Endava vs BJSS (CGI): full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Endava (4.5/5) edges ahead of BJSS (CGI) (4.0/5) overall. Endava is the better choice for large UK programmes, payments and banking, nearshore at volume. 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.
Endava vs BJSS (CGI): head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Endava | BJSS (CGI) |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2000 | 1993 |
| HQ | London, United Kingdom | Leeds, United Kingdom (owned by CGI) |
| Team size | 10,000+ | 2,000–2,500 |
| Rating | 4.5 / 5 | 4.0 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | UK headquarters and governance with more than 10,000 engineers in lower-cost nearshore locations | Large UK onshore delivery capacity, now backed by CGI's global network |
| Pricing model | Time and materials, managed service, outcome-based contracts | Time and materials, fixed price, managed service |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | Java, .NET, AWS | Java, .NET, AWS |
| Industries served | Financial services, Payments, Retail, Media and telecoms, Healthcare | Public sector, Healthcare, Financial services, Retail, Energy |
Endava vs BJSS (CGI): overview
Endava
Endava is the largest UK-headquartered company on this list built around nearshore delivery. It reported 11,479 staff at the end of June 2025, and the UK supplied 33% of revenue in the final quarter of that fiscal year. Delivery centres in Romania, Moldova, North Macedonia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Argentina and elsewhere let it staff large programmes at below-London cost. Headcount fell from 12,085 a year earlier, which reflects softer demand across the IT services market.
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: Endava vs BJSS (CGI)
| Capability | Endava | 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: Endava vs BJSS (CGI)
| Framework / platform | Endava | BJSS (CGI) |
|---|---|---|
| .NET | ✓ | ✓ |
| Java | ✓ | ✓ |
| Python | ✓ | ✓ |
| React | N/A | N/A |
| AWS | ✓ | ✓ |
| Azure | ✓ | ✓ |
| Kubernetes | ✓ | ✓ |
| Embedded | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Endava vs BJSS (CGI)
| Criterion | Endava | BJSS (CGI) |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Dedicated team, Managed service, 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: Endava vs BJSS (CGI)
| Dimension | Endava | BJSS (CGI) |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Enterprise | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Financial services, Payments, Retail | Public sector, Healthcare, Financial services |
| Best use cases | A UK bank needs 50+ engineers for a multi-year core platform programme., A payments company wants a managed service covering development, testing and support. | An NHS trust needs a national-scale digital service., A bank wants a large onshore team with independent testing. |
| Typical project type | Dedicated team | Fixed project |
Endava vs BJSS (CGI): pros and cons
| Endava | |
|---|---|
| + | Public-company reporting gives buyers audited figures on headcount, revenue and client concentration |
| + | A UK board and London HQ simplify contracting and data-protection discussions for UK buyers |
| + | Delivery from several countries spreads risk if one location is disrupted |
| + | Long payments and banking track record with UK and European institutions |
| - | Headcount dropped about 5% in the year to June 2025 as demand softened |
| - | Smaller projects can get less senior attention than flagship accounts |
| - | Day rates are higher than those of smaller Central European vendors |
| 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 Endava?
A typical fit: a UK bank needs 50+ engineers for a multi-year core platform programme.
UK headquarters and governance with more than 10,000 engineers in lower-cost nearshore locations. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Financial services, Payments, Retail, Media and telecoms, Healthcare.
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: Endava vs BJSS (CGI)
| 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 | Endava |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Endava (Not published) vs BJSS (CGI) (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Endava |
| 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: Endava vs BJSS (CGI)
| Use case | Endava fit | BJSS (CGI) fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| A UK bank needs 50+ engineers for a multi-year core platform programme. | Strong | Limited | Endava |
| A payments company wants a managed service covering development, testing and support. | Strong | Limited | Endava |
| 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 | Limited | Strong | BJSS (CGI) |
Verdict: Endava vs BJSS (CGI)
Endava (4.5/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Software Development Outsourcing projects. UK headquarters and governance with more than 10,000 engineers in lower-cost nearshore locations.
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
Endava vs BJSS (CGI) FAQ
Is Endava better than BJSS (CGI)?
Endava (4.5/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Endava's strongest advantage: public-company reporting gives buyers audited figures on headcount, revenue and client concentration. BJSS (CGI)'s strongest advantage: long record on large NHS and government programmes.
How do Endava and BJSS (CGI) differ in pricing?
Endava uses time and materials, managed service, outcome-based contracts 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: Endava 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 Endava and BJSS (CGI)?
Endava's primary differentiator is: UK headquarters and governance with more than 10,000 engineers in lower-cost nearshore locations. BJSS (CGI)'s primary differentiator is: large UK onshore delivery capacity, now backed by CGI's global network. They also differ in team size (10,000+ vs 2,000–2,500), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Financial services, Payments vs Public sector, Healthcare).
Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.