Future Processing vs Made Tech: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Future Processing (4.6/5) edges ahead of Made Tech (4.1/5) overall. Future Processing is the better choice for UK insurers and financial firms, long-term nearshore teams. Made Tech is the stronger option for UK central and local government buyers. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Future Processing vs Made Tech: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Future Processing | Made Tech |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2000 | 2008 |
| HQ | Gliwice, Poland (London office) | London, United Kingdom |
| Team size | 750–1,000 | 400–500 |
| Rating | 4.6 / 5 | 4.1 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Twenty-five years of delivery from Poland with UK-based account leadership in the City | Public-sector-only focus with a growing contracted backlog |
| Pricing model | Time and materials, dedicated team, fixed price | Framework call-offs, time and materials, fixed price |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | .NET, Java, Azure | Ruby, Python, Java |
| Industries served | Financial services, Insurance, Energy, Media, Healthcare | Public sector, Local government, Healthcare |
Future Processing vs Made Tech: overview
Future Processing
Future Processing started in Gliwice, Poland in 2000 and now employs roughly 800 people, with a London office at Gracechurch Street led by a UK managing director. Directory data puts around 45% of its work in financial services, with insurance, energy, media and healthcare making up much of the rest. It sells bespoke development, cloud and data work, and consulting. Delivery happens mainly in Poland, which keeps rates in the Central European band.
Made Tech
Made Tech was founded in London in 2008 and listed on AIM in 2021. FY25 revenue (to May 2025) rose 20% to £46.4m with a contracted backlog of £92.2m, and the company reported around 430 employees after a period of hiring. Almost all of its work is for UK central and local government, health and other regulated bodies. Contractor use rose to 19% of the workforce in FY25, and management has said it plans to bring that back toward 10%.
Services and capabilities: Future Processing vs Made Tech
| Capability | Future Processing | Made Tech |
|---|---|---|
| Custom software development | ✓ | ✓ |
| Mobile app development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Cloud & DevOps | ✓ | ✓ |
| Data & AI | ✓ | ✓ |
| Legacy modernisation | ✓ | ✓ |
| Embedded & IoT | ✗ | ✗ |
| Dedicated team model | ✓ | ✗ |
| Fixed-price projects | ✓ | ✓ |
Tech stack comparison: Future Processing vs Made Tech
| Framework / platform | Future Processing | Made Tech |
|---|---|---|
| .NET | ✓ | N/A |
| Java | ✓ | ✓ |
| Python | ✓ | ✓ |
| React | ✓ | N/A |
| AWS | ✓ | ✓ |
| Azure | ✓ | ✓ |
| Kubernetes | N/A | N/A |
| Embedded | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Future Processing vs Made Tech
| Criterion | Future Processing | Made Tech |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Dedicated team, Fixed project, Time and materials | Fixed project, Time and materials |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Future Processing vs Made Tech
| Dimension | Future Processing | Made Tech |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Mid-market to enterprise | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Financial services, Insurance, Energy | Public sector, Local government, Healthcare |
| Best use cases | An insurer wants a dedicated .NET and Azure team to modernise policy administration systems., A UK fintech needs a nearshore squad to extend an in-house engineering team. | A council wants legacy case-management systems replaced., A government department needs a discovery and alpha phase for a new service. |
| Typical project type | Dedicated team | Fixed project |
Future Processing vs Made Tech: pros and cons
| Future Processing | |
|---|---|
| + | A London office with a UK managing director means escalations land with someone in your time zone |
| + | Heavy financial-services and insurance exposure suggests familiarity with UK regulated-sector procurement |
| + | Around 800 staff is large enough to grow a team quickly without the overhead of a 10,000-person vendor |
| + | Polish delivery is one hour ahead of the UK, so working days overlap almost completely |
| - | No hardware or embedded engineering capability, so connected-device products need a second supplier |
| - | Polish engineering rates have risen steadily and are now closer to Western European levels than they were a decade ago |
| - | Public pricing and minimum project sizes are not published |
| Made Tech | |
|---|---|
| + | Deep familiarity with GDS service standards and government frameworks |
| + | Public reporting makes financial health easy to check |
| + | A growing backlog points to sustained repeat business from government |
| - | Little private-sector experience, so commercial buyers have better options |
| - | No offshore delivery, so rates are UK onshore rates |
| - | Contractor reliance roughly doubled in FY25 |
Who should choose Future Processing?
A typical fit: an insurer wants a dedicated .NET and Azure team to modernise policy administration systems.
Twenty-five years of delivery from Poland with UK-based account leadership in the City. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Financial services, Insurance, Energy, Media, Healthcare.
Who should choose Made Tech?
A typical fit: a council wants legacy case-management systems replaced.
Public-sector-only focus with a growing contracted backlog. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Public sector, Local government, Healthcare.
Decision matrix: Future Processing vs Made Tech
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | Future Processing |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | Future Processing |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Future Processing (Not published) vs Made Tech (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Future Processing |
| 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: Future Processing vs Made Tech
| Use case | Future Processing fit | Made Tech fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| An insurer wants a dedicated .NET and Azure team to modernise policy administration systems. | Strong | Limited | Future Processing |
| A UK fintech needs a nearshore squad to extend an in-house engineering team. | Strong | Limited | Future Processing |
| A council wants legacy case-management systems replaced. | Limited | Strong | Made Tech |
| A government department needs a discovery and alpha phase for a new service. | Limited | Strong | Made Tech |
| 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: Future Processing vs Made Tech
Future Processing (4.6/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Software Development Outsourcing projects. Twenty-five years of delivery from Poland with UK-based account leadership in the City.
Made Tech (4.1/5) is worth a look in a scenario like this: a government department needs a discovery and alpha phase for a new service. If your situation matches that, Made Tech is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Future Processing vs Made Tech FAQ
Is Future Processing better than Made Tech?
Future Processing (4.6/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Future Processing's strongest advantage: a London office with a UK managing director means escalations land with someone in your time zone. Made Tech's strongest advantage: deep familiarity with GDS service standards and government frameworks.
How do Future Processing and Made Tech differ in pricing?
Future Processing uses time and materials, dedicated team, fixed price pricing. Made Tech uses framework call-offs, 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: Future Processing or Made Tech?
Future Processing 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 Future Processing and Made Tech?
Future Processing's primary differentiator is: twenty-five years of delivery from Poland with UK-based account leadership in the City. Made Tech's primary differentiator is: public-sector-only focus with a growing contracted backlog. They also differ in team size (750–1,000 vs 400–500), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Financial services, Insurance vs Public sector, Local government).
Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.