Future Processing vs Endava: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Future Processing (4.6/5) edges ahead of Endava (4.5/5) overall. Future Processing is the better choice for UK insurers and financial firms, long-term nearshore teams. Endava is the stronger option for large UK programmes, payments and banking, nearshore at volume. The right choice depends on your project size, budget, and required tech stack.
Future Processing vs Endava: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Future Processing | Endava |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2000 | 2000 |
| HQ | Gliwice, Poland (London office) | London, United Kingdom |
| Team size | 750–1,000 | 10,000+ |
| Rating | 4.6 / 5 | 4.5 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Twenty-five years of delivery from Poland with UK-based account leadership in the City | UK headquarters and governance with more than 10,000 engineers in lower-cost nearshore locations |
| Pricing model | Time and materials, dedicated team, fixed price | Time and materials, managed service, outcome-based contracts |
| Min. engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Primary tech stack | .NET, Java, Azure | Java, .NET, AWS |
| Industries served | Financial services, Insurance, Energy, Media, Healthcare | Financial services, Payments, Retail, Media and telecoms, Healthcare |
Future Processing vs Endava: 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.
Endava
Endava is the largest UK-headquartered company on this list built around nearshore delivery. It reported 11,479 staff at the end of June 2025, and the UK supplied 33% of revenue in the final quarter of that fiscal year. Delivery centres in Romania, Moldova, North Macedonia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Argentina and elsewhere let it staff large programmes at below-London cost. Headcount fell from 12,085 a year earlier, which reflects softer demand across the IT services market.
Services and capabilities: Future Processing vs Endava
| Capability | Future Processing | Endava |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Endava
| Framework / platform | Future Processing | Endava |
|---|---|---|
| .NET | ✓ | ✓ |
| Java | ✓ | ✓ |
| Python | ✓ | ✓ |
| React | ✓ | N/A |
| AWS | ✓ | ✓ |
| Azure | ✓ | ✓ |
| Kubernetes | N/A | ✓ |
| Embedded | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Future Processing vs Endava
| Criterion | Future Processing | Endava |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not published | Not published |
| Engagement models | Dedicated team, Fixed project, Time and materials | Dedicated team, Managed service, Time and materials |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Future Processing vs Endava
| Dimension | Future Processing | Endava |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Mid-market to enterprise | Enterprise |
| Best industries | Financial services, Insurance, Energy | Financial services, Payments, Retail |
| 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 UK bank needs 50+ engineers for a multi-year core platform programme., A payments company wants a managed service covering development, testing and support. |
| Typical project type | Dedicated team | Dedicated team |
Future Processing vs Endava: 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 |
| Endava | |
|---|---|
| + | Public-company reporting gives buyers audited figures on headcount, revenue and client concentration |
| + | A UK board and London HQ simplify contracting and data-protection discussions for UK buyers |
| + | Delivery from several countries spreads risk if one location is disrupted |
| + | Long payments and banking track record with UK and European institutions |
| - | Headcount dropped about 5% in the year to June 2025 as demand softened |
| - | Smaller projects can get less senior attention than flagship accounts |
| - | Day rates are higher than those of smaller Central European vendors |
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 Endava?
A typical fit: a UK bank needs 50+ engineers for a multi-year core platform programme.
UK headquarters and governance with more than 10,000 engineers in lower-cost nearshore locations. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Financial services, Payments, Retail, Media and telecoms, Healthcare.
Decision matrix: Future Processing vs Endava
| 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 Endava (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 Endava
| Use case | Future Processing fit | Endava 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 UK bank needs 50+ engineers for a multi-year core platform programme. | Limited | Strong | Endava |
| A payments company wants a managed service covering development, testing and support. | Limited | Strong | Endava |
| 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 | Future Processing |
Verdict: Future Processing vs Endava
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.
Endava (4.5/5) is worth a look in a scenario like this: a payments company wants a managed service covering development, testing and support. If your situation matches that, Endava is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Future Processing vs Endava FAQ
Is Future Processing better than Endava?
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. Endava's strongest advantage: public-company reporting gives buyers audited figures on headcount, revenue and client concentration.
How do Future Processing and Endava differ in pricing?
Future Processing uses time and materials, dedicated team, fixed price pricing. Endava uses time and materials, managed service, outcome-based contracts 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 Endava?
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 Endava?
Future Processing's primary differentiator is: twenty-five years of delivery from Poland with UK-based account leadership in the City. Endava's primary differentiator is: UK headquarters and governance with more than 10,000 engineers in lower-cost nearshore locations. They also differ in team size (750–1,000 vs 10,000+), minimum engagement (Not published vs Not published), and primary industries served (Financial services, Insurance vs Financial services, Payments).
Verify all details directly with each company before making a decision.