Endava vs DataArt: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Endava (4.5/5) edges ahead of DataArt (4.0/5) overall. Endava is the better choice for large UK programmes, payments and banking, nearshore at volume. DataArt is the stronger option for travel and finance firms, long-term nearshore teams. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Endava vs DataArt: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Endava | DataArt |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2000 | 1997 |
| HQ | London, United Kingdom | New York, United States (London office) |
| Team size | 10,000+ | 5,000–6,000 |
| Rating | 4.5 / 5 | 4.0 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | UK headquarters and governance with more than 10,000 engineers in lower-cost nearshore locations | Two decades of London presence and specialist travel-industry engineering |
| Pricing model | Time and materials, managed service, outcome-based contracts | Time and materials, dedicated team |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | Java, .NET, AWS | Java, .NET, Python |
| Industries served | Financial services, Payments, Retail, Media and telecoms, Healthcare | Travel and hospitality, Financial services, Healthcare, Media, Retail |
Endava vs DataArt: 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.
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.
Services and capabilities: Endava vs DataArt
| Capability | Endava | DataArt |
|---|---|---|
| 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 DataArt
| Framework / platform | Endava | DataArt |
|---|---|---|
| .NET | ✓ | ✓ |
| Java | ✓ | ✓ |
| Python | ✓ | ✓ |
| React | N/A | ✓ |
| AWS | ✓ | ✓ |
| Azure | ✓ | ✓ |
| Kubernetes | ✓ | N/A |
| Embedded | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Endava vs DataArt
| Criterion | Endava | DataArt |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Dedicated team, Managed service, Time and materials | Dedicated team, Time and materials |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Endava vs DataArt
| Dimension | Endava | DataArt |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Enterprise | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Financial services, Payments, Retail | Travel and hospitality, Financial services, Healthcare |
| 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. | A travel company needs booking-engine and distribution work., A financial firm wants legacy trading software modernised. |
| Typical project type | Dedicated team | Dedicated team |
Endava vs DataArt: 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 |
| 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 |
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 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.
Decision matrix: Endava vs DataArt
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | Both offer fixed-price models |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | Endava |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Endava (Not published) vs DataArt (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 DataArt
| Use case | Endava fit | DataArt 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 |
| A travel company needs booking-engine and distribution work. | Limited | Strong | DataArt |
| A financial firm wants legacy trading software modernised. | Limited | Strong | DataArt |
| 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 | Limited | Both equally |
Verdict: Endava vs DataArt
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.
DataArt (4.0/5) is worth a look in a scenario like this: a financial firm wants legacy trading software modernised. If your situation matches that, DataArt is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Endava vs DataArt FAQ
Is Endava better than DataArt?
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. DataArt's strongest advantage: london office has been open since 2001.
How do Endava and DataArt differ in pricing?
Endava uses time and materials, managed service, outcome-based contracts pricing. DataArt uses time and materials, dedicated team pricing. Neither firm publishes a full rate card; a discovery call is required for project-specific quotes.
Which is better for enterprise: Endava or DataArt?
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 Endava and DataArt?
Endava's primary differentiator is: UK headquarters and governance with more than 10,000 engineers in lower-cost nearshore locations. DataArt's primary differentiator is: two decades of London presence and specialist travel-industry engineering. They also differ in team size (10,000+ vs 5,000–6,000), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Financial services, Payments vs Travel and hospitality, Financial services).
Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.