Codurance vs Version 1: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Codurance (4.1/5) edges ahead of Version 1 (3.9/5) overall. Codurance is the better choice for legacy modernisation, engineering-practice improvement. Version 1 is the stronger option for oracle and Microsoft estates, public-sector managed services. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Codurance vs Version 1: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Codurance | Version 1 |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2013 | 1996 |
| HQ | London, United Kingdom | Dublin, Ireland (UK offices including Birmingham) |
| Team size | 150–300 | 3,000+ |
| Rating | 4.1 / 5 | 3.9 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Craftsmanship-led delivery that also coaches in-house teams | Managed services for Oracle, Microsoft and AWS estates with Indian and Spanish delivery |
| Pricing model | Time and materials, fixed price | Managed service, time and materials, fixed price |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | Java, Kotlin, C# | Oracle, Microsoft Azure, AWS |
| Industries served | Financial services, Retail, Media, Public sector | Public sector, Financial services, Healthcare, Utilities |
Codurance vs Version 1: 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.
Version 1
Version 1 was founded in Dublin in 1996 and has been majority-owned by Swiss investor Partners Group since July 2022, in a deal reported at around €800m. It had more than 3,200 staff by 2023 and opened a Birmingham hub with 500 planned jobs, plus UK acquisitions such as Automation Logic. Much of its UK work is Oracle, Microsoft and AWS managed services for public-sector bodies. Delivery comes from Ireland, the UK, Spain and India.
Services and capabilities: Codurance vs Version 1
| Capability | Codurance | Version 1 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Version 1
| Framework / platform | Codurance | Version 1 |
|---|---|---|
| .NET | ✓ | ✓ |
| Java | ✓ | ✓ |
| Python | N/A | N/A |
| React | N/A | N/A |
| AWS | ✓ | ✓ |
| Azure | ✓ | ✓ |
| Kubernetes | N/A | N/A |
| Embedded | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Codurance vs Version 1
| Criterion | Codurance | Version 1 |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Fixed project, Team extension, Time and materials | Managed service, Fixed project, Time and materials |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Codurance vs Version 1
| Dimension | Codurance | Version 1 |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Financial services, Retail, Media | Public sector, Financial services, Healthcare |
| 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. | A public body needs Oracle E-Business Suite support and migration., A utility wants Azure managed services. |
| Typical project type | Fixed project | Managed service |
Codurance vs Version 1: 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 |
| Version 1 | |
|---|---|
| + | Strong in Oracle and Microsoft environments common in UK public bodies |
| + | Indian and Spanish delivery lower costs on managed services |
| + | Private-equity backing has funded UK expansion |
| - | Majority-owned by Partners Group since 2022, so an eventual sale or exit is likely |
| - | Product-style bespoke development is less central than managed services |
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 Version 1?
A typical fit: a public body needs Oracle E-Business Suite support and migration.
Managed services for Oracle, Microsoft and AWS estates with Indian and Spanish delivery. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Public sector, Financial services, Healthcare, Utilities.
Decision matrix: Codurance vs Version 1
| 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 Version 1 (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Codurance |
| 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 Version 1
| Use case | Codurance fit | Version 1 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 |
| A public body needs Oracle E-Business Suite support and migration. | Limited | Strong | Version 1 |
| A utility wants Azure managed services. | Limited | Strong | Version 1 |
| 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 Version 1
Codurance (4.1/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Software Development Outsourcing projects. Craftsmanship-led delivery that also coaches in-house teams.
Version 1 (3.9/5) is worth a look in a scenario like this: a utility wants Azure managed services. If your situation matches that, Version 1 is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Codurance vs Version 1 FAQ
Is Codurance better than Version 1?
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. Version 1's strongest advantage: strong in Oracle and Microsoft environments common in UK public bodies.
How do Codurance and Version 1 differ in pricing?
Codurance uses time and materials, fixed price pricing. Version 1 uses managed service, 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: Codurance or Version 1?
Codurance 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 Version 1?
Codurance's primary differentiator is: craftsmanship-led delivery that also coaches in-house teams. Version 1's primary differentiator is: managed services for Oracle, Microsoft and AWS estates with Indian and Spanish delivery. They also differ in team size (150–300 vs 3,000+), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Financial services, Retail vs Public sector, Financial services).
Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.