |
Tech stack comparison: Codurance vs BJSS (CGI)
| Framework / platform | Codurance | BJSS (CGI) |
|---|---|---|
| .NET | ✓ | ✓ |
| Java | ✓ | ✓ |
| Python | N/A | ✓ |
| React | N/A | N/A |
| AWS | ✓ | ✓ |
| Azure | ✓ | ✓ |
| Kubernetes | N/A | ✓ |
| Embedded | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Codurance vs BJSS (CGI)
| Criterion | Codurance | BJSS (CGI) |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Fixed project, Team extension, Time and materials | Fixed project, Managed service, Time and materials |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Codurance vs BJSS (CGI)
| Dimension | Codurance | BJSS (CGI) |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Financial services, Retail, Media | Public sector, Healthcare, Financial services |
| Best use cases | A company needs a monolith split into services without stopping feature work., An engineering team wants to adopt test-driven development and pairing with outside help. | An NHS trust needs a national-scale digital service., A bank wants a large onshore team with independent testing. |
| Typical project type | Fixed project | Fixed project |
Codurance vs BJSS (CGI): pros and cons
| Codurance | |
|---|---|
| + | Strong on cleaning up legacy codebases and raising engineering standards |
| + | Spanish and Portuguese offices provide a cheaper option without leaving Western Europe |
| + | Coaching is built into engagements, so client teams improve along the way |
| - | Small team limits how fast it can staff a large programme |
| - | Iberian rates are higher than Central and Eastern European ones |
| 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 |
Who should choose Codurance?
A typical fit: a company needs a monolith split into services without stopping feature work.
Craftsmanship-led delivery that also coaches in-house teams. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Financial services, Retail, Media, Public sector.
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.
Decision matrix: Codurance vs BJSS (CGI)
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | Codurance |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | Check each company's engagement model |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Codurance (Not published) vs BJSS (CGI) (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | BJSS (CGI) |
| You want engineers added to your own in-house team | Codurance |
| Your product includes hardware, firmware or connected devices | Neither; consider an embedded specialist |
Use case fit: Codurance vs BJSS (CGI)
| Use case | Codurance fit | BJSS (CGI) fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| A company needs a monolith split into services without stopping feature work. | Strong | Limited | Codurance |
| An engineering team wants to adopt test-driven development and pairing with outside help. | Strong | Limited | Codurance |
| An NHS trust needs a national-scale digital service. | Limited | Strong | BJSS (CGI) |
| A bank wants a large onshore team with independent testing. | Limited | Strong | BJSS (CGI) |
| 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: Codurance vs BJSS (CGI)
Codurance (4.1/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Software Development Outsourcing projects. Craftsmanship-led delivery that also coaches in-house teams.
BJSS (CGI) (4.0/5) is worth a look in a scenario like this: a bank wants a large onshore team with independent testing. If your situation matches that, BJSS (CGI) is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Codurance vs BJSS (CGI) FAQ
Is Codurance better than BJSS (CGI)?
Codurance (4.1/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Codurance's strongest advantage: strong on cleaning up legacy codebases and raising engineering standards. BJSS (CGI)'s strongest advantage: long record on large NHS and government programmes.
How do Codurance and BJSS (CGI) differ in pricing?
Codurance uses time and materials, fixed price pricing. BJSS (CGI) uses time and materials, fixed price, managed service pricing. Neither firm publishes a full rate card; a discovery call is required for project-specific quotes.
Which is better for enterprise: Codurance or BJSS (CGI)?
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 Codurance and BJSS (CGI)?
Codurance's primary differentiator is: craftsmanship-led delivery that also coaches in-house teams. BJSS (CGI)'s primary differentiator is: large UK onshore delivery capacity, now backed by CGI's global network. They also differ in team size (150–300 vs 2,000–2,500), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Financial services, Retail vs Public sector, Healthcare).
Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.