Andersen vs Endava: full comparison for 2026
Last updated: August 2026
Quick verdict
Andersen (4.2/5) edges ahead of Endava (4.0/5) overall. Andersen is the better choice for european buyers who need a staff-augmentation or dedicated-team contract with data-residency flexibility across multiple EU and European locations.. Endava is the stronger option for uK and European enterprises wanting a vendor that has publicly documented using agentic AI on its own internal delivery methodology.. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Andersen vs Endava: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Andersen | Endava |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2007 | 2000 |
| HQ | Warsaw, Poland | London, UK |
| Team size | 3,700+ | 10,000+ |
| Rating | 4.2 / 5 | 4.0 / 5 |
| Best for | European buyers who need a staff-augmentation or dedicated-team contract with data-residency flexibility across multiple EU and European locations. | UK and European enterprises wanting a vendor that has publicly documented using agentic AI on its own internal delivery methodology. |
| Pricing model | Fixed project, dedicated team, staff augmentation | Dedicated team, retainer, time & materials |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | Python, LangChain, AWS | Python, OpenAI, LangChain |
| Industries served | Financial Services, Healthcare, Retail & E-commerce, Technology & SaaS | Financial Services, Technology & SaaS, Retail & E-commerce, Healthcare |
Andersen vs Endava: overview
Andersen
Andersen is a European IT company founded in 2007 and headquartered in Warsaw, Poland, with more than 3,700 experts across 16+ global locations, the majority of them European — Germany, the UK, Lithuania, Hungary, and Cyprus, alongside Kazakhstan, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and the UAE outside the continent. It embeds AI tooling into the software development lifecycle and builds conversational agents integrated with CRM, helpdesk, and messaging platforms, positioning itself as a broad staff-augmentation and delivery vendor rather than an AI-only boutique.
Endava
Endava was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in London, UK, with over 10,000 employees across 26 locations. It has embedded OpenAI's AI agents directly into its own software delivery workflow, branded as DavaFlow, making it one of the few firms on this list that has publicly documented using agentic AI to redesign its own internal delivery process, not just sell it to clients. As a UK-headquartered, NYSE-listed company, it offers public financial disclosure but sits outside EU jurisdiction post-Brexit for its own corporate entity.
Services and capabilities: Andersen vs Endava
| Capability | Andersen | Endava |
|---|---|---|
| Multi-agent orchestration | ✗ | ✓ |
| RAG / knowledge integration | ✗ | ✗ |
| Workflow & systems integration | ✓ | ✓ |
| Coding agents | ✓ | ✓ |
| Monitoring & anomaly detection | ✗ | ✗ |
| Customer-facing agents | ✓ | ✗ |
Tech stack comparison: Andersen vs Endava
| Framework / platform | Andersen | Endava |
|---|---|---|
| LangChain | ✓ | ✓ |
| LangGraph | N/A | N/A |
| AutoGen | N/A | N/A |
| LlamaIndex | N/A | N/A |
| OpenAI | N/A | ✓ |
| Anthropic Claude | N/A | N/A |
| Pinecone | N/A | N/A |
| AWS | ✓ | ✓ |
| Azure | ✓ | ✓ |
| Kubernetes | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Andersen vs Endava
| Criterion | Andersen | Endava |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Fixed project, Dedicated team, Staff augmentation | Dedicated team, Retainer, Time & materials |
| Rate transparency | Minimum disclosed | Minimum disclosed |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Andersen vs Endava
| Dimension | Andersen | Endava |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Enterprise |
| Best industries | Financial Services, Healthcare, Retail & E-commerce | Financial Services, Technology & SaaS, Retail & E-commerce |
| Best use cases | Staff-augmentation contracts needing flexible EU data-residency options across multiple countries, Customer-facing conversational agent builds integrated with existing CRM/helpdesk tooling | Buyers wanting proof a vendor applies agentic AI to its own delivery process before selling it externally, UK and European enterprises needing large-scale dedicated-team engagements |
| Typical project type | Fixed project | Dedicated team |
Andersen vs Endava: pros and cons
| Andersen | |
|---|---|
| + | 16+ global development centers, predominantly European, give procurement flexibility on data residency |
| + | 3,700+ experts provide substantial bench depth for large or multi-workstream contracts |
| + | Nearly two decades of European IT delivery history since 2007 |
| + | Existing CRM/helpdesk integration experience feeds directly into customer-facing agent work |
| - | Some delivery locations (Kazakhstan, Georgia, Azerbaijan, UAE) sit outside the EU, worth confirming per-project data residency |
| - | AI agent development sits within a broad staff-augmentation and delivery portfolio, not a dedicated specialty |
| - | Minimum engagement figures not published, requiring direct sales engagement for early budgeting |
| Endava | |
|---|---|
| + | Publicly documented use of OpenAI's agentic AI in its own internal delivery methodology (DavaFlow) |
| + | NYSE-listed with public financial disclosure |
| + | 10,000+ employees across 26 locations gives substantial bench depth |
| + | Quarter-century of digital consultancy history since 2000 |
| - | UK-headquartered, so post-Brexit it sits outside EU jurisdiction for its own corporate entity |
| - | Minimum engagement figures are not published, requiring direct sales contact for early budgeting |
| - | 26-location scale can mean less senior-architect access than boutique competitors |
Who should choose Andersen?
