BJSS (CGI) vs Version 1: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
BJSS (CGI) (4.0/5) edges ahead of Version 1 (3.9/5) overall. BJSS (CGI) is the better choice for NHS and government programmes, large onshore delivery. 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.
BJSS (CGI) vs Version 1: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | BJSS (CGI) | Version 1 |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1993 | 1996 |
| HQ | Leeds, United Kingdom (owned by CGI) | Dublin, Ireland (UK offices including Birmingham) |
| Team size | 2,000–2,500 | 3,000+ |
| Rating | 4.0 / 5 | 3.9 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Large UK onshore delivery capacity, now backed by CGI's global network | Managed services for Oracle, Microsoft and AWS estates with Indian and Spanish delivery |
| Pricing model | Time and materials, fixed price, managed service | 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 | Public sector, Healthcare, Financial services, Retail, Energy | Public sector, Financial services, Healthcare, Utilities |
BJSS (CGI) vs Version 1: 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.
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: BJSS (CGI) vs Version 1
| Capability | BJSS (CGI) | 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: BJSS (CGI) vs Version 1
| Framework / platform | BJSS (CGI) | Version 1 |
|---|---|---|
| .NET | ✓ | ✓ |
| Java | ✓ | ✓ |
| Python | ✓ | N/A |
| React | N/A | N/A |
| AWS | ✓ | ✓ |
| Azure | ✓ | ✓ |
| Kubernetes | ✓ | N/A |
| Embedded | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: BJSS (CGI) vs Version 1
| Criterion | BJSS (CGI) | Version 1 |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Fixed project, Managed service, 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: BJSS (CGI) vs Version 1
| Dimension | BJSS (CGI) | Version 1 |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Public sector, Healthcare, Financial services | Public sector, 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 public body needs Oracle E-Business Suite support and migration., A utility wants Azure managed services. |
| Typical project type | Fixed project | Managed service |
BJSS (CGI) vs Version 1: 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 |
| 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 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 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: BJSS (CGI) vs Version 1
| 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 | Check each company's engagement model |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: BJSS (CGI) (Not published) vs Version 1 (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 Version 1
| Use case | BJSS (CGI) fit | Version 1 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 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: BJSS (CGI) vs Version 1
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.
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
BJSS (CGI) vs Version 1 FAQ
Is BJSS (CGI) better than Version 1?
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. Version 1's strongest advantage: strong in Oracle and Microsoft environments common in UK public bodies.
How do BJSS (CGI) and Version 1 differ in pricing?
BJSS (CGI) uses time and materials, fixed price, managed service 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: BJSS (CGI) or Version 1?
BJSS (CGI) 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 Version 1?
BJSS (CGI)'s primary differentiator is: large UK onshore delivery capacity, now backed by CGI's global network. 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 (2,000–2,500 vs 3,000+), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Public sector, Healthcare vs Public sector, Financial services).
Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.