DataArt vs Version 1: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
DataArt (4.0/5) edges ahead of Version 1 (3.9/5) overall. DataArt is the better choice for travel and finance firms, long-term nearshore teams. 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.
DataArt vs Version 1: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | DataArt | Version 1 |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1997 | 1996 |
| HQ | New York, United States (London office) | Dublin, Ireland (UK offices including Birmingham) |
| Team size | 5,000–6,000 | 3,000+ |
| Rating | 4.0 / 5 | 3.9 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Two decades of London presence and specialist travel-industry engineering | Managed services for Oracle, Microsoft and AWS estates with Indian and Spanish delivery |
| Pricing model | Time and materials, dedicated team | Managed service, time and materials, fixed price |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | Java, .NET, Python | Oracle, Microsoft Azure, AWS |
| Industries served | Travel and hospitality, Financial services, Healthcare, Media, Retail | Public sector, Financial services, Healthcare, Utilities |
DataArt vs Version 1: overview
DataArt
Eugene Goland founded DataArt in New York in 1997, and the company opened in London in 2001. It reports more than 6,000 people as of September 2025, spread across Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America and elsewhere. Travel and hospitality, finance and healthcare are its strongest industries. UK clients get a long-standing London presence with delivery from lower-cost locations.
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: DataArt vs Version 1
| Capability | DataArt | 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: DataArt vs Version 1
| Framework / platform | DataArt | Version 1 |
|---|---|---|
| .NET | ✓ | ✓ |
| Java | ✓ | ✓ |
| Python | ✓ | N/A |
| React | ✓ | N/A |
| AWS | ✓ | ✓ |
| Azure | ✓ | ✓ |
| Kubernetes | N/A | N/A |
| Embedded | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: DataArt vs Version 1
| Criterion | DataArt | Version 1 |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Dedicated team, 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: DataArt vs Version 1
| Dimension | DataArt | Version 1 |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Travel and hospitality, Financial services, Healthcare | Public sector, Financial services, Healthcare |
| Best use cases | A travel company needs booking-engine and distribution work., A financial firm wants legacy trading software modernised. | A public body needs Oracle E-Business Suite support and migration., A utility wants Azure managed services. |
| Typical project type | Dedicated team | Managed service |
DataArt vs Version 1: pros and cons
| DataArt | |
|---|---|
| + | London office has been open since 2001 |
| + | Specialist knowledge of travel booking and distribution systems |
| + | Delivery spread across several regions |
| - | US headquarters means UK contracts may sit with a non-UK parent |
| - | Headcount estimates vary widely between sources |
| 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 DataArt?
A typical fit: a travel company needs booking-engine and distribution work.
Two decades of London presence and specialist travel-industry engineering. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Travel and hospitality, Financial services, Healthcare, Media, Retail.
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: DataArt vs Version 1
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | Version 1 |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | DataArt |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: DataArt (Not published) vs Version 1 (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | DataArt |
| 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: DataArt vs Version 1
| Use case | DataArt fit | Version 1 fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| A travel company needs booking-engine and distribution work. | Strong | Limited | DataArt |
| A financial firm wants legacy trading software modernised. | Strong | Limited | DataArt |
| 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 | Limited | Strong | Version 1 |
Verdict: DataArt vs Version 1
DataArt (4.0/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Software Development Outsourcing projects. Two decades of London presence and specialist travel-industry engineering.
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
DataArt vs Version 1 FAQ
Is DataArt better than Version 1?
DataArt (4.0/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. DataArt's strongest advantage: london office has been open since 2001. Version 1's strongest advantage: strong in Oracle and Microsoft environments common in UK public bodies.
How do DataArt and Version 1 differ in pricing?
DataArt uses time and materials, dedicated team 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: DataArt or Version 1?
DataArt 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 DataArt and Version 1?
DataArt's primary differentiator is: two decades of London presence and specialist travel-industry engineering. 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 (5,000–6,000 vs 3,000+), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Travel and hospitality, Financial services vs Public sector, Financial services).
Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.