Andersen is the right choice for european buyers who need a staff-augmentation or dedicated-team contract with data-residency flexibility across multiple EU and European locations..
A 16+ location delivery footprint, predominantly European, letting procurement pick an EU-based staffing region to match data-residency requirements.. Minimum engagement starts at Not published. Works best with clients in Financial Services, Healthcare, Retail & E-commerce, Technology & SaaS.
Who should choose Endava?
Endava is the right choice for uK and European enterprises wanting a vendor that has publicly documented using agentic AI on its own internal delivery methodology..
A named, OpenAI-powered internal delivery methodology (DavaFlow) — evidence the firm applies agentic AI to its own software delivery, not just client work.. Minimum engagement starts at Not published. Works best with clients in Financial Services, Technology & SaaS, Retail & E-commerce, Healthcare.
Decision matrix: Andersen vs Endava
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You need full-ownership delivery on a defined project scope | Andersen |
| You need a large dedicated team for an ongoing programme | Andersen |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Andersen (Not published) vs Endava (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | Andersen |
| You need staff augmentation or team extension | Neither; consider alternatives that offer staff aug |
| You need consulting before committing to a build | Both may offer discovery engagements |
Use case fit: Andersen vs Endava
| Use case | Andersen fit | Endava fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Staff-augmentation contracts needing flexible EU data-residency options across multiple countries | Strong | Limited | Andersen |
| Customer-facing conversational agent builds integrated with existing CRM/helpdesk tooling | Strong | Limited | Andersen |
| Buyers wanting proof a vendor applies agentic AI to its own delivery process before selling it externally | Strong | Strong | Both equally |
| UK and European enterprises needing large-scale dedicated-team engagements | Limited | Strong | Endava |
| Fixed-price build | Limited | Limited | Both equally |
| Staff augmentation | Strong | Limited | Andersen |
Verdict: Andersen vs Endava
Andersen (4.2/5) is the stronger overall choice for most AI Agent Development projects. A 16+ location delivery footprint, predominantly European, letting procurement pick an EU-based staffing region to match data-residency requirements.. It is best for european buyers who need a staff-augmentation or dedicated-team contract with data-residency flexibility across multiple EU and European locations..
Endava (4.0/5) is the better choice when uK and European enterprises wanting a vendor that has publicly documented using agentic AI on its own internal delivery methodology.. If your situation matches those criteria, Endava is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Andersen vs Endava FAQ
Is Andersen better than Endava?
Andersen (4.2/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Andersen is better for european buyers who need a staff-augmentation or dedicated-team contract with data-residency flexibility across multiple EU and European locations.. Endava is better for uK and European enterprises wanting a vendor that has publicly documented using agentic AI on its own internal delivery methodology..
How do Andersen and Endava differ in pricing?
Andersen uses fixed project, dedicated team, staff augmentation pricing with a minimum engagement of Not published. Endava uses dedicated team, retainer, time & materials pricing with a minimum engagement of Not published. Neither firm publishes a full rate card; a discovery call is required for project-specific quotes.
Which is better for enterprise: Andersen or Endava?
Endava 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 Andersen and Endava?
Andersen's primary differentiator is: a 16+ location delivery footprint, predominantly european, letting procurement pick an eu-based staffing region to match data-residency requirements.. Endava's primary differentiator is: a named, openai-powered internal delivery methodology (davaflow) — evidence the firm applies agentic ai to its own software delivery, not just client work.. They also differ in team size (3,700+ vs 10,000+), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Financial Services, Healthcare vs Financial Services, Technology & SaaS).
Last reviewed: August 2026. Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.