BJSS (CGI) vs DataArt: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
BJSS (CGI) (4.0/5) edges ahead of DataArt (4.0/5) overall. BJSS (CGI) is the better choice for NHS and government programmes, large onshore delivery. 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.
BJSS (CGI) vs DataArt: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | BJSS (CGI) | DataArt |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1993 | 1997 |
| HQ | Leeds, United Kingdom (owned by CGI) | New York, United States (London office) |
| Team size | 2,000–2,500 | 5,000–6,000 |
| Rating | 4.0 / 5 | 4.0 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Large UK onshore delivery capacity, now backed by CGI's global network | Two decades of London presence and specialist travel-industry engineering |
| Pricing model | Time and materials, fixed price, managed service | Time and materials, dedicated team |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | Java, .NET, AWS | Java, .NET, Python |
| Industries served | Public sector, Healthcare, Financial services, Retail, Energy | Travel and hospitality, Financial services, Healthcare, Media, Retail |
BJSS (CGI) vs DataArt: overview
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.
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: BJSS (CGI) vs DataArt
| Capability | BJSS (CGI) | DataArt |
|---|---|---|
| Custom software development | ✓ | ✓ |
| Mobile app development | ✗ | ✗ |
| Cloud & DevOps | ✓ | ✓ |
| Data & AI | ✓ | ✓ |
| Legacy modernisation | ✗ | ✓ |
| Embedded & IoT | ✗ | ✗ |
| Dedicated team model | ✗ | ✓ |
| Fixed-price projects | ✓ | ✗ |
Tech stack comparison: BJSS (CGI) vs DataArt
| Framework / platform | BJSS (CGI) | DataArt |
|---|---|---|
| .NET | ✓ | ✓ |
| Java | ✓ | ✓ |
| Python | ✓ | ✓ |
| React | N/A | ✓ |
| AWS | ✓ | ✓ |
| Azure | ✓ | ✓ |
| Kubernetes | ✓ | N/A |
| Embedded | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: BJSS (CGI) vs DataArt
| Criterion | BJSS (CGI) | DataArt |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Fixed project, 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: BJSS (CGI) vs DataArt
| Dimension | BJSS (CGI) | DataArt |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Public sector, Healthcare, Financial services | Travel and hospitality, Financial services, Healthcare |
| Best use cases | An NHS trust needs a national-scale digital service., A bank wants a large onshore team with independent testing. | A travel company needs booking-engine and distribution work., A financial firm wants legacy trading software modernised. |
| Typical project type | Fixed project | Dedicated team |
BJSS (CGI) vs DataArt: pros and cons
| 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 |
| 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 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.
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: BJSS (CGI) vs DataArt
| 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 | DataArt |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: BJSS (CGI) (Not published) vs DataArt (Not published) |
| You need specialist depth in a specific vertical | BJSS (CGI) |
| 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: BJSS (CGI) vs DataArt
| Use case | BJSS (CGI) fit | DataArt fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| An NHS trust needs a national-scale digital service. | Strong | Limited | BJSS (CGI) |
| A bank wants a large onshore team with independent testing. | Strong | Limited | BJSS (CGI) |
| 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 | Strong | Limited | BJSS (CGI) |
Verdict: BJSS (CGI) vs DataArt
BJSS (CGI) (4.0/5) is the stronger overall choice for most Software Development Outsourcing projects. Large UK onshore delivery capacity, now backed by CGI's global network.
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
BJSS (CGI) vs DataArt FAQ
Is BJSS (CGI) better than DataArt?
BJSS (CGI) (4.0/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. BJSS (CGI)'s strongest advantage: long record on large NHS and government programmes. DataArt's strongest advantage: london office has been open since 2001.
How do BJSS (CGI) and DataArt differ in pricing?
BJSS (CGI) uses time and materials, fixed price, managed service 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: BJSS (CGI) 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 BJSS (CGI) and DataArt?
BJSS (CGI)'s primary differentiator is: large UK onshore delivery capacity, now backed by CGI's global network. DataArt's primary differentiator is: two decades of London presence and specialist travel-industry engineering. They also differ in team size (2,000–2,500 vs 5,000–6,000), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Public sector, Healthcare vs Travel and hospitality, Financial services).
Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.