EPAM Systems vs Version 1: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
EPAM Systems (3.9/5) edges ahead of Version 1 (3.9/5) overall. EPAM Systems is the better choice for FTSE-scale programmes, strict compliance, huge 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.
EPAM Systems vs Version 1: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | EPAM Systems | Version 1 |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1993 | 1996 |
| HQ | Newtown, Pennsylvania, United States (London and Newcastle offices) | Dublin, Ireland (UK offices including Birmingham) |
| Team size | 50,000+ | 3,000+ |
| Rating | 3.9 / 5 | 3.9 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | The largest delivery capacity on this list, with mature compliance and security processes | Managed services for Oracle, Microsoft and AWS estates with Indian and Spanish delivery |
| Pricing model | Time and materials, managed service, fixed price | Managed service, time and materials, fixed price |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | Java, .NET, AWS | Oracle, Microsoft Azure, AWS |
| Industries served | Financial services, Retail, Healthcare, Media, Manufacturing | Public sector, Financial services, Healthcare, Utilities |
EPAM Systems vs Version 1: overview
EPAM Systems
EPAM Systems was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Newtown, Pennsylvania. It reported more than 62,750 employees in Q1 2026. In the UK it has offices in London and Newcastle, but most delivery comes from Central and Eastern Europe, India and Latin America. Its size suits large regulated programmes better than small or mid-sized builds.
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: EPAM Systems vs Version 1
| Capability | EPAM Systems | 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: EPAM Systems vs Version 1
| Framework / platform | EPAM Systems | Version 1 |
|---|---|---|
| .NET | ✓ | ✓ |
| Java | ✓ | ✓ |
| Python | ✓ | N/A |
| React | N/A | N/A |
| AWS | ✓ | ✓ |
| Azure | ✓ | ✓ |
| Kubernetes | ✓ | N/A |
| Embedded | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: EPAM Systems vs Version 1
| Criterion | EPAM Systems | Version 1 |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Dedicated team, Managed service, Fixed project, 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: EPAM Systems vs Version 1
| Dimension | EPAM Systems | Version 1 |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Financial services, Retail, Healthcare | Public sector, Financial services, Healthcare |
| Best use cases | A bank needs a 200-person platform programme., A global retailer wants a managed engineering service. | A public body needs Oracle E-Business Suite support and migration., A utility wants Azure managed services. |
| Typical project type | Dedicated team | Managed service |
EPAM Systems vs Version 1: pros and cons
| EPAM Systems | |
|---|---|
| + | Can staff hundreds of engineers on one programme |
| + | Mature security, audit and compliance processes for regulated buyers |
| + | Public-company reporting |
| - | Little benefit for mid-market buyers, who can get more attention elsewhere |
| - | UK offices are small relative to global delivery |
| - | Account processes are heavy for smaller projects |
| 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 EPAM Systems?
A typical fit: a bank needs a 200-person platform programme.
The largest delivery capacity on this list, with mature compliance and security processes. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Financial services, Retail, Healthcare, Media, Manufacturing.
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: EPAM Systems vs Version 1
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | EPAM Systems |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | EPAM Systems |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: EPAM Systems (Not published) vs Version 1 (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | EPAM Systems |
| 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: EPAM Systems vs Version 1
| Use case | EPAM Systems fit | Version 1 fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| A bank needs a 200-person platform programme. | Strong | Limited | EPAM Systems |
| A global retailer wants a managed engineering service. | Strong | Limited | EPAM Systems |
| 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: EPAM Systems vs Version 1
EPAM Systems (3.9/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Software Development Outsourcing projects. The largest delivery capacity on this list, with mature compliance and security processes.
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
EPAM Systems vs Version 1 FAQ
Is EPAM Systems better than Version 1?
EPAM Systems (3.9/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. EPAM Systems's strongest advantage: can staff hundreds of engineers on one programme. Version 1's strongest advantage: strong in Oracle and Microsoft environments common in UK public bodies.
How do EPAM Systems and Version 1 differ in pricing?
EPAM Systems uses time and materials, managed service, 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: EPAM Systems or Version 1?
EPAM Systems 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 EPAM Systems and Version 1?
EPAM Systems's primary differentiator is: the largest delivery capacity on this list, with mature compliance and security processes. 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 (50,000+ 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.